AGS Cert color difference?

[ambrosia30]

Hi Everyone,

I purchased the below stone from USA Certed last week for $9700. Today my bf went to Just Appraisers in NYC to have this stone checked against the AGS Cert. This was not a full appraisel. David Wolfe is really booked up right now so he said that he could do a quick check for us to ensure that we received the correct stone. Everything checked out okay except for the color. David checked the stone 4 times on the colorimiter (probably not the correct spelling). The first 2 times the color came out as H. The 3rd time it came out between G & H. David said that this stone should be considered a soft G more of an H color. Or maybe he explained to my BF that the color was not evenly distributed in the stone?

Should I be concerned about the price that I paid for this stone? Should I take it to a different appraiser to have the color checked again? Would you consider sending the stone back even though everything else checks out? I''m confused. The stone faces up pretty white to me but I do see some color when I look at is upside down. Looking up AGS grading and color this issue seems to come up quite a bit.

AGS
Round Brilliant
H&A
7.32 - 7.36 x 4.50 mm
Weight: 1.45 ct
Depth: 61.4%
Table: 54.3%
Crown: 34.8 degrees
Pavilion: 40.7 degrees
Girdle: Thin
Culet: none
Cut: Ideal
Clarity: VS2
Color: G

 

[Todd Gray]

In my experience, colorimeters are rarely accurate with exception of something like the SAS 2000 by Adamas Gemological Laboratory

We''ve "test driven" a few colorimeters over the years and have kicked them all to the curb, they are easily tricked by fluorescence, fingerprints, dust, etc. which is why I prefer a master set. The AGS Laboratory also uses a master set of diamonds to grade diamonds for color, so does the GIA Laboratory. It might be a clue that the two leading laboratories in the country do not use a colorimeter to grade color, doing so would certainly be faster than comparing the diamonds to the thousands of master stones they have on hand for color grading.

I would schedule time with the gemologist for a full evaluation and not panic just yet.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/9/2009 12:06:43 PM
Author: Todd Gray
In my experience, colorimeters are rarely accurate with exception of something like the SAS 2000 by Adamas Gemological Laboratory

We''ve ''test driven'' a few colorimeters over the years and have kicked them all to the curb, they are easily tricked by fluorescence, fingerprints, dust, etc. which is why I prefer a master set. The AGS Laboratory also uses a master set of diamonds to grade diamonds for color, so does the GIA Laboratory. It might be a clue that the two leading laboratories in the country do not use a colorimeter to grade color, doing so would certainly be faster than comparing the diamonds to the thousands of master stones they have on hand for color grading.

I would schedule time with the gemologist for a full evaluation and not panic just yet.

Ditto Todd,

Looks like a great diamond you picked!

 

[ambrosia30]

Date: 6/9/2009 12:06:43 PM
Author: Todd Gray
In my experience, colorimeters are rarely accurate with exception of something like the SAS 2000 by Adamas Gemological Laboratory

We''ve ''test driven'' a few colorimeters over the years and have kicked them all to the curb, they are easily tricked by fluorescence, fingerprints, dust, etc. which is why I prefer a master set. The AGS Laboratory also uses a master set of diamonds to grade diamonds for color, so does the GIA Laboratory. It might be a clue that the two leading laboratories in the country do not use a colorimeter to grade color, doing so would certainly be faster than comparing the diamonds to the thousands of master stones they have on hand for color grading.

I would schedule time with the gemologist for a full evaluation and not panic just yet.

Hi Todd,

Thanks for your quick reply. I will do as you suggested and go for a full evaluation. I''ll post again afterwards. For now I''m just not going to worry about it. I would feel sad if this stone does come back with a lower color grade though. I really thought that I was getting a great deal.

 

[oldminer]

A G or an H basically appear the same to people wearing the diamond or to friends admiring it. There must, by necessity, be borderline stones as well as mid range stones of every color. Maybe your G is a lower one, but the market does not price high, medium and low in one color. It is a judgment call between a low G and a high H. A colorimeter, even an SAS2000 is not the accepted tool for grading diamond color. As much as we''d love to do it with tools, we currently don''t accept that method. Our eyes do the job as well as the GIA system requires and tools currently in common use don''t do the job better. Even the most high tech tools will have borderline calls and we must accept this reality.

