- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,880
Consumer advisory: GIA Cut Grade Rounding Problems
- Thread starter JohnQuixote
- Start date
- Status
Brian , Richard
If you don't bring a suit against GIA for defense of your reputation and trade marks then GIA will correct its system secretly and very slowly, at the best case, in such way that eventually your stones will be graded as VeryGood. There are so few chances that your stones will be graded as Excellent even in modified GIA system.
It seems that only legal judgment can force GIA to correct its 'technical' mistakes which destroy other's business. If there will be such judgements then it can force Board GIA to change internal manpower policy seriously, and to move to more open work for market to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
If your solution is to be at law with GIA then you need at the least:
1) To get more documentary facts about odious grade of your diamonds. I recommend to get GIA certificates of both reappraisals of graded diamonds and appraisals of non-graded GIA stones. You need real documents in quantity 5-10 pcs at least but not simple prints. If the grades of stones will be Good-Fair then send the stones to AGS. If all grades will be VeryGood then it is better to not continue.
2) Your suit to GIA should be joint suit from two companies.
3) Try to do this process publicly. Publish the bill for support your costs (including compensation of lawyer). I don't know: is it permissible in USA in given case or not? But if it is permissible then I will contribute a 5 figure sum of money. I try to convince other companies which suffer from unprofessional behavior of monopolist GIA to Also support you financially. I suggest this openly to avoid false charges in collusion because I think this support permissible and is called a Class Action in USA. (it is http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-20,GGLG:en&q=Class+action+definition&spell=1 )
My interest and my position.
I very respect the GIA's work that it has been doing since day of its establishment, the work to create transparent market and to defend consumer rights. I guess that this work is very important and it is very good that GIA does it.
But unfortunately the most of my respect relates to first half of time of GIA activity. Some tens of years ago something was broken in GIA. Since that time systems have become more commercial. GIA seems now to work for itself not for market. Last years this negative process has been accelerating. I am faced with demonstration of extreme lack of professionalism more than once from the side of individual members of GIA (I very respect some GIA members but they can't change general direction of GIA). The loss of professionalism in combination with wish for quick fix of the current status of GIA at any price (status of monopolistic position on the USA market in the area of RBC and study) results in protectionism, breach of rights of free competition, the separation of companies into "one's" and "other's". I make this conclusion on the base of my long and intensive communication with department GIA Instruments and with some members of GIA. I haven't enough facts and influence to prove my position in law-court relating to breach of right of competition from the side of GIA Instruments. But it has no need. It is necessary to force Board GIA to come back to initial values of GIA so order will be re-introduced in different departments of GIA, including GIA Instruments.
I think that at present moment only law judgments can force GIA to acknowledge and correct its "technical" mistakes. It will be a good stimulus to come back to initial values. It can normalize internal corporate culture of GIA. That is why I consider the law suit against GIA in the area if CutGrade as necessary. That is why I am ready to support this law suit in the area which I understand very well, where I know the reasons of many mistakes of GIA, and also methods to avoid this mistakes. I informed GIA about these methods some years ago.
Without pressure from the outside GIA can hardly make reorganization and come back to initial values by itself. If trust to GIA will decrease little by little, and GIA will degenerate little by little, then it results will do more harm for industry. That is why it is better to apply strict measures now and discuss the mistakes and problems openly now.
If you don't bring a suit against GIA for defense of your reputation and trade marks then GIA will correct its system secretly and very slowly, at the best case, in such way that eventually your stones will be graded as VeryGood. There are so few chances that your stones will be graded as Excellent even in modified GIA system.
It seems that only legal judgment can force GIA to correct its 'technical' mistakes which destroy other's business. If there will be such judgements then it can force Board GIA to change internal manpower policy seriously, and to move to more open work for market to avoid similar mistakes in the future.
If your solution is to be at law with GIA then you need at the least:
1) To get more documentary facts about odious grade of your diamonds. I recommend to get GIA certificates of both reappraisals of graded diamonds and appraisals of non-graded GIA stones. You need real documents in quantity 5-10 pcs at least but not simple prints. If the grades of stones will be Good-Fair then send the stones to AGS. If all grades will be VeryGood then it is better to not continue.
2) Your suit to GIA should be joint suit from two companies.
