Does HRD have a chance in the US??

[Modified Brilliant]

oh yeah, good to see ya John

Jeff Averbook,GG
Graduate Gemologist since 1986

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

To grab marketshare from a well-established competitor is a huge job, and HRD will certainly experience this in the U.S. Especially if it is unclear in which way they are better than the market-leader.

On top of that, considering the various trading levels (cutter-wholesaler-retailer-consumer), it is very clear which level dictates the demand for a specific lab.

In the case of HRD, New York wholesalers probably never had a problem in buying HRD-graded stones in Antwerp. So, why did they not really show up in the stores. My guess is that, with HRD being slightly stricter in the high colours, it paid of for the New Yorkers to buy them based on the HRD-grade and get them re-graded to GIA (or others).

Live long,

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/21/2008 5:34:22 PM
Author: John Pollard
DG and Todd, I’m going to try and answer both questions.

Date: 5/21/2008 1:32:50 PM
Author: DiaGem

John..., whats your opinion..., do you think the fact that GIA has become such a strong ''brand''..., is good or bad for the people?

Lets not forget GIA is still a gemological laboratory..., the GIA Diamonds are not supposed do be looked upon as a brand! (at least thats what I see it as...)

But I may be wrong...

When a shopper takes a typical department store to mall jeweler to middle-market journey the first grading reports he/she encounters will likely be from IGI and EGL; statistically the most abundant in commercial markets. Continuing into neighborhood jewelers, diamond districts and Jared-like chains one begins to hear, more and more frequently, that GIA is the most respected lab. The more they shop the stronger this message comes through.

GIA has done such a superb job of building name-recognition that even sellers without GIA reports must grit their teeth and admit that GIA GTL is “the standard” when asked. If they don’t they will look foolish, because it’s one of the only consistent pieces of information consumers get.

I would say I feel the word "consistent" is being challenged while we write these words...

So, to answer your question DG, I think the more research people do the more they come to view labs as a “brand” (for better or worse). On the positive side I feel that, recent troubles notwithstanding, GIA has historically been a good ornament for our masthead. On the negative side we have to be careful because any empire invites corruption - and GIA has certainly not proven immune.

I think a "major" negative-fault thats is happening right now is the GIA''s quiet attempt to use their (name-recognition) power to enforce some sort of exclusivity of their professional opinions and on the other side not willing to take legal responsibility to back these opinions!

Thats why we recently hear to many complaints that sound like... Strmrdr wrote above:

"...useless cut grade
bribery scandal and not enough being done about it.
Possible changing standards with color grade lighting but im not sure if it is enough to matter.
No ongoing training requirement for a G.G. hurts consumers.
inconsistent cut naming and diagrams
lack of notice that measurements are largely rounded on reports.
lack of transparency.
little boys club mentality..."

And more......, and the absurd of the matter..., no one at GIA is willing to listen..., after all..., "....GIA has done such a superb job of building name-recognition..."

History proved that bigger empires fell....

 

[niceice]

Date: 5/21/2008 10:12:42 PM
Author: Modified Brilliant
GCAL has been aggressively marketing their reports at every trade show and and seem to show up at every industry sponsored event. They are producing a very comprehensive report but still lack consumer recognition. Money spent on advertising and marketing doesn''t always spell immediate success.

I have no confidence in GCAL, but my disgust with that company and their parent company stem from my personal opinion that they lack scruples as many corporations do these days... and I want to make it clear that this is merely my personal opinion and it is based on my experience as one of the dealers who built up the reputation and demand for Gemprint. Many diamond dealers and appraisers purchased Gemprint machines to provide our clients with fingerprint type identification services which were sold to us under the premise that the registration fees which our clients paid for included lifetime registration and verification services. When most companies purchase another company, they have the moral and ethical base to recognize that they have a responsibility to honor the contracts held by the company which they purchase and they value the relationship which that company has with dealers who have been established for many years. GCAL on the other hand, immediately terminated all existing dealer contracts, failed to provide support, attempted to invoice us for services not rendered (in the form of future services which the had the audacity to assume that we would use from their laboratory and threatened collection action when refused to pay their invoice because we had no intention of ever using their services) and left us holding a five pound paperweight labeled Gemprint which is useless for all intents and purposes since the software requires periodic verification with the Gemprint server to remain functional. The proposal which GCAL offered as a solution to brushing all existing Gemprint dealers aside was a discount on their lab services - as if! I''m sorry, but we do business with companies which we TRUST; and call me strange, but I don''t trust a company which kick starts itself by starting off by kicking existing dealers to the curb.