I have owned an SAS2000 and three colorimeters. I have also sold all four of these tools. I speak from direct experience that while they are useful, they are not definitive. I love the idea that you cannot argue with a machine. Using such tools cut many an argument off with a dealer, but color grading is still part art and part science. Maybe in the future, we will have perfected color grading by machine for nearly every diamond. Right now, it is not the way things are.

 

[elle_chris]

David is also my appraiser and he uses the colormeter after making a judgement call on a stone. The last time I was there his opinion and the colormeter were the same. He did though say that if you keep putting the same stone in the machine, it''s going to give you various results. So no, he doesn''t exactly trust it.

I''ve used him quite a few times and have found the same thing with my AGS graded stones. All but one were a grade off.
Diamond grading is subjective, what may be one person''s soft G can be another appraisers middle of the road, typical G.

Based on what you posted, the specs look great and I''m sure it''s a beautiful diamond. Now you just need to decide if you''re comfortable with a "soft" G.

 

[beach]

Even though you might not be able to see the color difference in a setting (which I disagree), you pay for the color and I would not want a borderline color graded stone that I paid a premium for.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I think the price you paid is very good for either a G or an H, so I wouldn''t worry too much. As long as the appriaser could verify that the diamond is indeed the one it is represented to be (by examining the pattern of inclusions perhaps, or an inscribed girdle) then I would be satisfied. AGS graded the diamond a G and that is what matters regarding its set price. After that, it doesn''t matter if someone else disagrees with the grading! AGS wins the argument I would think.

 

[Moh 10]

Someone has to get the borderline stones.
For every person who gets a high G another gets a low G.
Maybe this is not such a scandal since few customers are aware of all this.

Diamonds vary continuously, in color.
Nature does not make them in separate discrete steps.
Humans place them in these categories.

Perhaps they could grade them with a color number, from 1 to 100, and price them accordingly.
That way everyone pays exactly for what they get.
There would be no high and low Gs that sell for the same price.

But that would open a new can of worms.
Using the master set of diamonds now a human must not just place it in G or H but decide how close to the center of the G range a diamond is.

Seems like the ultimate solution is a reliable colorimeter and controlled cleaning processes so results are repeatable.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 6/9/2009 12:34:15 PM
Author: beach
Even though you might not be able to see the color difference in a setting (which I disagree), you pay for the color and I would not want a borderline color graded stone that I paid a premium for.

This is an issue of personal preference, though, and unfortunately I doubt the OP could return her diamond to USA certed because she wasn''t happy with the color that AGS gave it... USA certed doesn''t have the best return policy to my knowledge, and typically only allows returns is the diamond is represented to be something it is not. It was represented to be a G graded AGS diamond, among other things, so as long as the diamond is the one described in the report, then I doubt that there would be any recourse for a refund based on another appraisers opinion of color. I suppose the only recourse would be to have it regraded by AGS and see if it came out differently?

 

[Todd Gray]

The other thing to keep in mind is that each color grade is actually a range of color and thus a "G" can be a "G" which is right in the middle of the spectrum or more towards an "F" or an "H" and when things get to the edge of each color grade things are largely subjective. You might have a "soft G" which is a "G" but more towards an "H".

Interestingly enough, subtle things can affect the perception of color within a diamond and thus affect the grade of the diamond... Most labs grade diamonds in a dark room with just the light from the color grading box, but then I've seen people grade diamonds in a fully lit room apparently oblivious to the fact that the other lights in the room and their "temperature" have an effect upon the perceived color grade of the diamond, as will the color of the walls, the desk, their clothing, etc. under those lighting conditions. Whether the person drank coffee or not prior to grading the diamond will affect their vision. Eye strain due to spending time on the computer, driving to work, not getting enough sleep, etc. will have an effect on the outcome. It's a challenge and it is not unreasonable for one person's "G" to be another person's "H" - which might be why legally the accepted spread is three full color grades, because apparently somebody's "D" could be a "G" - Whoa!