3) Try to do this process publicly. Publish the bill for support your costs (including compensation of lawyer). I don't know: is it permissible in USA in given case or not? But if it is permissible then I will contribute a 5 figure sum of money. I try to convince other companies which suffer from unprofessional behavior of monopolist GIA to Also support you financially. I suggest this openly to avoid false charges in collusion because I think this support permissible and is called a Class Action in USA. (it is http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-20,GGLG:en&q=Class+action+definition&spell=1 )
My interest and my position.
I very respect the GIA's work that it has been doing since day of its establishment, the work to create transparent market and to defend consumer rights. I guess that this work is very important and it is very good that GIA does it.
But unfortunately the most of my respect relates to first half of time of GIA activity. Some tens of years ago something was broken in GIA. Since that time systems have become more commercial. GIA seems now to work for itself not for market. Last years this negative process has been accelerating. I am faced with demonstration of extreme lack of professionalism more than once from the side of individual members of GIA (I very respect some GIA members but they can't change general direction of GIA). The loss of professionalism in combination with wish for quick fix of the current status of GIA at any price (status of monopolistic position on the USA market in the area of RBC and study) results in protectionism, breach of rights of free competition, the separation of companies into "one's" and "other's". I make this conclusion on the base of my long and intensive communication with department GIA Instruments and with some members of GIA. I haven't enough facts and influence to prove my position in law-court relating to breach of right of competition from the side of GIA Instruments. But it has no need. It is necessary to force Board GIA to come back to initial values of GIA so order will be re-introduced in different departments of GIA, including GIA Instruments.
I think that at present moment only law judgments can force GIA to acknowledge and correct its "technical" mistakes. It will be a good stimulus to come back to initial values. It can normalize internal corporate culture of GIA. That is why I consider the law suit against GIA in the area if CutGrade as necessary. That is why I am ready to support this law suit in the area which I understand very well, where I know the reasons of many mistakes of GIA, and also methods to avoid this mistakes. I informed GIA about these methods some years ago.
Without pressure from the outside GIA can hardly make reorganization and come back to initial values by itself. If trust to GIA will decrease little by little, and GIA will degenerate little by little, then it results will do more harm for industry. That is why it is better to apply strict measures now and discuss the mistakes and problems openly now.
How much of a monopoly does GIA have with customers who need stones certified? I would imagine a change would come even quicker if people stoped sending stone to them for grading. This would be a moot if the majority of its customers are unaffected by the new cut grade system, but loss of business would be the most effective catalyst I would think.
GIA has very strong brand. If part of cutters or resellers will stopped sending stones to GIA they will lost a lot of money.
Such way is not problem for GIA yet.
I do not like idea destroy any business include GIA. We all need GIA( even AGS, EGL, IGI need GIA)
But we need well done GIA, we should help to GIA back to initial valuables GIA
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Iv been thinking about this and think a lawsuit is a bit extreme and would be seen as sour grapes.
It is their cut grade and they can do what they want with it.
Just like we can complain about it all day long.
Thats called freedom.
Dont like it use another lab there are a lot of them to choose from.
Where was the call for lawsuits when AGS cut the steep deeps out of the AGS0 catagory?
That cost cutters a lot of money.
On the technical side of things some non-standard girdle treatments can be bad for the appearance of the diamond so they can say they are doing the right thing by not allowing it accross the board.
They cant say were going to just allow 8* and WF to do it because they know how to make it look good.
wow I just sided with GIA a little. LOL
It is their cut grade and they can do what they want with it.
Just like we can complain about it all day long.
Thats called freedom.
Dont like it use another lab there are a lot of them to choose from.
Where was the call for lawsuits when AGS cut the steep deeps out of the AGS0 catagory?
That cost cutters a lot of money.
On the technical side of things some non-standard girdle treatments can be bad for the appearance of the diamond so they can say they are doing the right thing by not allowing it accross the board.
They cant say were going to just allow 8* and WF to do it because they know how to make it look good.
wow I just sided with GIA a little. LOL
re:It is their cut grade and they can do what they want with it
Not exactly. GIA has monopoly for standards( or try do it)
See for example: http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/
'' ...When I think back to that era of innovation, it is truly awe-inspiring. A lot has changed since then. But GIA''s passion, integrity, and commitment to research remain the same.
I''m pleased to introduce the new GIA Diamond Cut Grading System. With advances in computer modeling, we have been able to unlock the mystery of diamond cut — arguably the most complex and contested of the 4Cs. After more than 15 years of research and discovery, GIA has developed a scientific way to assess — and predict — the cut quality in round brilliant cut diamonds. ...
