Assessing Cut for the Online Diamond Purchase

[Rockdiamond]

A great point Judah- and I know that you guys are among the best at using these tools.
Also nice to know you agree there''s no substitute for physically inspecting the diamond.


DF, you''re 100% correct.
I would have to assume that a large percentage of the folks that buy from us check us out and decide they agree with my assessment of what constitutes beauty in a diamond.


This is no different from people who decide to take the advice of Judah, Jon, Paul, or Ellen or Storm. People can make up their own minds, thank goodness

 

[strmrdr]

David you still haven''t shown me one of these high end 60/60s you keep on going on and on about.
You have had months to come up with one.

To keep having a fit when someone points out that different proportion sets have a different performance and appearance curve shows a very strong lack of understanding of diamond design and performance.
It is not surprising because it is very common in the industry and one of the reasons so much of the industry is in the dark ages.

 

[oldminer]

I know you are not addressing this "Dave", but the 60/60 issue is not a great example for "performance". 60/60 is a proportion set which can offer a very attractive diamond with a somewhat larger visual appearance and very good light performance. It is a very good compromise configuration which diamond dealers promoted as something to consider purchasing for many years before the resurrection of the Tolkowsky model a few years ago. For decades 60/60 was the king of cuts, especially in the mid to late 1900''s.

My wife''s big diamond is a 60/60 and we both like it a lot. I think one can make an informed decision to opt for this configuration, but those who want optimum performance might choose a different table/depth configuration.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl- I actually took some time a few months ago ( when the conversation was fresh) and found a few 60/60''s.
BUT I did not really love either of the two stones I found. They were, quite honestly, nowhere near others I''ve seen.

In the actual diamond market- as opposed to shopping online- it''s difficult to buy a stone based only on proportions.
The cutters want to know what color and clarity I need.
If I''m looking for an EX cut grade, they''ll ask that.
But trying to shop for a 60/60 ( as the main parameter) is not all that easy.
Remember, I''m not actually wanting to buy it, rather borrow one to take photos- in respect to our cutters, I don''t want to put on a "full court press" to find a stone I know we won''t be buying.
The current cutting trend is heavily biased towards the "Near Tolk" type of diamond, so it''s very hard to find 60/60''s nowadays. But if anyone can find a stone on any of the virtual databases that is 60/60 and wants us to photograph it to further this discussion, we''ll be happy to get the stone and photograph it.



Many here on PS might say that the reason it''s harder to find a 60/60 today is because near tolks perform better.
But in fact, I don''t believe that what is being called "performance" will sway as many buyers as it might seem- especially if we use PS as a "representative section" of the people in the market for a diamond today.
The greater brilliance and perceived size of a well cut 60/60 will appeal to many buyers.


Karl, I am sorry if you felt a discussion somehow equated to having a fit- my intention only to have an informative discussion.

I know that as an industry professional, I need to be careful to never insult a consumer.
I suppose the converse is that any professional here is fair game to any categorization someone wants to throw at them.
There is no question that there are less than informed people working in the diamond business- as can be said of ANY business.
But I do feel it''s unfair and incorrect to say someone is in the "dark ages" if they feel differently about the way a diamond looks.


AS Dave pointed out, he has a 60/60 - and he and his wife love it.
He also points out that a person who wants "optimum performance" might choose something else.
My contention is that what is being called performance is not a concrete aspect to a diamond to all observers.
It''s true that some people do see a diamond in that manner, but by no means all informed observers.
My contention is that a judging diamond''s appearance is as subjective as judging a Brahms Sonata, or a Beatles Rock and Roll song.
It''s in the eyes of the beholder.

It does not stand to follow that all- or even most- interested buyers will choose a "near tolk" over a well cut 60/60
We can look at how many fancy shapes, and fancy colors are sold every day.
If we''re using the same "performance" gauge to measure the diamonds, every other shape is "not as good" as a round diamond.

I balance this with the fact that many people come here asking for opinions, and are extremely happy with the advice given. It really seems to me that at least hearing another side of this enriches the conversation for all.

 

[Gypsy]

Date: 5/7/2009 4:13:54 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/7/2009 3:56:18 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 5/7/2009 3:42:37 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/7/2009 3:21:25 PM
Author: Ellen

Can you give me a for instance?