I also have to wonder how truly impartial a laboratory is when they seem to rely on the grading system of a client as opposed to their own standards (wait, maybe the sellers grading standards ARE the grading standards for GCAL?). Does anybody see anything curious about the Cut, Polish and Symmetry grades on this screen shot from a GCAL report? How about the BN at the beginning of the lab report number? Does anybody think for a second that an independent laboratory such as the GIA or AGS would ever DREAM of using "Nice Ice Ideal" for the Cut, Symmetry or Polish grades? Would anybody care to guess what Peter Yantzer at the AGS would, uh, scream at me if I had the audacity to suggest that one? Or how about if I simply want "NI"3256897 for the lab report number instead of AGS or GIA? And the slogan for GCAL is "Integrity Guaranteed"? Are you kidding me?!?!

 

[niceice]

By the way, for those who don''t know it, GCAL is a subsidiary of Collectors Universe which is also the parent company for American Gemological Laboratory (not AGS) and Certified Diamond Exchange. The way that Collectors Universe handled the Gemprint dealers after purchasing the company has left me with a really bad taste in my mouth with anything connected to them, I really don''t think we could ever rely on the services of any of their ventures.

 

[John P]

Date: 5/21/2008 10:12:42 PM
Author: Modified Brilliant
GCAL has been aggressively marketing their reports at every trade show and and seem to show up
at every industry sponsored event. They are producing a very comprehensive report but still lack consumer
recognition. Money spent on advertising and marketing doesn''t always spell immediate success.

What does it take to instill confidence in the consumer with regard to diamond grading reports?
What methods will the consumer use to sort it all out?
How will ''Joe or Josephine Average Consumer'' be able to determine an accurate report from a not so accurate report?
And who will enforce standards and accuracy?

Just wonderin''

Jeff Averbook,GG
Graduate Gemologist since 1986

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

Good example of an aggressive marketing campaign. I think you''re right; targeting the trade is obviously an important step but consumer demand is what drives change.

As for accurate versus not accurate, confidence etc, it''s an uphill climb: Many new shoppers presume trade standards are regulated to begin with (color, clarity, etc) ... kind of like the USDA ensures we don''t eat bad meat ... and are shocked to find out they''re not.

 

[strmrdr]

The main thing is that myself and anyone I am helping buy a diamond all any lab report is useful for is an opinion on color and clarity and some basic measurements to get started.
As far as that goes GIA is pretty much about as good as it gets considering how bad the grading system is. (tie with AGS) so even with all its faults GIA reports still do what I need them to do.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/22/2008 11:56:39 AM
Author: niceice
By the way, for those who don''t know it, GCAL is a subsidiary of Collectors Universe which is also the parent company for American Gemological Laboratory (not AGS) and Certified Diamond Exchange. The way that Collectors Universe handled the Gemprint dealers after purchasing the company has left me with a really bad taste in my mouth with anything connected to them, I really don''t think we could ever rely on the services of any of their ventures.

The only way I would consider gcal is if it is backed up by either a vendor or an appraiser that I trust to verify the grading and that is a very short list.
As far as that goes I could say the same with AGS and GIA but more so with the 3rd and 4th string labs.
Trust but verify.

 

[niceice]

Date: 5/22/2008 12:27:53 PM
Author: John Pollard
As for accurate versus not accurate, confidence etc, it''s an uphill climb: Many new shoppers presume trade standards are regulated to begin with (color, clarity, etc) ... kind of like the USDA ensures we don''t eat bad meat ... and are shocked to find out they''re not.