GIA''s mission of ensuring the public trust in gems and jewelry is reflected in this international research undertaking. And reminiscent of GIA''s early innovations, I believe we will set the standards for cut quality the way we have set them for color and clarity for more than 50 years.''
Sincerely,
William E. Boyajian
President
GIA
Capitol Bill
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2005
- Messages
- 187
GIA has very strong brand. If part of cutters or resellers will stopped sending stones to GIA they will lost a lot of money.
Such way is not problem for GIA yet.
I do not like idea destroy any business include GIA. We all need GIA( even AGS, EGL, IGI need GIA)
But we need well done GIA, we should help to GIA back to initial valuables GIA
Sergey Sivovolenko CEO OctoNus
Sergey,
I find your above observations about GIA very insightful and precisely on point. I couldn''t agree more. This is yet another example why I always go out of my way to read your posts.
Kind regards,
Bill
belle
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,285
dhog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 159
soon we as consumers will be able to buy GIA certified
diamonds at WALLY-WORLD as a one stop buy it all solution
how much money would drive this equation in the grading rules
set forth by WALLY- WORLD. part of the big picture in my view
and only my view. maybe a new category for high performance
diamonds would help.
diamonds at WALLY-WORLD as a one stop buy it all solution
how much money would drive this equation in the grading rules
set forth by WALLY- WORLD. part of the big picture in my view
and only my view. maybe a new category for high performance
diamonds would help.
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
re:''We don''t know how to correctly grade these stones''
I need clarify. "These" is unusual diamonds for some lab.
Painted is unusual( nonclassical) for GIA, but normal for Current AGS cut grade system.
But some other unusual round diamond can be unusual for AGS too.
In this case better for AGS and market inform: ''We don''t know how to correctly grade these stones''
dhog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 159
see end page 240 and beginning page 241. You can see GIA mistake about influence painted to weight diamond.
In theory( without rough shape limitation) painted can increasing weight diamond on 0.3-0.5%. In real world painted usually will decreasing weight future diamond( by decreasing future diameter) . Cutters use painted for decreasing Leakage( may be for increasing performance)
In opposite. Cutters use digging for mark thick girdle( decreasing girdle in halves , decreasing average thickness)
This Article is good illustration reason of wrong GIA grade for painted diamond. GIGO
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Serg...
You are a gentleman and a scholar, not to mention courageous enough to want to help sponsor the expenses of a legal acton against GIA.
However, this is not really the way to proceed in this manner. As Storm points out GIA, even though they are the bearer of the standard, won''t be the standard for much longer if they issue inaccurate and incorrect report information. EGL and IGI have their own standards. It is common knowledge even with consumers that their reports may be lacking - so if a consumer wishes they have them reviewed by someone else. Consumers will eventually pick up on inaccuracoes and insist on one of two choices:
A. Demand their stones have AGS reports, so those dealers who send their stones to AGS will be able to sell them easier than stone with altenate choice lab reports.
or
B. Have their potential purchases reviewed by an independent.
In addition, there is probably someone else who is astute enough to pick up on all the shortcomings of the current reports, and form a new more reliable and accurate report.
Those who are cutting superior performing diamonds by careful and attentive cutting with less regard for weight retention and more for beauty are indeed a minority when one looks at the "big picture". In a class action lawsuit, this is very possibly a rather major flaw since trade tradition operates totally opposing the beauty standpoint. To wit, a trier of fact ( judge or jury) hears that only 2% of the cutters, cut incredibly performing stones and the other 98% cut "regular stuff", "customary trade practice" may prevail in such a decision or opinion.
Secondly, a class action (at least in the USA) has to be certified by the court first. This is a cumbersome, and expensive process, and one which can take a year or two to accomplish. Much to the disbelief of the general non-legal professionals, class actions are not certified because it make it easier for the attorney to file on behalf of many plaintiffs in a lawsuit. Class actions are certiied and allowed to proceed, when it is more convenient and time saving for a court. To add to the complexity. the different Federal Courts here have different rules and procedures which vary from district to district.