Now, one thing I did think of. If you are referring to the fact that we pick stones that are well balanced, and not 60/60 like you prefer, I get it. But as others have said, and even some 60/60 owners, those stones fall in the 'definite personal preference' range. They do need to be seen, as the majority would most likely not pick them as opposed to a near Tolk. That's why we don't recommend them. (I'm not saying they can't be nice though!)

HI Ellen,
There's your examle.
You are stating , as a 'fact' that stones of 60 depth/60 table are not well balanced. That is by no means a fact. Many of the finest diamond cutters in the world prefer 60/60 over a smaller tabled 'Near tolk'- THAT is a fact

You are talking about 'preference' in this statement. It may be a fact that some cutters prefer this type of stone, but it doesn't make it a fact that they are as well balanced in fire and brilliance as a near Tolk.

What is a fact, is that 60/60's are cut towards brilliance. They do not display a more equal amount of brilliance and fire. You absolutely agreed with me on this very point not too long ago. If you'd like me to pull it up, I'll be glad to.

Ellen-isn't this all about preference?
When you label a 60/60 as 'not well balanced' it really sounds like you are stating as a 'fact' that a near tolk is 'better'.
The difference is personal preference.

*Checks Calendar*

Yup, we are on schedule for our quarterly 'disagreements' about personal preference, 'unlovable' orphan stones, online buying peculiarities and David thinking he's taking on Goliath.

*grabs popcorn to watch the fireworks*

And away we go...

For the record, as a consumer and a member of PS, I believe the widest breadth of knowledge possible when making a purchase. That includes a trusted vendor's personal observations of the diamond in hand as well as pictures, reflector images, Sarin reports and lab reports. But many of the people who visit here to make a single purchase do not want to spend the time assimilating a lot of information about several different diamonds, then making a decision over a reasonable period of time. So when you see repeated requests for images and so forth, it's the members here trying to use their experience to assimilate that knowledge for a visitor, as quickly as possible. Storm can't get on the phone with Jonathan for every GOG EC under consideration and ask Jonathan what he thinks. And if often the visiting purchasers don't know the questions to ask, or have the trust in the vendors built up over time to take their input and factor it into the overall knowledge about the stone in question. I don't think any single piece of information, with online buying, is by itself a 'free pass' to purchase, but the different pieces all put together form a pattern that the advisors on here can recognize and give an opinion on. Of course, no one gets it right 100% because beauty is subjective. And even when the purchasor is pleased with the product resulting from the advice on here... sometimes the receipient isn't.

 

[strmrdr]

lol Gypsy how true.
I have been tempted just to copy and paste my replies from the last conversation on this.

 

[Rhino]

Interesting thread. Lots of great input.

I''ll buy you a diamond ring my friend, if it makes you feel alright ... I''ll get you anything my friend if it makes you feel alright ... I don''t care too much for money for money can''t buy me love. YEEEEOOWWWW

hehe... I just had to get that out.

Being somewhat of a geek and a vendor at the same time, David you''ve got to understand the perspective of the consumers who are purchasing online. There are scientific technologies that have been tested and found worthy of assimilating cut that consumers come on hear and learn about. While folks may agree or disagree with a particular vendor''s opinion about what is or isn''t beautiful most consumers who are purchasing online can''t afford the time to learn your personal opinion particularly if it disagrees with confirmed technologies that demonstrate optical properties that translate into beauty. That is unless you have an effective means of communicating *why* you have formed such an opinion and can demosntrate why you think its as superior as those confirmed by technologies such as reflectors.

I hear what you are saying in the sense that certain technologies are not end-all be-all solutions because it is impossible to judge the beauty of certain fancies by technologies alone but what the consumer is looking for is ... show me why. You can''t blame their skepticism. I''d be asking the same questions before I spent my hard earned $$$. In a world of huksters and 2nd hand car dealers saying TRUST ME ... logical thinking people want good reason why. Hard data takes subjective personal opinion out of the equation. I''ll never forget the diamond manufacturer who came to my store all the way from South Africa who claimed his product was "0" tolerance. When I asked what he meant by "0" tolerance they stated that if one crown angle was 34.5 degrees ... all 8 crown mains were 34.5 degrees. Now, I have never seen that in my lifetime but I most certainly have the tools to test such a claim. When they came to my lab and we ran their diamonds their variances were all over the place. After showing them the hard data of their diamonds via a Helium scan I asked where are the diamonds with "0" tolerance?