Wait... Isn't that like the difference between the opinion of labs like the GIA / AGS and (some of) "those other guys" (oh, I so didn't say that out loud!)

 

[ambrosia30]

Date: 6/9/2009 12:41:13 PM
Author: Moh 10
Someone has to get the borderline stones.
For every person who gets a high G another gets a low G. - I just wish it wasn't me

Diamonds vary continuously, in color.
Nature does not make them in separate discrete steps.
Humans place them in these categories.

Perhaps they could grade them with a color number, from 1 to 100, and price them accordingly.
That way everyone pays exactly for what they get.
There would be no high and low Gs that sell for the same price.

But that would open a new can of worms.
Using the master set of diamonds now a human must not just place it in G or H but decide how close to the center of the G range a diamond is.

Seems like the ultimate solution is a reliable colorimeter and controlled cleaning processes so results are repeatable.

So for appraisel purposes does it mean that if AGS graded this stone as a G then I would insure this stone with regards to this color and not what the appraiser says? David did say that this was a beautiful stone and everything else checks out with the cert.

 

[Moh 10]

Todd, maybe when we buy a D-graded diamond the buyer should be able to roll dice to select a price that would belong to a D, E, F or G diamond, because that kind of feels like the labs are doing to us.

Clearly that is not going to happen.
The industry is setting fixed prices so it needs to tighten up these loosie-goosie measurements.

We are paying labs for grades that are accurate and dependable.

 

[oldminer]

Even if one replaced the D to L colors with a set of numbers from 0 to 100, someone would get a 2.0 and someone else woiuld get a 2.1 The market could make different prices for each 1/10 of a color increment, but behind the scene there would still be 2.01, 2.02, 2.03.......2.09 color stones which would go for the price of a 2.0 or 2.1 wherever the borderline would cross to the next grade. No matter how fine, there will be borderline calls. Making a finer categorization would not lead us to better color grading with our eyes since our eyes cannot discriminate tighter than the current system in place. More categories would lead to more disputed grades and even a less reliable situation at the current time.

Even when we have "perfect" machines to color grade, there will be borderline calls. No matter how fine you tune each category, there will be a degree of machine error which cannot be prevented. There will also be some small percentage of diamonds which cannot be machine graded due to inclusions, uneven coloration, cloudiness, unusual flourescence, etc.

Giving a diamond graded G back to the seller because someone's opinion is that is is a lowish G, is not an acceptable reason for a return. If the seller has an unconditional return policy, then do as you want, but being upset over getting the correct color is over the top. We do not grade high, medium and low colors for GIA grading because our eyes can't do it with reliability. Machines cannot do it either.

 

[beach]

Date: 6/9/2009 12:42:48 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 6/9/2009 12:34:15 PM
Author: beach
Even though you might not be able to see the color difference in a setting (which I disagree), you pay for the color and I would not want a borderline color graded stone that I paid a premium for.

This is an issue of personal preference, though, and unfortunately I doubt the OP could return her diamond to USA certed because she wasn't happy with the color that AGS gave it... USA certed doesn't have the best return policy to my knowledge, and typically only allows returns is the diamond is represented to be something it is not. It was represented to be a G graded AGS diamond, among other things, so as long as the diamond is the one described in the report, then I doubt that there would be any recourse for a refund based on another appraisers opinion of color. I suppose the only recourse would be to have it regraded by AGS and see if it came out differently?

People return stones all the time when an independent appraiser has a different opinion on color, cut, etc... These things can be important if you ever go to sell. People will want an appraisal to verify the stone and to make sure no damage has occured over the years. I just believe that it is good practice to always get these things checked out regardless of if the stone came from GIA, AGS, GOG, WF, Blue Nile, High Performance Diamonds etc... In todays system, color determines alot of the price of the diamond. Personally, I would avoid borderline calls if possible. You might disagree with me, but in the end my husband and I have saved thousands by getting these things check out by Richard Sherwood at Sarasota Gemological Lab! The PS vendor did honor his opnion. Diamonds may be subjective, but the money in your bank account is not

 

[ambrosia30]

Date: 6/9/2009 12:47:11 PM
Author: Todd Gray
The other thing to keep in mind is that each color grade is actually a range of color and thus a ''G'' can be a ''G'' which is right in the middle of the spectrum or more towards an ''F'' or an ''H'' and when things get to the edge of each color grade things are largely subjective. You might have a ''soft G'' which is a ''G'' but more towards an ''H''.