Bad Meat... Yup, that''s exactly the taste that Collectors Universe and GCAL left in my mouth. Pat-too-wheee! Thwapp!

 

[haider]

Couldn''t agree with you more GIA is Global. Go into the shops in the UK, AGS no-ones heard of it. Suppose it''s like HRD in the States...

 

[John P]

Date: 5/22/2008 7:18:37 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/21/2008 5:34:22 PM
Author: John Pollard
DG and Todd, I’m going to try and answer both questions.

Date: 5/21/2008 1:32:50 PM
Author: DiaGem

John..., whats your opinion..., do you think the fact that GIA has become such a strong ''brand''..., is good or bad for the people?

Lets not forget GIA is still a gemological laboratory..., the GIA Diamonds are not supposed do be looked upon as a brand! (at least thats what I see it as...)

But I may be wrong...

When a shopper takes a typical department store to mall jeweler to middle-market journey the first grading reports he/she encounters will likely be from IGI and EGL; statistically the most abundant in commercial markets. Continuing into neighborhood jewelers, diamond districts and Jared-like chains one begins to hear, more and more frequently, that GIA is the most respected lab. The more they shop the stronger this message comes through.

GIA has done such a superb job of building name-recognition that even sellers without GIA reports must grit their teeth and admit that GIA GTL is “the standard” when asked. If they don’t they will look foolish, because it’s one of the only consistent pieces of information consumers get.

I would say I feel the word ''consistent'' is being challenged while we write these words...

But challenged to who? Trade discussions are confined to the trade.

Jewelers who sell GIA graded diamonds are not going to pass out the latest bulletin from Chaim Evan-Zohar to clients in their store. Places selling softer-than-GIA might be tempted to bring up the issues with clients except (1) they would be swimming upstream and look like ''sour grapes'' with such criticism (2) the principal of the store may be "Gurn Blanston GG (GIA)" ...and Gurn may not want to sully his own credentials by association and (3) many of the people on such showroom floors may have been working at Orange Julius last week and have no clue about all this, even if it was brought up.

And more......, and the absurd of the matter..., no one at GIA is willing to listen..., after all..., ''....GIA has done such a superb job of building name-recognition...''

While I agree that ivory tower syndrome seemed to be in place for some time I don''t know that it was unilateral and I wonder if some kind of reality check hasn''t been cashed in Carlsbad, per "listening."

Scandal aside, there are good, solid researchers at the lab pushing for more transparency and communication with the outside. At the Seattle AGS Conclave in April the two premier labs teamed up to present their respective cut grading systems and how they compare: Diane Flora, Peter Yantzer, Al Gilbertson and Tom Moses gave histories of the systems and made direct, written, open comparisons. Following the presentation there was an hour-long session just to field questions from the audience. It was unique and I hope we see more of that kind of thing.

 

[John P]

Apart from permeating the trade-level with education, publications and take-in windows in many parts of the word, GIA is also aggressively working to be visible to end-users. These blotters, counter-pads, brochures and "how to buy" CDs are going to dealers for the purpose of being visible to consumers.

 

[John P]

Here is a topic-tangent: Has anyone else seen the IGI advertisements on intercontinental flights? Commercials targeting consumers - reminiscent of the DTC commercials we see stateside.





Also, Jeff and Todd, I found a photo from GCAL''s marketing campaign at the JCK Convention a year or so ago.
You''re right. They are aggressive.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2008 1:19:37 PM
Author: John Pollard
But challenged to who? Trade discussions are confined to the trade.

Jewelers who sell GIA graded diamonds are not going to pass out the latest bulletin from Chaim Evan-Zohar to clients in their store. Places selling softer-than-GIA might be tempted to bring up the issues with clients except (1) they would be swimming upstream and look like ''sour grapes'' with such criticism (2) the principal of the store may be ''Gurn Blanston GG (GIA)'' ...and Gurn may not want to sully his own credentials by association and (3) many of the people on such showroom floors may have been working at Orange Julius last week and have no clue about all this, even if it was brought up.