It appears that the more sought after goal is to provide reports that are prepared to the hair splitting standards of the largest cross section of buyers. As consumers get informed about what the core group here on PS and other forums are doing to educate the public, and distribute factual qualities of cut, that will have the greatest influence on those issuing documents to comply with. The industry has been resistant to particpating via the internet, but those who pay attention to the informative power of this medium and adapt to it, will swim through the mainstream of its good and bad points, and those who stay in the comfortable nests, will get washed away with the incoming tidal wave.
But, Serg I do commend your intentions to help "clean up the act" and offering to put your money where your mouth is....that in itself shows readers here of the true intent of those trying to advance the industry, and it is a noble cause, and you''ve been a noble person in stepping forward.
Kudo to Moscow
Rockdoc
You are a gentleman and a scholar, not to mention courageous enough to want to help sponsor the expenses of a legal acton against GIA.
However, this is not really the way to proceed in this manner. As Storm points out GIA, even though they are the bearer of the standard, won''t be the standard for much longer if they issue inaccurate and incorrect report information. EGL and IGI have their own standards. It is common knowledge even with consumers that their reports may be lacking - so if a consumer wishes they have them reviewed by someone else. Consumers will eventually pick up on inaccuracoes and insist on one of two choices:
A. Demand their stones have AGS reports, so those dealers who send their stones to AGS will be able to sell them easier than stone with altenate choice lab reports.
or
B. Have their potential purchases reviewed by an independent.
In addition, there is probably someone else who is astute enough to pick up on all the shortcomings of the current reports, and form a new more reliable and accurate report.
Those who are cutting superior performing diamonds by careful and attentive cutting with less regard for weight retention and more for beauty are indeed a minority when one looks at the "big picture". In a class action lawsuit, this is very possibly a rather major flaw since trade tradition operates totally opposing the beauty standpoint. To wit, a trier of fact ( judge or jury) hears that only 2% of the cutters, cut incredibly performing stones and the other 98% cut "regular stuff", "customary trade practice" may prevail in such a decision or opinion.
Secondly, a class action (at least in the USA) has to be certified by the court first. This is a cumbersome, and expensive process, and one which can take a year or two to accomplish. Much to the disbelief of the general non-legal professionals, class actions are not certified because it make it easier for the attorney to file on behalf of many plaintiffs in a lawsuit. Class actions are certiied and allowed to proceed, when it is more convenient and time saving for a court. To add to the complexity. the different Federal Courts here have different rules and procedures which vary from district to district.
It appears that the more sought after goal is to provide reports that are prepared to the hair splitting standards of the largest cross section of buyers. As consumers get informed about what the core group here on PS and other forums are doing to educate the public, and distribute factual qualities of cut, that will have the greatest influence on those issuing documents to comply with. The industry has been resistant to particpating via the internet, but those who pay attention to the informative power of this medium and adapt to it, will swim through the mainstream of its good and bad points, and those who stay in the comfortable nests, will get washed away with the incoming tidal wave.
But, Serg I do commend your intentions to help "clean up the act" and offering to put your money where your mouth is....that in itself shows readers here of the true intent of those trying to advance the industry, and it is a noble cause, and you''ve been a noble person in stepping forward.
Kudo to Moscow
Rockdoc
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,880
For me the big issue here is that GIA will create confusion between customers and vendors at both wholesale / retail, and especially at rtail consumer level.
GIA''s Mission Statement
GIA''s mission is to ensure the public trust in gems and jewelry by upholding the highest standards of integrity, academics, science, and professionalism through education, research, laboratory services, and instrument development.
I think that is not happening right now.
And has anyone sent links to Richard Von Sternberg?
Brian??????? Where 4 art thou?
GIA''s Mission Statement
Established in 1931, the nonprofit Gemological Institute of America (GIA) is the world''s foremost authority in gemology.
GIA''s mission is to ensure the public trust in gems and jewelry by upholding the highest standards of integrity, academics, science, and professionalism through education, research, laboratory services, and instrument development.
I think that is not happening right now.
So RocDoc what about some "How to" ideas?Date: 1/30/2006 11:20:45 PM
Author: RockDoc
Serg...
You are a gentleman and a scholar, not to mention courageous enough to want to help sponsor the expenses of a legal acton against GIA.