Here was their answer .... __________________________

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Jon

Absolutely- it''s very important to remember the thought processes buyers go through- and yes, the Internet has attracted, and created, many "geeks".
It makes perfect sense to some people to assess the quality of the cut of a diamond in a manner that utilizes reflector technology.

But it''s also important to remember that there''s many people who judge the beauty in a diamond from a more artistic standpoint. While it''s clear some buyers don''t have the time to research vendors, it''s also true that many buyers are remarkably thorough, and have no problem whatsoever taking all the time they need to research vendors, websites and diamonds.

I believe that a large percentage of folks that visit either of our sites and purchase take as much time as they need to find out how each of us looks at things.

From the Beatles, to Aretha Franklin
R-E-S-P-E-C-T ( for different viewpoints)
Sock it to me!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/8/2009 6:23:05 PM
Author: Gypsy

*Checks Calendar*

Yup, we are on schedule for our quarterly ''disagreements'' about personal preference, ''unlovable'' orphan stones, online buying peculiarities and David thinking he''s taking on Goliath.

*grabs popcorn to watch the fireworks*

got me some popcorns

now i wanna see the fireworks !!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi everyone!
I don't believe there's reason for any fireworks.
Lest anyone infer anything different from my post, let me say I tremendous respect for Jonathan. The GOG site is one of the best on the web

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/10/2009 6:18:00 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hi everyone!
I don''t believe there''s reason for any fireworks.

David you could spend a lot less time in these debates, and improve your reputation, by simply spending a small fraction of your negative debating time on an up-to-date diamond cut education.

For a start I am happy to give you a 50% discount to be spent on an ideal-scope, and ASET scope and ideal-light and if you wish a set of good and bad stones. You can see these at ideal-scope.com.

I have no problem with different tastes and preferences, and there is no doubt you have a good eye for fancy colored diamonds and some fancies. DiaGem also has interesting views on a variety of cuts, and Storm too - the more he has learned the more un-stereo-typical is his taste.

But the more you learn the less arguements you will have.
Do nothing and you will get into these cycles continually.
do what you always do and you get what you always got.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/10/2009 6:18:00 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hi everyone!

I don't believe there's reason for any fireworks.

Lest anyone infer anything different from my post, let me say I tremendous respect for Jonathan. The GOG site is one of the best on the web

The problem is your telling everyone that diamonds that do not exist on the market and exist only in your head are the best.
You cant find one for sale.
I cant find one, all of the 60/60s I found that had the reports visible had 41.8 pavilions and there is not a chance they will be good ones.
So please stop pushing unobtainiam

Far as that goes if you really believe in them have em cut and offer them

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/11/2009 5:09:21 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Storm too - the more he has learned the more un-stereo-typical is his taste.

Thank you for the compliment.
There is so much untapped potential in diamond rough that the current industry(other than some very small pockets here and there) wont tap that it makes me very sad.

 

[iraweissman]

A little late to the party, I know. But I just wanted to tell you that I think you''re making the right call.

Date: 5/7/2009 11:37:37 AM
Author: TalkDoc
Incredible discussion. Thanks to all who participated.


Even though there''s no true consensus, I can appreciate the different viewpoints. I understand why the gentlemen and gentlewomen of the pricescope forums, who basically volunteer their time and expertise to help lost strangers navigate the confusing and costly ocean that is diamond purchasing, would rely very much upon reflector imaging.


In the same vein, I appreciate what appears to be the minority opinion within the borders of this site that reflector imaging cannot in every instance predict the subjective nature of appreciating cut.


As a consumer, I am apt to want as much information as possible before finalizing a purchase as emotionally (and actually) taxing as this one. Unfortunately, given the limitations of availability of the technology both amongst the full spectrum of online vendors and amongst the appraisal community at large, it is not yet practical to pursue reflector imaging in the final analysis of every purchase. Some maybe, but not every one. Not in 2009 at least.