Youre not on the same path with me..., I am not talking gossip! I am talking inconsistency in grading results!

 

[John P]

Date: 5/22/2008 2:43:23 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/22/2008 1:19:37 PM
Author: John Pollard
But challenged to who? Trade discussions are confined to the trade.

Jewelers who sell GIA graded diamonds are not going to pass out the latest bulletin from Chaim Evan-Zohar to clients in their store. Places selling softer-than-GIA might be tempted to bring up the issues with clients except (1) they would be swimming upstream and look like 'sour grapes' with such criticism (2) the principal of the store may be 'Gurn Blanston GG (GIA)' ...and Gurn may not want to sully his own credentials by association and (3) many of the people on such showroom floors may have been working at Orange Julius last week and have no clue about all this, even if it was brought up.

Youre not on the same path with me..., I am not talking gossip! I am talking inconsistency in grading results!

I don't think the filters change though, DG. Aren't your words interchangeable?

Jewelers who sell GIA graded diamonds are not going to talk about inconsistency in grading results to clients in their store. Places selling softer-than-GIA might be tempted to bring up the issues with clients except ... (per above)

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2008 3:04:48 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 5/22/2008 2:43:23 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/22/2008 1:19:37 PM
Author: John Pollard
But challenged to who? Trade discussions are confined to the trade.

Jewelers who sell GIA graded diamonds are not going to pass out the latest bulletin from Chaim Evan-Zohar to clients in their store. Places selling softer-than-GIA might be tempted to bring up the issues with clients except (1) they would be swimming upstream and look like ''sour grapes'' with such criticism (2) the principal of the store may be ''Gurn Blanston GG (GIA)'' ...and Gurn may not want to sully his own credentials by association and (3) many of the people on such showroom floors may have been working at Orange Julius last week and have no clue about all this, even if it was brought up.

Youre not on the same path with me..., I am not talking gossip! I am talking inconsistency in grading results!

I don''t think the filters change though, DG. Aren''t your words interchangeable?

Jewelers who sell GIA graded diamonds are not going to talk about inconsistency in grading results to clients in their store. Places selling softer-than-GIA might be tempted to bring up the issues with clients except ... (per above)

Well I see it a bit different..., if inconsistency in grading does exists..., it will trickle up from cutters to dealers to wholesalers and eventually will reach the "clients" of those jewelers...

I guess only time will tell...

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2008 11:56:39 AM
Author: niceice
By the way, for those who don''t know it, GCAL is a subsidiary of Collectors Universe which is also the parent company for American Gemological Laboratory (not AGS) and Certified Diamond Exchange. The way that Collectors Universe handled the Gemprint dealers after purchasing the company has left me with a really bad taste in my mouth with anything connected to them, I really don''t think we could ever rely on the services of any of their ventures.

Is it still Cap Beesley running the show?

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2008 12:41:52 PM
Author: strmrdr
The main thing is that myself and anyone I am helping buy a diamond all any lab report is useful for is an opinion on color and clarity and some basic measurements to get started.
As far as that goes GIA is pretty much about as good as it gets considering how bad the grading system is. (tie with AGS) so even with all its faults GIA reports still do what I need them to do.

A question I meant to ask..., how accurate are the measurements (not only mm. and %''s) recorded by these labs?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/22/2008 3:39:40 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/22/2008 12:41:52 PM
Author: strmrdr
The main thing is that myself and anyone I am helping buy a diamond all any lab report is useful for is an opinion on color and clarity and some basic measurements to get started.
As far as that goes GIA is pretty much about as good as it gets considering how bad the grading system is. (tie with AGS) so even with all its faults GIA reports still do what I need them to do.

A question I meant to ask..., how accurate are the measurements (not only mm. and %''s) recorded by these labs?