However, this is not really the way to proceed in this manner. As Storm points out GIA, even though they are the bearer of the standard, won''t be the standard for much longer if they issue inaccurate and incorrect report information. EGL and IGI have their own standards. It is common knowledge even with consumers that their reports may be lacking - so if a consumer wishes they have them reviewed by someone else. Consumers will eventually pick up on inaccuracoes and insist on one of two choices:
A. Demand their stones have AGS reports, so those dealers who send their stones to AGS will be able to sell them easier than stone with altenate choice lab reports.
or
B. Have their potential purchases reviewed by an independent.
Dear RocDoc, while I like your idea - it is too weak - most consumers do not know that aGS exists and will not know that it is behaving more ethically - many vendors will simply say GIA is the biggest and best. Also this is a global problem - and here in Asutralia for instance GIA is very respected and maybe 5,000 people in Australia know about AGS. Most independant appraisers, outside a handful at your level in USA, will not doubt GIA.
In addition, there is probably someone else who is astute enough to pick up on all the shortcomings of the current reports, and form a new more reliable and accurate report. ??????????? who?????????
Those who are cutting superior performing diamonds by careful and attentive cutting with less regard for weight retention and more for beauty are indeed a minority when one looks at the ''big picture''. In a class action lawsuit, this is very possibly a rather major flaw since trade tradition operates totally opposing the beauty standpoint. To wit, a trier of fact ( judge or jury) hears that only 2% of the cutters, cut incredibly performing stones and the other 98% cut ''regular stuff'', ''customary trade practice'' may prevail in such a decision or opinion. i knoiw you are very learned in Law, but surely the fact that companies who are recognized as cut quality leaders (part of the 2%) could take this action where others could not - especially if they can prove that their stones are in fact superior - just by simply showing them in the court room?
Secondly, a class action (at least in the USA) has to be certified by the court first. This is a cumbersome, and expensive process, and one which can take a year or two to accomplish. Much to the disbelief of the general non-legal professionals, class actions are not certified because it make it easier for the attorney to file on behalf of many plaintiffs in a lawsuit. Class actions are certiied and allowed to proceed, when it is more convenient and time saving for a court. To add to the complexity. the different Federal Courts here have different rules and procedures which vary from district to district. we defer to your experiance here
It appears that the more sought after goal is to provide reports that are prepared to the hair splitting standards of the largest cross section of buyers. As consumers get informed about what the core group here on PS and other forums are doing to educate the public, and distribute factual qualities of cut, that will have the greatest influence on those issuing documents to comply with. The industry has been resistant to particpating via the internet, but those who pay attention to the informative power of this medium and adapt to it, will swim through the mainstream of its good and bad points, and those who stay in the comfortable nests, will get washed away with the incoming tidal wave. Bill realistically this place is not about tidal waves - it is the very start of a J curve that might take 10 years to reach the mid point.
But, Serg I do commend your intentions to help ''clean up the act'' and offering to put your money where your mouth is....that in itself shows readers here of the true intent of those trying to advance the industry, and it is a noble cause, and you''ve been a noble person in stepping forward.
Kudo to Moscow
Rockdoc
And has anyone sent links to Richard Von Sternberg?
Brian??????? Where 4 art thou?
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Rocdoc, Thanks for you input.
re:Those who are cutting superior performing diamonds by careful and attentive cutting with less regard for weight retention and more for beauty are indeed a minority when one looks at the ''big picture''. In a class action lawsuit, this is very possibly a rather major flaw since trade tradition operates totally opposing the beauty standpoint. To wit, a trier of fact ( judge or jury) hears that only 2% of the cutters, cut incredibly performing stones and the other 98% cut ''regular stuff'', ''customary trade practice'' may prevail in such a decision or opinion.
It is easy to decide by following test.
Take:
one good GIA Excellent (AGS0 in the same time)
one good GIA VG
one bad GIA VG (bad parameters, symmetry on the edge of Very Good)
one really bad GIA Fair with good symmetry
one really bad GIA Fair with bad symmetry
one WF with grade as GIA Fair
Ask from 10 different dealers to indicate 2-3 best stones and 2-3 worse stones.
If WF diamond will be in group with high grades of GIA then the problem is in GIA system of grade.
The question isn''t in mistake in one gradation. If GIA grades WF stone as VG then it is their right and it is impossible to contest with it. It is just possible to go to another Lab, for example, AGS.