I think the bottom line for me will be to fallback on that old tired line... buy the diamond, not the paper... or in this instance the picture. Trusting to an extent the various lab certs grading standards and armed with the HCA, itself controversial even among the respected appraisers of this board, I can hopefully narrow down my options to a few potentially well cut diamonds. Upon receipt, if it sparkles like nothing else, well, then, voila. I can be satisfied with the cut subjectively and get my old-school appraisal ASET-less and all. But if it is anything between ''mind-ideal'' (?) and ''frozen spit,'' I guess I would still consider finalizing a sale if an appraiser in some far-off distant land like exotic Philadelphia or scandalous Denver could vouch for the diamond''s value.


Risking obviousness, I wish it would be clearer. And I wish there could be one accepted standard. This too shall be market-drive, I suppose. If thousands of me''s demonstrate a demand or preference for vendors and appraisers who can provide reflector data to back-up a diamond''s value, then it shall be so.


Until then, I hope I have formulated a strategy that won''t fail me.


However, I never like to confuse hope for a plan so... I appreciate y''all''s non-sugar-coated thoughts on this approach...

 

[iraweissman]

BTW, from personal experience, 60/60 is also what Tiffany requires for all melee, full cuts, and stars (1/6th ct and below). They won''t accept anything with a small table. They are extremely picky about this.

Date: 5/7/2009 4:43:54 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/7/2009 4:14:33 PM

Author: jet2ks

Date: 5/7/2009 3:56:18 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

When we learned how to judge cut at Harry Winston, it was done by eye.

We were never told specific numbers which were better and which were worse.

To my eye 60% looks perfect as a table size- but we weren''t told the size of the tables- when we were learning we were not using stones with GIA reports anyway, so it had to be done by eye.



Now, as far as music, and theory, yes a computer can write a song using established musical principles.

Will it be a song that strikes emotion to the listener- I seriously doubt it.

AS you said- ''It may not be a masterpiece, but it won''t kill the ears''

When people are shopping for their diamond, they want the masterpiece, not something that is simply inoffensive.



By the way, do you believe we can quantitatively judge music based on well established musical theory?

Thank you for making my point. I will guarantee that the stones you graded as well cut for HW all had certain characteristics in common, even though you weren''t told the numbers and may not have been conciously aware of those characteristics. If a statistical analysis of the selected stones was done, they would have found that the vast majority of them would fall within certain parameters. What we are doing now is taking the parameters that you and others established and applying them in reverse. A diamond that falls in those has a much greater likelihood of being a very nice looking stone--of being the masterpiece.


Musical masterpieces have certain characteristics in common. Of the gazillion songs written since the dawn of man, if we eliminate those that don''t fall within certain theory guidelines, then we have to listen to a lot fewer pieces to find the ones that elicit that emotional response. Are there ones that were eliminated that would also appeal to us. YES, but with the number of songs you would have to listen to in order to find those, you would be long dead before finding a few you loved.


David, I am agreeing that there are great diamonds that don''t meet the ''rules'' as we apply them on PS. I am just saying that we don''t have the time and experience to go out and find them before some guy gets dumped for not proposing. How many times have posters recommended a person go to a store and look at what appeals to them before purchasing? Someone who knows what look they want, their own ''masterpiece'', is not the one who is posting asking for advice.

If we were talking about round diamonds, yes, there was tremendous consistency. Just so happens that I later learned that 60/60 were Winston''s desired proportions.


Do you guys remember AGS''s cut grade prior to 2006?

Back then, people on Pricescope were telling me that 60/60 was inferior to a near Tolk, and pointing to AGS to prove that.

Except, once GIA''s cut grade parameters were made public, and the top cut grade included 60/60 AGS changed their standards. I know there are folks here who will disconnect those two occurrences- but that is what happened.


But just being 60/60 does NOT make a diamond beautiful any more than simply being 55/61 does.

That''s why applying ''reverse technology'' does not work.

Especially when it comes to fancy shapes- where, even back in the 1970''s there were tremendous variations of the fancy shapes.


In terms of expediency- if a trusted vendor has looked at the stone and recommends it, wouldn''t that be quicker?



