DeBeers grading lab

[denverappraiser]

For those who haven’t heard, DeBeers is in the lab business.


http://www.jckonline.com/blog/Cutting_Remarks/16050-De_Beers_Gets_Into_the_Lab_Business.php


This has actually been going on for several years, the above article was written in 2008, but it seems to be stepping into a higher gear. This business is mostly outside of the US because of the company’s troubles with the government here but they seem to be working it out and I expect to see more. I’m curious what you all think.


The DeBeers name is synonymous with diamonds and has been for a century. They may actually have a better brand recognition than GIA. Does that make them uniquely qualified or is it a gigantic conflict of interest? Must a lab be independent to be credible? (Note: Tiffany has been grading their own stuff for years with few objections. Is this different?)


Is the DeBeers brand a feature?

GIA has faced an assortment of competition in the last few decades including IGI, EGL, AGS, HRD, GCAL and others and have come out the hands down winner but they’ve never faced a competitor like this. DeBeers has big money, near endless patience, and enormous might to push around. I heard yesterday that they are requiring siteholders to use the lab for a certain percentage of their goods as a condition of remaining a siteholder for example. Yikes. Is the lab business as we know it about to change yet again?

 

[kenny]

Horrible conflict of interest!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Interesting discussion Neil!
I just got off the phone with a good buddy of mine who happens to be a large siteholder.
My understanding:
Basically, the DeBeers lab grades their own branded Firemark diamonds.
If a siteholder carries the brand, they are indeed bound to use the proprietary lab for those particular diamonds.
BUT- siteholders are not forced to carry the brand. My buddy does not, for example- so he does not use the DeBeers lab

The thought of DeBeers forcing cutters to use any given lab for "normal" diamonds is certainly a scary one.

 

[ame]

Conflict of interest, for sure. I feel the same about Tiffany in that they grade many of their own stones.

 

[OCgirl]

I am not sure if this is relevant but...
I own a pendant that I bought from the De Beers retail store. The solitaire stone is close to 0.80 ct. It's graded by De Beers internally (it came with a "diamond passport"). It did not come with any other reports (GIA...).
My engagement ring is a G graded by AGS (and appraised by an independent appraiser). My pendant is an H graded by DB. I am not an appraiser or expert but I am sure the color of my pendant is not one grade off. I mean it's a beautifully cut diamond. But it's definitely over-priced (brand premium) and "loosely graded".
I don't know what that translates to

 

[OCgirl]

Conflict of interest, for sure. I feel the same about Tiffany in that they grade many of their own stones.

That's why I am curious to know if Tiffany's gradings are always consistent with GIA's.
Their rings don't get sent to GIA unless requested by the buyer?

 

[GirlyGirl]

Conflict of interest, for sure. I feel the same about Tiffany in that they grade many of their own stones.

That's why I am curious to know if Tiffany's gradings are always consistent with GIA's.
Their rings don't get sent to GIA unless requested by the buyer?

I think Tiffany has duel grading with GIA for diamonds over 1 ct.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Remember, diamond grading is subjective- therefore the same diamond submitted twice to GIA may get different results. Generally if it does come back different, it's usually an adjacent grade( ie...got a D yesterday, but an E today)

Tiffany does have a pretty good reputation for accuracy on their self graded stones. But give the subjective nature, it's not possible they'll always be the same as GIA.

 

[kenny]

Conflict of interest, for sure. I feel the same about Tiffany in that they grade many of their own stones.

That's why I am curious to know if Tiffany's gradings are always consistent with GIA's.
Their rings don't get sent to GIA unless requested by the buyer?

I think Tiffany has duel grading with GIA for diamonds over 1 ct.

Duel grading?

I'm believe you meant dual grading but, actually, "duel grading" may be more accurate.

 

[Karl_K]

Conflict of interest, for sure. I feel the same about Tiffany in that they grade many of their own stones.

ditto
What is the point of a biased grading report?

 

[kenny]

Conflict of interest, for sure. I feel the same about Tiffany in that they grade many of their own stones.

ditto
What is the point of a biased grading report?

Getting even more money from uninformed people.

 

[Christina...]