But if GIA grades not worse stone (rather one of the best stone at present moment) as Fair then it is foundation for judgment taking into account role of GIA reputation on the market if cut grade. The reason of so not adequate estimation isn''t important. It is important that so not adequate estimation of so influential organization has negative influence on the business of good company. In given case GIA IS OBLIGATED TO PROVE THE ADEQUACY of estimation. Moreover there is article of GIA which explains mistake in GIA opinion about influence of "Painted" on the diamond mass. Most likely this opinion was used for false penalty of such cuttings.
WF have rights to defend its reputation of their cuttings.
WF have rights to demand from GIA of explanations about so low estimation.
GIA hasn''t right to answer in the following way (because of fact that GIA is monopolist in given segment of marker in USA)
1) "It is our system and that is why we can grade as wish. If you don''t like system then don''t send the stones".
2) "Our system has scientific basis. It has been developed for 15 years and was under lots of tests. But we don''t open the methodic of tests and rules of system building because it is our commercial secret. Our professionalism is above all suspicions. Cut the stones by our standards and your business will be successful."
And what''s about mission of GIA which they declare again and again.
The talk is about rules of behavior of monopolist on the market especially in the area of establishment of grade standard of third companies.
Of course my opinion from the side of American juridical system can be insignificant. I understand almost nothing in American juridical practice.The American juridical system is precedents juridical system. Fist of all the precedents of court decisions about similar theme are important. I don''t know them. The precedents can be outside of area of gemology.
Who knows the precedents?
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2002
- Messages
- 2,859
For those present at the first Diamond Cut Conference in 2004, and for those following up on the special section, do you remember my initial suggestion directly after the Conference that our first goal should be to criticize the GIA-system (even with the little information that we had about it then) in order to avoid a clearly bad system to emerge.
Now, we have a bigger problem. The system is there, it is operational, and it is probably even worse than we expected.
Can we now form an united front, maybe starting with those present at the first Diamond Cut Conference, together with some others who clearly know their stuff and agree that this system is incorrect, and form some kind of committee or even organisation, which stands for the importance of cut-quality in diamonds, and who immediately issue a press-release containing founded criticism on the GIA-system?
Our company, for one, is willing to co-fund such an organisation.
Live long,
Now, we have a bigger problem. The system is there, it is operational, and it is probably even worse than we expected.
Can we now form an united front, maybe starting with those present at the first Diamond Cut Conference, together with some others who clearly know their stuff and agree that this system is incorrect, and form some kind of committee or even organisation, which stands for the importance of cut-quality in diamonds, and who immediately issue a press-release containing founded criticism on the GIA-system?
Our company, for one, is willing to co-fund such an organisation.
Live long,
dhog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 159
from a consumers point of view,it seems as if the GOOFBALLS IN ACTION have created a standard that has multiple choices within a choice so as to allow each person grading a stone a way to apply the standard and at the same time a way to back the decision they make on the stone.
This allows for to much political influence to be asserted depending on who sends the stone in. It appears that painting and digging are allowed in moderation but the judging is being left up to the graders.
If they don''t like painted or altered girdles a simple deduction
for a simple yes or no answer,to a simple question DOES THIS STONE HAVE A ALTERED GIRDLE will do.
Allowing for the choice of IS this girdle altered to much or IS this girdle ok leaves to much room for error & or ???
They might also include more tables in the software that allows for the use of exact numbers instead of rounded numbers.WHAT IS 1+2 Is it 3 or Is it 4 or IS it 2 pretty goofy
Those who cut their stones in this manner for beauty should seek out other labs that allow for this until enough people complain and they change. Ya right
Although I am not a expert on diamonds and or the grading of them as a consumer I will seek other lab certificates on the stones that I purchase in the future and will not consider a GIA stone graded after JAN 1 2006. THANK YOU
This allows for to much political influence to be asserted depending on who sends the stone in. It appears that painting and digging are allowed in moderation but the judging is being left up to the graders.
If they don''t like painted or altered girdles a simple deduction
for a simple yes or no answer,to a simple question DOES THIS STONE HAVE A ALTERED GIRDLE will do.
Allowing for the choice of IS this girdle altered to much or IS this girdle ok leaves to much room for error & or ???