I am still interested in your opinion about a system to judge the quality of musical compositions...do you think such a thing is possible?

 

[iraweissman]

Hi Judah. While I agree with almost everything you write, I must say that I disagree with one small point. Of the different technological tools you mention, the Gemex Brilliantscope, I believe, should be disregarded. I have personal experience with testing literally thousands of diamonds on the gemex machine, and I can tell you that it is anything but reliable. First of all, it is incredibly inconsistent. Running the same stone on the machine twice will usually yield two different sets of results. Secondly, I have found that the results rarely correlate with actual proportions. I have seen diamonds with 65-66% depths pass double or even triple very-highs as long as they had some extra faceting along the pavilion.

Date: 5/7/2009 6:02:54 PM
Author: Judah Gutwein
Friends,


Great thread with merit to multiple viewpoints.


Our experience and perspective is that there certainly isn''t any substitute for the human eye. Within this context, it is a given that people will choose and prefer 1 diamond over another based upon subjective and personal considerations. This is indeed a fact.


At the same time and as mentioned on this forum (and others) many times in the past, the majority of consumers who purchase diamonds on the net do not have the luxury of a personal inspection prior to purchase. It is therefore of crucial importance to these consumers that they get the very best shot at making an informed purchase sight unseen. This is where these scientific metrics come into play.


The beauty (imo) of developed technologies and tools like the MegaScope/Sarin machines, ASET, HCA, Ideal Scope, H&A, Gemex BrillianceScope, Diamcalc, etc., all of which assess a loose diamonds'' cut precision and/or light performance, is how they mesh, dovetail, confirm and corroborate with the physical properties and appearances of the diamonds tested and to the overwhelming majority of consumers who (subsequently) physically view the same diamonds previously tested by these tools. IMO and based on our personal experience with our own customers, this salient point is more important and practical than the actual scientific ramifications of this experience.


Certainly, this doesn''t mean that consumers won''t be able to do well with their purchases without the aid of these tools. In fact, most of these tools haven''t been around all that long and people have been happily buying diamonds forever! My Grandfather and Great Granfather who made their living in diamonds probably would have scoffed at these machines and tools since they and their customers were coming from a different time, standard, place and perspective.


In addition, many consumers may actually prefer the look of a diamond that perhaps wouldn''t score as well as another on these metrics and tools and those consumers are no less vindicated than the ones who would disagree.


Again, my own perspective and based upon our experience is that there is no substitute for actually physically viewing a diamond. If this is impossible (or even if it is), then the aforementioned tools do a wonderful cumulative job of empowering consumers to make an informed decision.

 

[TalkDoc]

Date: 5/11/2009 8:28:06 AM
Author: iraweissman
A little late to the party, I know. But I just wanted to tell you that I think you''re making the right call.

Thank you for the input. It did not go unnoticed... as easy as that would have been in this ''fireworks show'' I unintentionally fused.

Thank you, indeed, to all participants of this discussion, meandering and, at times, over-my-head as it may have been.

 

[risingsun]

I just had a look at the site, The Truth About Diamonds. I suggest that other posters do the same. The sitesholder states that a GIA excellent is equivalent to an AGS 0 and seems not to hold the AGS in high regard.* He chooses his diamonds only from the James Allen and Blue Nile inventories. I have not had the time to peruse the entire site, but be aware of the perspective from which he posts.

From The Truth About Diamonds:

The AGS (American Gem Society) prides itself on being the original lab to provide diamond cut grades. Long before the GIA introduced their cut grade a few years ago, the AGS has been offering its unique cut grade scale from 0 to 9 (with 0 being termed "ideal"). Back in those days, the AGS had the monopoly on the "ideal cut" market. A diamond couldn't be called "idea" unless it has an AGS certificate claiming so. Now that the GIA has entered the cut grade game, though, their market share in this market has dropped significantly. Now, just as much people sell "triple X's" (Polish, Symmetry, and Cut grades all receiving "Excellent" from the GIA) as they do "triple 0's" (a "0" is the AGS equivalent of a GIA "Excellent").
The AGS generally tries to bill itself as being a bit more fancy and refined than the GIA. But the fact is there is hardly anything at all to distinguish the two except for the fact that the AGS is generally slightly looser than the GIA. Most large diamond companies recognize this and take diamonds that don't receive the intended grade and send them to AGS in order to receive an upgrade. Usually in those circumstances they succeed. Unlike the EGL, however, there isn't much of a market-wide consensus to this fact, so generally diamonds certified by the AGS sell at similar prices to their GIA equivalents. If I had to suggest an average upgrade from GIA, I would estimate a half a grade.