Interestingly enough, subtle things can affect the perception of color within a diamond and thus affect the grade of the diamond... Most labs grade diamonds in a dark room with just the light from the color grading box, but then I''ve seen people grade diamonds in a fully lit room apparently oblivious to the fact that the other lights in the room and their ''temperature'' have an effect upon the perceived color grade of the diamond, as will the color of the walls, the desk, their clothing, etc. under those lighting conditions. Whether the person drank coffee or not prior to grading the diamond will affect their vision. Eye strain due to spending time on the computer, driving to work, not getting enough sleep, etc. will have an effect on the outcome. It''s a challenge and it is not unreasonable for one person''s ''G'' to be another person''s ''H'' - which might be why legally the accepted spread is three full color grades, because apparently somebody''s ''D'' could be a ''G'' - Whoa!

Wait... Isn''t that like the difference between the opinion of labs like the GIA / AGS and (some of) ''those other guys'' (oh, I so didn''t say that out loud!) - That really sucks!! It''s sad that consumers may not be getting what they thought they were paying for.

 

[Todd Gray]

Date: 6/9/2009 12:41:13 PM
Author: Moh 10
Someone has to get the borderline stones.

For every person who gets a high G another gets a low G.

Maybe this is not such a scandal since few customers are aware of all this.

Diamonds vary continuously, in color.

Nature does not make them in separate discrete steps.

Humans place them in these categories.

Perhaps they could grade them with a color number, from 1 to 100, and price them accordingly.

That way everyone pays exactly for what they get.

There would be no high and low Gs that sell for the same price.

But that would open a new can of worms.

Using the master set of diamonds now a human must not just place it in G or H but decide how close to the center of the G range a diamond is.

Seems like the ultimate solution is a reliable colorimeter and controlled cleaning processes so results are repeatable.

Moh brings up some excellent points and perhaps someday the industry will resort to a broader system of reference for the various color grades that exist within each range of color. The system used currently was developed in the 1950's by Robert Shipley who started the GIA Laboratory (1954 as I recall) and there have been many technological advancements since then that might find their way to the diamond industry with the proper funding and interest.

I do want to provide additional insight into the premise of the comment "There would be no high and low Gs that sell for the same price." The reality is that there is not "one price" for all "G" (or any other color) diamonds of a specific carat weight, clarity, etc. each diamond is priced upon the characteristics of that specific diamond and this is something that I don't think the public is aware of. Sorry to hijack your thread Ambrosia, but this might actually make you feel better (or worse) but it is applicable...

Let's say that I'm perusing the offerings / inventory of "Cutter X" and he has (3) round brilliant ideal cut diamonds weighing 1.013 / 1.015 / 1.018 carats - so they are all basically a 1.01 carat and they are all VS-2 in clarity and G in color with negligible fluorescence, all graded by the AGS Laboratory with an overall cut rating of AGS Ideal 0 (ideal polish, symmetry, proportions, light performance). Most people would assume that the cutter would price all of them for, uh, pick a number, like $8,000.00 per carat (carat weight x price per carat or PPC) so they should all cost me $8,080.00

The 1.013 carat has a total depth of 62.1% and a table diameter of 57.4% with a crown angle of 35.1 degrees and a pavilion angle of 41.2 degrees with a medium to slightly thick, bruted girdle (unpolished, not faceted) with a very small culet and the primary inclusion is a couple of feathers. The cutter mistakenly referred to this diamond as "Hearts & Arrows" but the combination of a 35.1 degree crown angle offset by a 41.2 degree pavilion angle made me laugh and then I sent the cutter another set of 3D glasses because the set he stole from his kid are obviously not working...