Leaving mm and % out of it because the rounding makes that a joke....
since there is no legaly defined standard for color or clarity that is impossible to answer.
All you can really do is compare one labs results to another.
What I have seen places GIA/AGS on par with each other.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2008 7:21:27 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/22/2008 3:39:40 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/22/2008 12:41:52 PM
Author: strmrdr
The main thing is that myself and anyone I am helping buy a diamond all any lab report is useful for is an opinion on color and clarity and some basic measurements to get started.
As far as that goes GIA is pretty much about as good as it gets considering how bad the grading system is. (tie with AGS) so even with all its faults GIA reports still do what I need them to do.

A question I meant to ask..., how accurate are the measurements (not only mm. and %''s) recorded by these labs?

Leaving mm and % out of it because the rounding makes that a joke....
since there is no legaly defined standard for color or clarity that is impossible to answer.
All you can really do is compare one labs results to another.
What I have seen places GIA/AGS on par with each other.

I am a bit confused on this issue I must admit....

I have yet seen a decent "true" and absolute scan of measurements and proportions of a fancy shaped Diamond! (especially when it came to angle measurements!)...

In symmetrical Princess/Radiant cuts I never checked as I never realy handle those!

So when reading this thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/sarin-numbers-or-aset-image-better-tool-to-assess-quality.85828/ I realy get confused how JP and others sound that these scans are 100% on the money!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/23/2008 12:55:55 AM
Author: DiaGem
I am a bit confused on this issue I must admit....

I have yet seen a decent ''true'' and absolute scan of measurements and proportions of a fancy shaped Diamond! (especially when it came to angle measurements!)...

In symmetrical Princess/Radiant cuts I never checked as I never realy handle those!

So when reading this thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/sarin-numbers-or-aset-image-better-tool-to-assess-quality.85828/ I realy get confused how JP and others sound that these scans are 100% on the money!

there is a huge difference between being close on a average value for 8 facets and being able to produce an accurate model from the data.
Call up Jon @ gog and or Garry and talk to him about their experience with both would be your best bet as we are getting into an area that is beyond a board discussion.
From what I have seen with almost anything you cut the helium would spank the sarin.
With rounds its good enough with princess its decent with anything else go helium.
You have to be comparing the top end sarin with all the latest updates too and both machines properly calibrated..

 

[John P]

Date: 5/23/2008 12:55:55 AM
Author: DiaGem
I am a bit confused on this issue I must admit....

I have yet seen a decent ''true'' and absolute scan of measurements and proportions of a fancy shaped Diamond! (especially when it came to angle measurements!)...

In symmetrical Princess/Radiant cuts I never checked as I never realy handle those!

So when reading this thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/sarin-numbers-or-aset-image-better-tool-to-assess-quality.85828/ I realy get confused how JP and others sound that these scans are 100% on the money!

DiaGem no measuring device is 100%. I don’t think I ever stated that – please show me where I did (?)

Take carat weight: Variations in elevation which increase the distance from the center of the earth and variations in latitude (slight error caused by the centrifugal force of the earth spinning) influence results in the thousandth column. Do we lose sleep over the third decimal? No, because it’s beyond human cognition and becomes a matter of semantics.

I think further comments on this subject are more applicable to the thread you linked, so I’ll make them there.

 

[strmrdr]

I think that the main thing DiaGem is talking about other than the scanner chat is the same frustration that Paul expresses with AGS in this article:
http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/38/1/The-intricacies-and-risks-of-diamond-cutting.aspx

Unexpected results from the lab cost Paul a lot of money.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/23/2008 3:13:06 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 5/23/2008 12:55:55 AM
Author: DiaGem
I am a bit confused on this issue I must admit....

I have yet seen a decent ''true'' and absolute scan of measurements and proportions of a fancy shaped Diamond! (especially when it came to angle measurements!)...

In symmetrical Princess/Radiant cuts I never checked as I never realy handle those!

So when reading this thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/sarin-numbers-or-aset-image-better-tool-to-assess-quality.85828/ I realy get confused how JP and others sound that these scans are 100% on the money!

DiaGem no measuring device is 100%. I don’t think I ever stated that – please show me where I did (?)