If I'm not permitted to quote from this site, I will remove the quote.

 

[iraweissman]

Hi Rising Sun. Thanks for the free publicity

Regarding AGS "0" and GIA "Excellent," the only thing intended is that they are both the highest grades on each labs individual scale.

As for the second part you quoted regarding AGS being looser in color and clarity, I stand by that 100%. That comes from experience of sending hundreds of stones a month to both GIA and AGS for several years.

Regards,
Ira

Date: 5/11/2009 11:34:32 AM
Author: risingsun
I just had a look at the site, The Truth About Diamonds. I suggest that other posters do the same. The sitesholder states that a GIA excellent is equivalent to an AGS 0 and seems not to hold the AGS in high regard.* He chooses his diamonds only from the James Allen and Blue Nile inventories. I have not had the time to peruse the entire site, but be aware of the perspective from which he posts.


From The Truth About Diamonds:


The AGS (American Gem Society) prides itself on being the original lab to provide diamond cut grades. Long before the GIA introduced their cut grade a few years ago, the AGS has been offering its unique cut grade scale from 0 to 9 (with 0 being termed ''ideal''). Back in those days, the AGS had the monopoly on the ''ideal cut'' market. A diamond couldn''t be called ''idea'' unless it has an AGS certificate claiming so. Now that the GIA has entered the cut grade game, though, their market share in this market has dropped significantly. Now, just as much people sell ''triple X''s'' (Polish, Symmetry, and Cut grades all receiving ''Excellent'' from the GIA) as they do ''triple 0''s'' (a ''0'' is the AGS equivalent of a GIA ''Excellent'').

The AGS generally tries to bill itself as being a bit more fancy and refined than the GIA. But the fact is there is hardly anything at all to distinguish the two except for the fact that the AGS is generally slightly looser than the GIA. Most large diamond companies recognize this and take diamonds that don''t receive the intended grade and send them to AGS in order to receive an upgrade. Usually in those circumstances they succeed. Unlike the EGL, however, there isn''t much of a market-wide consensus to this fact, so generally diamonds certified by the AGS sell at similar prices to their GIA equivalents. If I had to suggest an average upgrade from GIA, I would estimate a half a grade.


If I''m not permitted to quote from this site, I will remove the quote.

 

[oldminer]

In an attempt at presenting additional facts to bring balance and fairness to the thread, I submit what follows. This can''t totally refute the many comments about certain "softness on grading" that certain labs are often accused of. Some claims are valid, but there are some which are mitigated by what follows.

1. Diamond dealers often submit a diamond to more than one lab and then use the "happier" report.
2. There is a tendency to put unexpectedly low grading reports directly into the trash and to use unexpectedly high reports without comment.
3. No lab in the USA is anything but meager competition for the GIA at this time. I have often made the claim that in order to compete for a small share of what would otherwise be GIA''s business, legitimate, secondary labs, which includes AGSL, attempt to match or grade a tiny bit softer than GIA. Any harsher grading results in angry clients and reports tossed into the dumpster. Slightly softer grading is most welcomed by lab users in the vast majority although I am aware of one ex-GIA client that no longer gives GIA diamond grading because there were too many questionable grades, both high and low, in their own opinion. That''s a most unusual circumstance and a very rare event.
4. AGSL has had a large success with its attempt to grade cut because it has done more right than wrong and GIA has mishandled the process to a far larger extent. AGSL marketed better and also produced better than GIA. Had GIA done a far better job, there would be no real market share for AGSL at all. That''s perfect hindsight because the present is a reflection of the current reality that AGS has carved a small niche market for itself due to beating their competitor at a small element of the total game.