The 1.015 carat has a total depth of 60.8% and a table diameter of 56% with a crown angle of 34.5 degrees and a pavilion angle of 40.8 degrees with a medium, faceted girdle and a pointed culet and the primary inclusion is a couple of tiny translucent diamond crystals located off to the edge of the table facet and a small cloud of pinpoint size diamond crystals located within one of the kite shape bezel facets. This diamond was cut to the center spectrum of the range defined for the AGS zero ideal cut proportions rating, exhibits a crisp and complete pattern of Hearts & Arrows and screams I'm perfect when viewed through an ASET and Ideal Scope.

The 1.018 carat has a total depth of 61.5% and a table diameter of 54% with a crown angle of 34.0 degrees and a pavilion angle of 40.8 degrees with a thin to medium, polished girdle and a pointed culet and the primary inclusion is a medium size diamond crystal off to the edge of the table facet, but the diamond crystal is more dark than translucent and there is a feather located off to the edge of the stone extends from the top to the bottom (so plotted on both the crown and pavilion view of the plotting diagram in alignment with each other if the two sides were folded one beneath the other top to bottom) and there is a natural and indented natural located along the lower girdle edge of the diamond. This diamond exhibits a pattern of hearts and arrows, but they're really not "Hearts & Arrows" in accordance with Zenhokyo Gem Lab (Japan) standards, but it's a kicking vibrant diamond that loves to play with the light.

Given this information, the cutter is going to price the diamonds (again, just picking a number out of my head) like this:

1.013 carat, G, VS-2 @ -5% = 7600 PC (Per Carat) = $7,698.80
1.015 carat, G, VS-2 @ +5 = 8400 PC = $8,526.00
1.018 carat, G, VS-2 @ -2% = 7840 PC = $7,981.12

So an AGS graded, 1.01 carat, VS-2 clarity, G color / negligible, AGS Ideal 0, is NOT necessarily a 1.01, G, VS-2, AGS Ideal 0 / negligible (how we phrase it) and price varies accordingly. And the differences in price dictated by the (detailed) characteristics of each diamond are passed on to the consumer directly in the form of discounts off of, or premiums on top of, the relative price per carat used as a basis for price by the trade in that most dealers mark-up their merchandise either by a set margin of profit (i.e. 5 / 6 / 10 / 100%) or a flat dollar amount per range of carat weight.

And the same premise holds true for range of clarity (VS-2, high VS-2 almost VS-1, low VS-2 it could have been an SI-1, etc.) as it does for color.

And obviously the same premise holds true for HOW precise the cut quality of the diamond is... the combination of measurements, how tight the range between the high and low measurements that make up the average crown / pavilion angle measurements stated on the lab report are; the optical symmetry of the diamond (H&A, ASET, Ideal Scope); the visual performance of the diamond, etc.

And all of these factors are taken into consideration when the cutter sets the selling price of each diamond in his inventory and believe me, this is not something that the cutters do lightly.

The trick to all of this is to work with a vendor who takes a personal interest in each diamond they sell and each customer they work with and to ask questions... Like "I see two 1.01 carat, G, VS-2, diamonds in your inventory... why is the 1.015 carat so much more expensive than the 1.013 carat?" and then you can make an informed decision based on the response:

Well the 1.015 carat is what we consider to be a "super ideal" cut diamond, it is cut to the center spectrum of the range of measurements established by the AGS Laboratory for the AGS Ideal 0 cut rating. The 1.013 carat is an ideal cut diamond, but it is cut to a slightly broader range and the fact is that while it is a beautiful diamond, it isn't quite as vibrant as the 1.015 carat is. And the 1.013 carat is a little more of a "G" color towards the "H" side of the spectrum... Which is fine, it's still a "G" but if you're really color sensitive you might prefer the slightly cooler 1.015 carat - which also happens to exhibit a crisp pattern of Hearts & Arrows - have you ever seen a pattern of Hearts & Arrows within a diamond? Did you take a look at the pictures of the diamond as seen through a Gems Fantasy Scope on the diamond details page? Blah, blah, blah, you get the point.

And then the customer can decide which diamond to purchase with the understanding that not all diamonds are created equal, regardless of the general grades assigned to their characteristics. Each diamond must be considered on it's own merits and is certainly priced accordingly...