Take carat weight: Variations in elevation which increase the distance from the center of the earth and variations in latitude (slight error caused by the centrifugal force of the earth spinning) influence results in the thousandth column. Do we lose sleep over the third decimal? No, because it’s beyond human cognition and becomes a matter of semantics.

I think further comments on this subject are more applicable to the thread you linked, so I’ll make them there.

John..., I never meant to imply you "stated" anything..., sorry if it came sounding that way

.

This discussion just brings me back to past discussions regarding how accurate is AGS non-rounding vs. GIA rounding etc..etc...
I am kinda new to this whole high-tech ''stuff'' for the purpose of judging, estimating, grading etc..., etc... Diamonds!
I cut and manually measured (still am actually) my Diamonds when was necessary..., and when I started to scan and compare..., I was amazed at the differences between the true #''s and the technically measured ones!

I kinda understand (and it makes more sense to me) why GIA are rounding numbers..., and it puts (some sort of) a question mark on the actual decisions made on cut grades by AGS due to the nano-differences which could call, set or change the grade! Especially when there is no full accuracy in scanned measurements..., (again..., I might be wrong..., but common sense...

)

Recently when I cut the "Monster Asscher" together with Strmrdr..., I had to manually measure the step-facet angles as Sarin, Ogi or FacetWare where way-WAY off the correct angles I incorporated on the Diamond design! And it was a known standard shape (cut cornered square) and facet structure (classic 49 facet EC [not including the 8 girdle planes]!!!)

Makes you wonder on what basis the AGS grade cut on SEC or EC!?!?

Maybe Helium does a more accurate job (I dont know..., maybe even 100% accurate??)

 

[oldminer]

The scans from the best, recent Sarin devices and the Helium are going to be the most accurate of the commonly used measuring tools. They exceed what hand tools can do by quite a margin and are much more repeatable. My Dr. friend at ImaGem, Inc tell me his measuring device has the edge on accuracy over all the tools currently in use including Sarin and Helium becuase of his patent protected apporach to measurement verification and accuracy control. His device measures from the sides AND from the top view which no other device can do. By getting a top view one knows with great certainty the exact length and width of a diamond. Using only a side view one does not consistently get correct width and length measures. You get repeatable measures, but not accurate ones. There is a difference. By confirming the girdle outline with great precision furthers the cause of proper overall measurement. (This is what I have been told. I have no hard proof. However, if anyone really wants all the measures with truly high accuracy, I suggest asking ImaGem for a test on a few known sample stones. They may be willing to show how good their technology is to someone who can potentially use it.) ImaGem will be displaying at JCK-Las Vegas this year, so folks in the trade who might wish to discuss this with Dr. Aggarwal can find their booth in one of the ET&S pavillion ballrooms.

For my purposes, the up to date Sarin does a very sufficient job and I am certain Helium does a fine job, too. We try not to round off any numeric results as rounding does not increase accuracy although it falsely increases apparent repeatability. I''d rather simply have the best numbers and get honest yet slightly different results on occasion.

Anone who wants to stop by my DGLA booth can see me at 62507, also in the same ET&S pavillion.
I''m on my way to Las Vegas tomorrow morning. Taking a nice cycle ride to the show.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/23/2008 7:35:30 AM
Author: oldminer
The scans from the best, recent Sarin devices and the Helium are going to be the most accurate of the commonly used measuring tools. They exceed what hand tools can do by quite a margin and are much more repeatable. My Dr. friend at ImaGem, Inc tell me his measuring device has the edge on accuracy over all the tools currently in use including Sarin and Helium becuase of his patent protected apporach to measurement verification and accuracy control. His device measures from the sides AND from the top view which no other device can do. By getting a top view one knows with great certainty the exact length and width of a diamond. Using only a side view one does not consistently get correct width and length measures. You get repeatable measures, but not accurate ones. There is a difference. By confirming the girdle outline with great precision furthers the cause of proper overall measurement. (This is what I have been told. I have no hard proof. However, if anyone really wants all the measures with truly high accuracy, I suggest asking ImaGem for a test on a few known sample stones. They may be willing to show how good their technology is to someone who can potentially use it.) ImaGem will be displaying at JCK-Las Vegas this year, so folks in the trade who might wish to discuss this with Dr. Aggarwal can find their booth in one of the ET&S pavillion ballrooms.