What the public ends up seeing are reports which either mimic GIA results or are somewhat less harsh in grading. If every report ever made was impossible to throw away and forever remained with each diamond, you would see more equity actually exists in diamond grading than the skewed view we all get in doing a statistical review of diamonds, certs and labs that are available for viewing.

 

[iraweissman]

Well said, indeed. YOu are a gentleman and a scholar!

Date: 5/11/2009 1:07:39 PM
Author: oldminer
In an attempt at presenting additional facts to bring balance and fairness to the thread, I submit what follows. This can''t totally refute the many comments about certain ''softness on grading'' that certain labs are often accused of. Some claims are valid, but there are some which are mitigated by what follows.


1. Diamond dealers often submit a diamond to more than one lab and then use the ''happier'' report.

2. There is a tendency to put unexpectedly low grading reports directly into the trash and to use unexpectedly high reports without comment.

3. No lab in the USA is anything but meager competition for the GIA at this time. I have often made the claim that in order to compete for a small share of what would otherwise be GIA''s business, legitimate, secondary labs, which includes AGSL, attempt to match or grade a tiny bit softer than GIA. Any harsher grading results in angry clients and reports tossed into the dumpster. Slightly softer grading is most welcomed by lab users in the vast majority although I am aware of one ex-GIA client that no longer gives GIA diamond grading because there were too many questionable grades, both high and low, in their own opinion. That''s a most unusual circumstance and a very rare event.

4. AGSL has had a large success with its attempt to grade cut because it has done more right than wrong and GIA has mishandled the process to a far larger extent. AGSL marketed better and also produced better than GIA. Had GIA done a far better job, there would be no real market share for AGSL at all. That''s perfect hindsight because the present is a reflection of the current reality that AGS has carved a small niche market for itself due to beating their competitor at a small element of the total game.


What the public ends up seeing are reports which either mimic GIA results or are somewhat less harsh in grading. If every report ever made was impossible to throw away and forever remained with each diamond, you would see more equity actually exists in diamond grading than the skewed view we all get in doing a statistical review of diamonds, certs and labs that are available for viewing.

 

[risingsun]

Ira,
You will find that on PS that our experiences are the opposite of what you have posted. The best cut stones are sent to AGS and the ones that won't make the 0 grade are sent to GIA to get the EX. If you have spent much time here, you will find that our members who want a RB, tend to have a preference for these AGS graded stones. Diamond cutters, such as Brian Gavin and Paul Slegers, send their stones to AGS to be graded. Their diamonds are top tier stones. In addition, as long as GIA rounds the numbers in their cut grading system, it begs the question about the accuracy of that grade.


I'm happy to give you the publicity

 

[Judah Gutwein]

RisingSun,

In fairness to Ira who I do not know, his website seems to function primarily as a business just like any other. It seems he is attaching various coupons, deals and links, from a host of e-tailers including primarily BN and JA and packaging it on a informational platform via his domain name. He also features Google ads etc. If a customer finds his website and subsequently links from his site to a particular vendor, his resultant 'footsteps' are tracked for a period of time by means of 'cookies'. If said customer actually winds up buying a product from one of Ira's featured vendors, a commission is paid out to Ira by these websites. This platform is a type of affiliate marketing. Nothing wrong with this kind of operation, so long as it is clear to consumers as to the crux of its objectives, which seems primarily to be sales oriented.


Ira,

Welcome to this forum!

and feel free to correct me if I am wrong..

 

[oldminer]

" The best cut stones are sent to AGS and the ones that won''t make the 0 grade are sent to GIA to get the EX."

I think it might be better said: "Stones purposely cut to meet the AGS standards are submitted to AGS while diamonds which might or might not get AGS0 are sent to GIA."

None of this is by accident. No one is being fooled. Cuttng to AGS0 is an intentional act. Extra time and effort has been spent to do it. Certain cutters use the AGS system as their branding tool and commit to cutting to AGS standards. Other cutters who feel that getting a GIA Excellent is sufficient for their clients needs continue to use GIA. Mass marketers tend to gravitate further down the food chain. You cut according to what and to whom you are geared to sell.