They might also include more tables in the software that allows for the use of exact numbers instead of rounded numbers.WHAT IS 1+2 Is it 3 or Is it 4 or IS it 2 pretty goofy
Those who cut their stones in this manner for beauty should seek out other labs that allow for this until enough people complain and they change. Ya right
Although I am not a expert on diamonds and or the grading of them as a consumer I will seek other lab certificates on the stones that I purchase in the future and will not consider a GIA stone graded after JAN 1 2006. THANK YOU
belle
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,285
there''s a lot going on here, but i just wanted to make note that these ''cut grades'' from the new system can be issued for stones graded before january 1 2006. there may be stones that can be issued a ''cut grade'' without re-submission to gia with reports dated all the way back to january 1 2005.
dhog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 159
if a consumer buys a stone from a vender that was graded before Jan 1 2006 and it is graded a ex. ex.ex.and then was sent a new grade that didn''t apply in 2005 to me this is the direct result of someone trying to apply double standards for who knows what gain???.this is direct evidence that a double standard existed at the time the stone was originally graded and the results were saved to be retrieved at a future date for unknown reasons???.now all of these stones that were graded earlier may or may not be worth the paper the certificate is written on.For anyone in the position to release this info at this time as they have done I believe has a reason for doing so.What this will do to the industry as a whole is yet to be seen. thank you
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,101
To be honest, I understand virtually NONE of the posts on this subject. I think what you experts are saying is that GIA has changed their grading system, it uses rounded numbers, and stones that may have once either graded higher or lower, may grade differently using their new system. Whether this affects the GIA graded stone I recently purchased which was graded in September 2005 is unknown to me. When I plugged my grading report number in the link provided, it only provided the numbers I received when I bought the stone and it suggested I would need to return the stone to GIA to get the newer grading results. Of course I won''t do this as my stone is set and I''m not going to have the stone removed and spend any additional money to have it re-graded.
What I do know is that as a consumer, I am now VERY sorry I was so insistent on getting a stone that was graded by GIA in the first place. Even though I thought I had done my research, it appears the lack of confidence in the new grading system could devalue the fact that my stone is GIA graded. I paid more money for my stone because I had been told how important that GIA report was. In fact, during my purchase I was shown an EGL graded stone, which I thought was very nice, but I decided to spend more for the GIA stone, for my piece of mind.
Now, I wish I had insisted my stone was graded by AGS. From what I''ve seen, the experts seem to agree AGS'' grading standards are ultimately more accurate than what is now becoming GIA''s standard.
Of course, since virtually every stock I''ve invested in during the last few years has lost value, I should have anticipated that whatever grading report I chose would become less desirable. Now, don''t shoot back that diamonds aren''t an investment. I understand they are not. But for the general public who pays more for something, their "investment" should not be diminished..........
Just the ramblings of someone who doesn''t know squat from a hole in the ground.
What I do know is that as a consumer, I am now VERY sorry I was so insistent on getting a stone that was graded by GIA in the first place. Even though I thought I had done my research, it appears the lack of confidence in the new grading system could devalue the fact that my stone is GIA graded. I paid more money for my stone because I had been told how important that GIA report was. In fact, during my purchase I was shown an EGL graded stone, which I thought was very nice, but I decided to spend more for the GIA stone, for my piece of mind.
Now, I wish I had insisted my stone was graded by AGS. From what I''ve seen, the experts seem to agree AGS'' grading standards are ultimately more accurate than what is now becoming GIA''s standard.
Of course, since virtually every stock I''ve invested in during the last few years has lost value, I should have anticipated that whatever grading report I chose would become less desirable. Now, don''t shoot back that diamonds aren''t an investment. I understand they are not. But for the general public who pays more for something, their "investment" should not be diminished..........
Just the ramblings of someone who doesn''t know squat from a hole in the ground.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,880
TO ALL CONSUMERS......
I want to clarify what appears to be a gross misunderstanding in reading the GIA lab reports, previously issued before the cut grade was added.
Buying a stone with excellent symmetry and excellent polish has virtually nothing to do with the proportions of the diamond reported on by GIA.
What the experts are talking about here in this thread, is the blatant reporting of supplying rounded up proportions which sometimes will report a cut grade erroneously. Yet on the new GIA reports it is stated that the proportion measurements are actual. ACTUAL DOES NOT MEAN ROUNDED UP.
For those of you that have the "old GIA report" the excellent polish and symmetry may reconcile with AGS''s Ideal ratings but not necessarilly.
The cut grade that GIA is coming out with is proportion based, which differs from AGS''s method of determining light performance.
But both labs state on the front of the report that the diamond should be valued by a credentialed gemologist or appraiser. There are reasons for this. READ BETWEEN the lines to figure out the meaning as to why that is put on there.