For my purposes, the up to date Sarin does a very sufficient job and I am certain Helium does a fine job, too. We try not to round off any numeric results as rounding does not increase accuracy although it falsely increases apparent repeatability. I''d rather simply have the best numbers and get honest yet slightly different results on occasion.

Anone who wants to stop by my DGLA booth can see me at 62507, also in the same ET&S pavillion.
I''m on my way to Las Vegas tomorrow morning. Taking a nice cycle ride to the show.

Well..., the scan numbers where WAY off when I used it several times (I am talking angle degrees, not mm.)
It was not a difference of fractions..., it was a difference of degrees and/with a miss-match to the actual facets!

Here are the scanned #''s:

Here were my actual and correct (error possibility of +/- 0.2) manual measurements:

 

[John P]

Date: 5/23/2008 7:17:18 AM
Author: DiaGem
John..., I never meant to imply you 'stated' anything..., sorry if it came sounding that way

.

This discussion just brings me back to past discussions regarding how accurate is AGS non-rounding vs. GIA rounding etc..etc... I am kinda new to this whole high-tech 'stuff' for the purpose of judging, estimating, grading etc..., etc... Diamonds! I cut and manually measured (still am actually) my Diamonds when was necessary..., and when I started to scan and compare..., I was amazed at the differences between the true #'s and the technically measured ones!

Thanks DG. I get the design angle you're coming from since it was clarified in yonder thread.

I'd like to climb down from the nano-tech and just talk about the labs and grading:

When a scan goes beyond human cognition it is, by definition, accurate enough to place a stone within a grade. You posted a bad scan from somewhere but I presume it was not executed by a grading lab. The fourteen scan examples I posted were all from AGS and demonstrated accuracy beyond human ability. Do you have any such examples showing contrary output? If not I don't think you can make presumptions about their equipment/operators.

I agree that bad scans are rife in this business. Like you, I developed concerns about the "numbers of authority" coming from the labs using scanners. Taking a page from the advice I give students ("Please complain to someone who can solve your problem")

I lit a candle and started directing my queries to the lab-guys directly, rather than cursing the darkness. If you want to know more I suggest you contact them. There are fine people at either lab who would be happy to provide answers.

Lest you think I’m a willy-nilly scanner-lover I’m really not: Prior to this month Infinity has employed a third-party to do the scans. Their princess imaging has ranged from horrible to reasonable. Meanwhile our collective experience is telling us that care and precise manipulation is necessary to maximize results, so the third party is not being used anymore and we are going to do them in-house. I’ll let you know how it goes, but based on my years with WF if we begin using the same procedures & equipment as the labs do the results will be of much higher quality.

I kinda understand (and it makes more sense to me) why GIA are rounding numbers..., and it puts (some sort of) a question mark on the actual decisions made on cut grades by AGS due to the nano-differences which could call, set or change the grade! Especially when there is no full accuracy in scanned measurements..., (again..., I might be wrong..., but common sense...

)

If it were like carat weight, where a confident 1.25 is reported instead of a weak 1.253 I might agree. But it's wholly different (next post).

Maybe Helium does a more accurate job (I dont know..., maybe even 100% accurate??)

Helium's published error is better than 10 microns. Sarin's is +/- 20 microns.

It's like a 102 MPH fastball compared to a 101 MPH fastball. Helium is better. Both get the job done.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/23/2008 9:12:45 PM
Author: John Pollard


Helium''s published error is better than 10 microns. Sarin''s is +/- 20 microns.

It''s like a 102 MPH fastball compared to a 101 MPH fastball. Helium is better. Both get the job done.