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 6/9/2009 1:04:03 PM
Author: beach

Date: 6/9/2009 12:42:48 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 6/9/2009 12:34:15 PM
Author: beach
Even though you might not be able to see the color difference in a setting (which I disagree), you pay for the color and I would not want a borderline color graded stone that I paid a premium for.

This is an issue of personal preference, though, and unfortunately I doubt the OP could return her diamond to USA certed because she wasn''t happy with the color that AGS gave it... USA certed doesn''t have the best return policy to my knowledge, and typically only allows returns is the diamond is represented to be something it is not. It was represented to be a G graded AGS diamond, among other things, so as long as the diamond is the one described in the report, then I doubt that there would be any recourse for a refund based on another appraisers opinion of color. I suppose the only recourse would be to have it regraded by AGS and see if it came out differently?

People return stones all the time when an independent appraiser has a different opinion on color, cut, etc... These things can be important if you ever go to sell. People will want an appraisal to verify the stone and to make sure no damage has occured over the years. I just believe that it is good practice to always get these things checked out regardless of if the stone came from GIA, AGS, GOG, WF, Blue Nile, High Performance Diamonds etc... In todays system, color determines alot of the price of the diamond. Personally, I would avoid borderline calls if possible. You might disagree with me, but in the end my husband and I have saved thousands by getting these things check out by Richard Sherwood at Sarasota Gemological Lab! The PS vendor did honor his opnion. Diamonds may be subjective, but the money in your bank account is not

And I guess this is the key. I have just read some things about USAcerted''s return policy that implied to me it wasn''t totally flexible like many others. And I guess it also is really important to go see a reputable appraiser so that their opinion carries some weight!

 

[beach]

Date: 6/9/2009 6:14:03 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 6/9/2009 1:04:03 PM
Author: beach

Date: 6/9/2009 12:42:48 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 6/9/2009 12:34:15 PM
Author: beach
Even though you might not be able to see the color difference in a setting (which I disagree), you pay for the color and I would not want a borderline color graded stone that I paid a premium for.

This is an issue of personal preference, though, and unfortunately I doubt the OP could return her diamond to USA certed because she wasn''t happy with the color that AGS gave it... USA certed doesn''t have the best return policy to my knowledge, and typically only allows returns is the diamond is represented to be something it is not. It was represented to be a G graded AGS diamond, among other things, so as long as the diamond is the one described in the report, then I doubt that there would be any recourse for a refund based on another appraisers opinion of color. I suppose the only recourse would be to have it regraded by AGS and see if it came out differently?

People return stones all the time when an independent appraiser has a different opinion on color, cut, etc... These things can be important if you ever go to sell. People will want an appraisal to verify the stone and to make sure no damage has occured over the years. I just believe that it is good practice to always get these things checked out regardless of if the stone came from GIA, AGS, GOG, WF, Blue Nile, High Performance Diamonds etc... In todays system, color determines alot of the price of the diamond. Personally, I would avoid borderline calls if possible. You might disagree with me, but in the end my husband and I have saved thousands by getting these things check out by Richard Sherwood at Sarasota Gemological Lab! The PS vendor did honor his opnion. Diamonds may be subjective, but the money in your bank account is not

And I guess this is the key. I have just read some things about USAcerted''s return policy that implied to me it wasn''t totally flexible like many others. And I guess it also is really important to go see a reputable appraiser so that their opinion carries some weight!

You are probably right

 

[Richard Sherwood]

And just to mention all variables, the AGS Laboratory does own an SAS2000, and their personnel has been thoroughly trained by Marty Haske in the use of it.

Additionally, as Todd mentions, experienced diamond dealers usually take all factors into account when pricing a diamond. If the diamond is a "soft" G, they usually price it accordingly.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/9/2009 1:01:21 PM
Author: oldminer
Even if one replaced the D to L colors with a set of numbers from 0 to 100, someone would get a 2.0 and someone else woiuld get a 2.1 The market could make different prices for each 1/10 of a color increment, but behind the scene there would still be 2.01, 2.02, 2.03.......2.09 color stones which would go for the price of a 2.0 or 2.1 wherever the borderline would cross to the next grade. No matter how fine, there will be borderline calls. Making a finer categorization would not lead us to better color grading with our eyes since our eyes cannot discriminate tighter than the current system in place. More categories would lead to more disputed grades and even a less reliable situation at the current time.