If you have a GIA report on a stone that has been graded by GIA recently, they can issue you one of the newer type reports with their cut grade. However, in that the cut grade is based on insigificant proportion measurements how accurate is that cut grade. When you have diamonds that are really cut superbly getting grades of good or fair, something is very much askew. So by even getting an amended new cut grade style report may not mean much to the consumer who seeks accurate information in their grading report.
For those consumers shopping now, if accuracy of the proortional fact and light return are an issue, start with the AGS report, and then consider review by an indepenent appraiser/gemologist.
In late April or possibly in May AGS''s software for light return analysis will be made available. The desktop ASET is already in use by a handfull of experts, which tells a lot about the stone, in a way more advanced than the Firescope/Ideal Scope etc.
The experts here are all concerned about the affect the GIA Cut grading "scheme" will play out. The best way to encourage change of this is for consumers to consider diamonds which have the AGS report, or either have the seller submit GIA graded stones to AGS, or the appraiser of your choice.
Rockdoc
Rockdoc
I want to clarify what appears to be a gross misunderstanding in reading the GIA lab reports, previously issued before the cut grade was added.
Buying a stone with excellent symmetry and excellent polish has virtually nothing to do with the proportions of the diamond reported on by GIA.
What the experts are talking about here in this thread, is the blatant reporting of supplying rounded up proportions which sometimes will report a cut grade erroneously. Yet on the new GIA reports it is stated that the proportion measurements are actual. ACTUAL DOES NOT MEAN ROUNDED UP.
For those of you that have the "old GIA report" the excellent polish and symmetry may reconcile with AGS''s Ideal ratings but not necessarilly.
The cut grade that GIA is coming out with is proportion based, which differs from AGS''s method of determining light performance.
But both labs state on the front of the report that the diamond should be valued by a credentialed gemologist or appraiser. There are reasons for this. READ BETWEEN the lines to figure out the meaning as to why that is put on there.
If you have a GIA report on a stone that has been graded by GIA recently, they can issue you one of the newer type reports with their cut grade. However, in that the cut grade is based on insigificant proportion measurements how accurate is that cut grade. When you have diamonds that are really cut superbly getting grades of good or fair, something is very much askew. So by even getting an amended new cut grade style report may not mean much to the consumer who seeks accurate information in their grading report.
For those consumers shopping now, if accuracy of the proortional fact and light return are an issue, start with the AGS report, and then consider review by an indepenent appraiser/gemologist.
In late April or possibly in May AGS''s software for light return analysis will be made available. The desktop ASET is already in use by a handfull of experts, which tells a lot about the stone, in a way more advanced than the Firescope/Ideal Scope etc.
The experts here are all concerned about the affect the GIA Cut grading "scheme" will play out. The best way to encourage change of this is for consumers to consider diamonds which have the AGS report, or either have the seller submit GIA graded stones to AGS, or the appraiser of your choice.
Rockdoc
Rockdoc
sylvesterii
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2002
- Messages
- 295
I for one would love to help in any way that I can. Even though I am not in the gemological field, I am currently finishing my law school training. While I cannot practice law yet, since I still have a year and a half, and a bar review to go, if there are any attorneys that would need clerk-type help, I''d be more than willing to throw in my hat to help out for free. (not even sure if there is any legal action that would result, but if there is, I want to help.)
on a side note, as for certification of a class action, it is quite complex as roc doc alluded to above. but it is NOT just the lawyers who make money on them. For one, they are massively complex to manage, and will often take many years to complete, taking up entire firms worth of attorneys to complete. While there are significant problems that result from this very strange system of law suits, but it is not solely "evil lawyers" profiting off of those who really deserve the money. In many situations the money received is a penalty in nature, and not actually due somebody for damages. The classes are quite regularly extremely large, and allow people who would normally have absolutely no access to legal services at all to get at least something (albeit maybe only $100 bucks) the more important part of class action lawsuits really relates to what they accomplish. They are less about those who are seeking retribution and more about using civil proceedings to bring about change and penalize those who may be practicing unfairly.
As for a class action suit against GIA for their grading techniques...I don''t know, it would be interesting to see if it would work out...
also, class actions would not even be an option unless you could get like 20 different cutters together (or more) that are being misgraded for their techniques, however, a regular law suit could be more in order...
- Status
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)