Real world on fancies and complex step cuts in particular its more like a 102MPH fastball compared to a softball pitch.

 

[John P]

Helium was better from the outset on closer angles (like painted break facets). Per Serg, side view scanners have problems with edges between facets w/ angles < 3-7 steps and/or the difference between projection of two edges from one facet < 0.5 pixel. My money is on him and Garry to crack it.

By the book, though, Sarin and Octonus make no such distinctions officially. If you want serious teeth maybe you should consider speaking to Jim Caudill (the jedi-master of both Sarin & Helium & thousands of examples) to get more concrete stats for your bailiwick than softy or fasty.

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 5/22/2008 12:27:53 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 5/21/2008 10:12:42 PM
Author: Modified Brilliant
GCAL has been aggressively marketing their reports at every trade show and and seem to show up
at every industry sponsored event. They are producing a very comprehensive report but still lack consumer
recognition. Money spent on advertising and marketing doesn''t always spell immediate success.

What does it take to instill confidence in the consumer with regard to diamond grading reports?
What methods will the consumer use to sort it all out?
How will ''Joe or Josephine Average Consumer'' be able to determine an accurate report from a not so accurate report?
And who will enforce standards and accuracy?

Just wonderin''

Jeff Averbook,GG
Graduate Gemologist since 1986

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

Good example of an aggressive marketing campaign. I think you''re right; targeting the trade is obviously an important step but consumer demand is what drives change.

This is true.......but who influences customer demand? Trusted dealers.......still.

The thing that''s always plagued the jewelry industry is lack of transparency. Diamonds didn''t become the standard for engagement stones until the late 1930s DeBeers campaign. The campaign drove interest in the product, but I''d imagine consumers then felt much as consumers often still do today....confounded at how to feel confident in their purchase judgment without product knowledge.

When GIA began issuing diamond grading reports in 1955, I''d guess that must have been an epiphany moment for dealers. GIA reeked of credibility and expertise; in the 1940s, the U.S. government recognized them as a learning/research center and they began conferring GG diplomas.

I''d imagine the advent of these reports gave jewelers a way to neutralize the transparency/trust problem and build consumer confidence. Armed with printed expert opinions that endorsed dealers'' professional recommendations on stones, it had to make closing sales easier. It makes sense that dealers would evangelize GIA''s position as THE authority and gold-standard, helping GIA gain consumer recognition and acceptance.

Following labs have a harder road to hoe now because they face a formidable, entrenched incumbent in GIA. To win over dealers, they would have to provide something GIA didn''t while meeting the existing standards bar set by GIA.

The introduction of AGSL grading reports in 1996 provided that platform. Their grading reports rivaled the standards of GIA and provided something GIA didn''t....cut grade. I''m sure it also helps that AGS and GIA share a common founder, so AGS can wear that same badge of credibility through origin.

Dealers who specialize in fine make stones have been won over by AGS, but evangelization to consumers has been a bit more challenging because not all consumers care about the ''creme de la creme''. Without education, people can''t appreciate the distinction and appeal of a fine make stone, and many people simply aren''t interested enough to invest their time into learning. Their goal is just to make a decent purchase and be done with it.

The cut-grade distinction can be become a double-edged sword, though, because consumers are conditioned to want what they THINK is the best. If the label says "very good" or "good" instead of excellent or ideal, it''s not as desirable. Hence, AGS''s paper is only coveted if it bears the ultimate AGS0 label, so they aren''t likely to become a household name akin to GIA unless GIA''s introduction of the cut-grade has a similar effect on their reports.

One that thing has helped AGS is the internet. People have an easier time researching now, but I think they still rely on trusted trade members/dealers to help influence their preferences. We see it very clearly here on PS; the community here is largely influenced by trusted opinions from predominantly fine-make dealers who share their knowledge. That, in turn, influences consumer preference.

Ultimately, learned expert opinions still influence consumers, so unless HRD can bring something innovative to the table while rivalling existing AGS/GIA standards, it will be an uphill battle to establish any type of market acceptance in my opinion.