Conflict of interest, for sure. I feel the same about Tiffany in that they grade many of their own stones.

ditto
What is the point of a biased grading report?

+1

 

[isoe]

I was actually curious about this very issue! (Finally, I have something to contribute to the boards!! )

When I first asked for the GIA report on the center diamond of a DeBeers engagement ring, the DeBeers Senior Brand Ambassador who was helping me responded, "I would have loved to send the GIA certificate to you, but unfortunately they are for read only at the store. All diamonds 1 carat and up come with GIA Certificate where the originals are mailed out after purchase..."

Not knowing what that meant, I specifically asked 1) whether the diamond was GIA graded and 2)if it was, how I might be able to view the grading report, to which the representative responded, "Diamonds under a carat have De Beers Institute certification (the booklet I showed you, De Beers passport) we can also provide you with a Valuation report/Appraisal. If we go to 1 carat and above, then they are accompanied with a GIA certificate and De Beers Passport."

This certainly could present a conflict or interest, especially in the grading of color and clarity as nearly all DeBeers engagement rings are pre-set.

But, what about the other two C's, carat and cut? Are these C's relatively safe??
-Could there be significant variance between two laboratories' weight measurements of the same diamond? (Is there any reasonable possibility that a 0.95 carat solitaire might be sold as a 1.00 carat? Or even worse, a 1.95 as a 2.00? etc.)
-Could a diamond's cut measurements/ratios also be susceptible to subjective grading? (Any ideas on how a grading lab could systematically fudge these numbers to their preference?)

--Iohan

 

[denverappraiser]

If they’re just grading their own branded stuff I don’t actually have much of an issue with it. Most dealers do this and it serves some of the same function as a sales receipt. It’s not ‘independent’ but it’s not claimed either. My impression is that they’re wishing to get into the lab business, where you’re buying stones at your local jeweler, department store, or online dealer where you’ll see a DeBeers branded ‘certificate’ and they’re going to use their might as a mining giant to promote it. That would be a major shift in the way the lab business works.

David, thanks for the insight from your siteholder friend.

 

[Rockdiamond]

You're welcome Neil- thanks for bringing up the subject.I don't know how well DeBeer's retail efforts are doing- which could be related.
Has anyone heard reports on DeBeer's retail venture?

 

[2023]

Denverappraiser,

You quoted this in your first post

"GIA has faced an assortment of competition in the last few decades including IGI, EGL, AGS, HRD, GCAL and others and have come out the hands down winner but they’ve never faced a competitor like this. DeBeers has big money, near endless patience, and enormous might to push around. I heard yesterday that they are requiring siteholders to use the lab for a certain percentage of their goods as a condition of remaining a siteholder for example. Yikes. Is the lab business as we know it about to change yet again?"

Can I ask why you believe GIA came out the hands down winner?

The talks on this forum favour shallower pavilions, hence eliminating many GIA ex stones and also discuss that AGS do further studies on their stones to predict light performance hence no need to be eliminated by the HCA if they are AGS ideal.

I got into a bit of a debate unfortunately, with the fact that the HCA rejects stones at 41.2 pav angles 34 crown, but yet gave excellent scores to stones at 40.4 pav angles, 34 crown and I may have gone against the grain of most in this forum.

I understood both labs see the stone and look at them in person - however from this site understand AGS0 do more light performance testing. On the other hand I have also heard with regards to colour and clarity GIA can be more strict.

Hence my question is why do you believe GIA is the winner? Is it market domination, is AGS simply a competitor trying to find their niche? Are the labs evolving?

Hope to hear your opinion.

 

[denverappraiser]

A quick search of all stones in the database here from 1.0-1.50cts GIAxxx shows 958 listings at the moment.
The same search shows 47 AGS000's.

That suggests GIA is outselling AGS on the order of 20:1. Actually I think it's more than that because AGS1's and 2's are basically non-existant and there are nearly as many GIA-vg's out there as GIA-x's.

It's a little harder to do the stats on IGI because their big market is the chain stores, not the internet, and they actually do quite a bit of work. If anyone has given GIA a run for their money it's them but the brand loyalty that GIA enjoys is leaps and bounds above theirs, at least in the US.