I don''t think that all GIA Ex stones are worse than all AGS0 stones. Some of these stones are identical. There is no doubt that the GIA casts a wider overall grade range and that all AGS0 diamonds would be a reasonably small subset of all GIA Ex stones.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/11/2009 1:45:42 PM
Author: oldminer
' The best cut stones are sent to AGS and the ones that won't make the 0 grade are sent to GIA to get the EX.'


I think it might be better said: 'Stones purposely cut to meet the AGS standards are submitted to AGS while diamonds which might or might not get AGS0 are sent to GIA.'


None of this is by accident. No one is being fooled. Cuttng to AGS0 is an intentional act. Extra time and effort has been spent to do it. Certain cutters use the AGS system as their branding tool and commit to cutting to AGS standards. Other cutters who feel that getting a GIA Excellent is sufficient for their clients needs continue to use GIA. Mass marketers tend to gravitate further down the food chain. You cut according to what and to whom you are geared to sell.


I don't think that all GIA Ex stones are worse than all AGS0 stones. Some of these stones are identical. There is no doubt that the GIA casts a wider overall grade range and that all AGS0 diamonds would be a reasonably small subset of all GIA Ex stones.

actually you are both right :}

Some cutters are cutting ags0 level stones but use GIA reports because that is what their long time customers want.
gog has a website full of such stones.

Then you have other cutters that do indeed send the best cuts to AGS the middle to GIA and the worst to IGI/EGL or sell them without paper.
A lot of the worst will show up in the middle east with hrd reports also.

 

[Stephan]

In matter of color grading, I heard HRD is the strictest.
Some people who want a true D will ask for HRD certificate.
Is it true?

 

[iraweissman]

Dubai used to be one of my main markets where HRD is the standard certificate. This is primarily because they offer a sealing service that neither AGS nor GIA offers. This is crucial, unfortunately, because Dubai is full of crooks.

The meat of the Dubai market is in H/I/J VVS/VS. In that color range, HRD is AT LEAST one color grade upgraded from GIA. I can''t tell you what the story is with higher colors, but with lower colors, they are very loose -- I would say almost EGL loose.

Date: 5/11/2009 4:12:51 PM
Author: QueenMum
In matter of color grading, I heard HRD is the strictest.

Some people who want a true D will ask for HRD certificate.

Is it true?

 

[iraweissman]

Hi Judah. Thanks for the friendly welcome. And there''s no need to correct you -- you pretty much told it like it is.

Date: 5/11/2009 1:24:56 PM
Author: Judah Gutwein
RisingSun,


In fairness to Ira who I do not know, his website seems to function primarily as a business just like any other. It seems he is attaching various coupons, deals and links, from a host of e-tailers including primarily BN and JA and packaging it on a informational platform via his domain name. He also features Google ads etc. If a customer finds his website and subsequently links from his site to a particular vendor, his resultant ''footsteps'' are tracked for a period of time by means of ''cookies''. If said customer actually winds up buying a product from one of Ira''s featured vendors, a commission is paid out to Ira by these websites. This platform is a type of affiliate marketing. Nothing wrong with this kind of operation, so long as it is clear to consumers as to the crux of its objectives, which seems primarily to be sales oriented.



Ira,


Welcome to this forum!

and feel free to correct me if I am wrong..

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/11/2009 4:21:08 PM
Author: iraweissman
Dubai used to be one of my main markets where HRD is the standard certificate. This is primarily because they offer a sealing service

It still is, very badly cut stones in sealed packages.
We get someone from there on here every once in the while.
Just trying to find one 1ct RB under 63% depth locally in the Dubai market is a huge challenge.

 

[Stephan]

Date: 5/11/2009 4:21:08 PM
Author: iraweissman
Dubai used to be one of my main markets where HRD is the standard certificate. This is primarily because they offer a sealing service that neither AGS nor GIA offers. This is crucial, unfortunately, because Dubai is full of crooks.

The meat of the Dubai market is in H/I/J VVS/VS. In that color range, HRD is AT LEAST one color grade upgraded from GIA. I can''t tell you what the story is with higher colors, but with lower colors, they are very loose -- I would say almost EGL loose.

Funny, I had a 0.64ct N color HRD certed.
The cut was incredible.
But the color... was very warm when compared to other N''s.