Even when we have ''perfect'' machines to color grade, there will be borderline calls. No matter how fine you tune each category, there will be a degree of machine error which cannot be prevented. There will also be some small percentage of diamonds which cannot be machine graded due to inclusions, uneven coloration, cloudiness, unusual flourescence, etc.

Giving a diamond graded G back to the seller because someone''s opinion is that is is a lowish G, is not an acceptable reason for a return. If the seller has an unconditional return policy, then do as you want, but being upset over getting the correct color is over the top. We do not grade high, medium and low colors for GIA grading because our eyes can''t do it with reliability. Machines cannot do it either.

Dave, with all due respect, the one sigma standard deviation on 17 GIA graded masters , with best estimate GIA colorimetery that GIA used to do for AGS, was 16% or more of a color grade range (data from Gia quantized to 10% of a color grade range by GIA, the "Best" they can do supposedly). My GIA blessed "H" master was a 2.15 NOT a 2.00. All Lazare Kaplan stones. SAS2000 calibration uses the "best" estimates from GIA and will statistically in the future, use AGS visual masterstone estimates done by two AGS graders in addition to the GIA estimates.

The statistics say, for anyone familiar with one sigma concept, that when comparing any two master stones, from two different sets, having the same nominal grade like "H", there is about a 37% probability that those two master stones "blessed" by GIA, with be a third of a color grade apart or worse. That is what the data tells me, and I''ll defend it in ANY court of law. GIA kept records of their best estimated AGS colorimetry for years, and used to even say "CM (colorimeter) Reading", when they never had an operating Shipley colorimeter. A blatent FRAUD!! And last they sayo they said "est. CM reading" after I got on their ass in the late 90''s.

By they way, as I understand it, supposedly admitted to the DDC by Moses, that GIA in the past few years, uses their own brand of colorimeter on larger stones, which rotates the stones usung refelctance colorimetery to try to mimic human color gradiing, as an arbitor, in the least. There is a reference to their patent on my web site ( http://www.adamasgem.org ) where they INTENTIONALLY misdescribe what I do ( after having shown them, at least 5 PhD''s, in the late 90''s ), and I even had a handshake agreement they were going to repackage my original machine, and I would do the software, but that POS Boyajian , along with Harry Stubbard,, nixed the deal, because it would have interfered with their then contract with Gran (now Sarin).

When your supposedly "GIA blessed" 36" yardsticks could be 32" or 40" long, AND THEY DON''T tell you, that is a FRAUD on the buyer of the masters and the consuming public. I''d love to subpeona the records they have, or maybe they have been shredded by now, knowing how lawyers, now in charge of GIA, work.

Colorimeters have to be used in conjuction with the human''s visial interpretation of the machines output, in my case the spectrophotometry, and the blind colorimters (give me a $$ number pleas, I don''t care about the actual grade is the jewelers wish).

Add to that, the FACT, untill I started bitching, they used to allow bruted girdles on masters (they now don''t) and the tweezer marks could shift the visual color (draw the color) two to three grades, and litterally next to no one, would boild their stones in acid around 2000, with the exception of the Jewellry Council of South Africa, which did it every night, or at least once a week. I saw master stones in the 90''s, where the body color of an H would appear to be that of a J, just because of the crude accumulated on the girdle. So people graded J''s as H''s because they matched their dirty H master. NOW, the labs who grade masters, REQUIRE faceted girdles, but they still don''t check whether or not the stones are IIa''s, or suffer from natural irradiation damage, which browns out the stone. I''ve rejected masters because of it.

GIA didn''t allow two stones in the same set to have a half grade spacing, so in the 90''s I had two sets, a split and whole grade set, because one of my stones an H and an H/I were two close together. I solved that problem. Wonder of wonders, the coverups in this industry. Not to mention the lab to lab grading variances.

I always give confidence bounds as to my knowledge of the "truth", based on all available statistics, when I calibrate an SAS2000, and since GIA doesn''t issue master reports on IIa''s, nor do they identify a IIa/Ib on their reports. I have tried to do the best scientific interpolation possible.

In the poorer grades , I have seen one lasergrade inscription crossed out , and another replaced. They (GIA) have NO idea above K-L where the stone lies, and now give a two grade range, even on masters.

Lies continue to prevail, and science can prove the lies.

And now, how do you tell whether the GIA stone has been graded in NYC, Carlsbad, Mubai, Bancock, etc... all most probably having different "standards", whatever they turn out to be, with their new stand on fluorescence, which is minimal in indoor environment, except in their "new" grading environment, a document "standard/attitude" that seems to have changed when DeBeers went private. (I wonder who got what for that deal, certainly not the old stockholders of DeBeers, but most probably the higher ups at GIA, when the value of their stockpile went up, by GIA fiat!)

I''m in the process of moving to Louisville, so I''ll pop on occasionally, and tell it like it is.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

As you've probably noticed, mention GIA around Marty and he starts to froth at the mouth.

With good reason of course. His facts are all correct, it's just that he has no patience for politics, diplomacy, or changing the world a step at a time.

Frankly, I'm surprised the GIA hasn't had him assassinated.

For that matter, I'm surprised he hasn't gone postal on the GIA.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/9/2009 11:27:09 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
As you've probably noticed, mention GIA around Marty and he starts to froth at the mouth.

With good reason of course. His facts are all correct, it's just that he has no patience for politics, diplomacy, or changing the world a step at a time.

Frankly, I'm surprised the GIA hasn't had him assassinated.

For that matter, I'm surprised he hasn't gone postal on the GIA.

Let them try

, I used to shoot competatively at MIT, and I still can..
Their modus of operation is to ignore and try to cover-up and marginalise the truth, changing it at their whim.
They even shut down the IDEX discussion board, as they didn't like the truth in their face.
Their scumball ex-president declared me person-non-grata at GIA, although I still have friends there and get inside info.

He personally disinvited me to my client from South Africa prior meeting on the kimberly process, that I helped set up. I've been interviewed by the "State" department, and in the past have more credibility within DOD than they would ever have. Everything I say would prove the truth if they fluttered me... Bring them on.

Big surprises, and more to come, as some past and present GIA big wigs shoud be in club Fed, if the Manhatten Fed DA's office and GIA's lawyers hadn't covered up Certifigate and stonewalled certain journlists.

Refusing to honor a deposition as to their relationship between a purported Certifigate dealer is the tip of the ice-berg, claiming priviledged business information. Yah, their deals with crooks!!!!!...Lawyers didn't want to let "the cat out of the bag" when it came to that, according to public filings in the Stafford case.

Just like they didn't inform the trade press (until I did) about a potentially dangerous Government recall of their Polariscopes due to shock hazard. Hell if someone in management blew a sweet smelling one, they issue a press release to the trade.

Stay tuned.... The ba**ards should loose their tax exempt 501c3 advantage for the lab, and the consistently screwed up Gem Instruments, supposedly engineered by their new President, guess what, a lawyer... And I know of at least one book being written about all that mess, with a lot of GIA employees probably willing to talk when their choice is a Federal vacation or a walk.

I feel sorry for the GOOD people, hard workers, there at GIA, but there are a lot of overpaid bigwig idiots who couldn't get a job anywhere else, but they get their golden parachuttes, e.g. payoff money for keeping quiet. The last public filing of their tax return showed Billy Boy got over $500,000 for not being there as president. Money talks...

Their stanglehold on the industry is about to end.

Boy, do I know the questions to publically ask, starting with, what dealers were involved in the bribery of Certifigate.

The state and Federal laws that were broken are amazing. RICO is probably also easy to show. Every settlement they make, like Pincione, is covered by non disclosure argreements...Cover-up after cover-up

Their 2006 tax return was interesting enough, 2007 should be more interesting for a 100 milllion dollar self perpetuating tax exempt oligarchy.