Does HRD have a chance in the US??

[diagem]

With the many concerns surrounding GIA these days... (and the upcoming issues at stake...), I would like to hear some opinions from consumers, prosumers, and pro''s as one as to the chances for HRD (Antwerp) to infiltrate the US market with their Diamond grading and reports!

I do hear some dealers from Antwerp are marketing HRD graded Diamonds in the US already...

Thank you,

 

[Dee*Jay]

I think it *could* happen but the tide will be slow in turning. The consumers who are even somewhat educated (i.e., perhaps even just read a book on diamonds or have visited a higher end B&M) hear GIA GIA GIA over and over again so they are biased toward that. Others who are potentially more educated sometimes favor AGS. The place I could see HRD making an inroad in terms of widespread name recognition is in certifying stones that would typically go to IGI and others like that, but I (right or wrong) associate those types of labs with stones that "couldn't cut it" at GIA or AGS so that is probably not the type of reputation that HRD wants. There needs to be an intensive education about why HRD is "acceptable," and HRD stones need to be consistenly appraised at what the certs say before widespread acceptance will be reached. And even then it will be a long and uphill battle.

(Just my 2 cents!)

 

[surfgirl]

DG, GIA has such a deeply entrenched profile here that it would take a long time for another lab grading system to really be universally acknowledged as in the same league. IMO.

 

[strmrdr]

not a chance on a large scale.
They could be a small player on the market.
The biggest reason is that GIA despite all its faults still does a pretty good job.
Every Asscher I have ever recommended here except for maybe 2 or 3 has had a GIA report (1 had an egl with a SGL (Richard) report the others AGS).

IGI reports are more common than GIA anyway in the USA as far as what the average consumer will see.

 

[niceice]

HRD is definitely a respected laboratory within the industry, we definitely recognize their contribution to the market and their expertise. However many of the diamonds graded by the HRD in Antwerp are sent for regrading at the AGS or GIA upon entry to the U.S. simply because their paper is not widely recognized by U.S. consumers at this point in time. That said, the AGS Laboratory was not widely recognized by consumers here in the United States a little more than a decade ago. I like to think that the popularity of AGS grading reports was made popular largely by those of us who sell and promote ideal cut diamonds on the internet - a decade ago, the AGS had a niche when they entered the scene because they were the only laboratory who was really pushing a reliable cut grade. What niche will the HRD offer to make themselves a force in the market? It is something to think about.

That said, GIA is still the most recognized diamond grading authority by consumer standards, if for no other reason than they have been visible to consumers since 1954 or thereabouts... I don''t think a day goes by where I''m not explaining to customers why we offer diamonds graded by the AGS who is a pioneer in cut quality. The parents of customers tell them "buy a diamond with a GIA certificate" (the correct term is "Lab Report" because the labs to not "certify" anything) because that is likely all the parents know about diamonds is that "good diamonds come with GIA certificates"

Consumers who conduct their due diligence come to the realization that the AGS and GIA laboratories offer comparable services and have comparable grading practices, the AGS maintains their niche by offering a Visual Performance grade in addition to providing insight into the polish, symmetry and proportions grades.

Good post DiaGem, it raises an interesting concept.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/20/2008 11:10:49 AM
Author: Dee*Jay
I think it *could* happen but the tide will be slow in turning. The consumers who are even somewhat educated (i.e., perhaps even just read a book on diamonds or have visited a higher end B&M) hear GIA GIA GIA over and over again so they are biased toward that. Others who are potentially more educated sometimes favor AGS. The place I could see HRD making an inroad in terms of widespread name recognition is in certifying stones that would typically go to IGI and others like that, but I (right or wrong) associate those types of labs with stones that ''couldn''t cut it'' at GIA or AGS so that is probably not the type of reputation that HRD wants. There needs to be an intensive education about why HRD is ''acceptable,'' and HRD stones need to be consistenly appraised at what the certs say before widespread acceptance will be reached. And even then it will be a long and uphill battle.

(Just my 2 cents!)

Informative is more of the word I would use...
Consumers should have the information HRD is widely accepted in Europe, Middle/Far East and Russia..., a naturally accepted reason is because its easier to acquire and market HRD Diamond Reports on that side of the world!

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/20/2008 11:55:21 AM
Author: surfgirl
DG, GIA has such a deeply entrenched profile here that it would take a long time for another lab grading system to really be universally acknowledged as in the same league. IMO.

Too many voices out there are questioning the GIA''s position in that league....

 

[Stephan]

I have heard that HRD is harsher on color grade.
So if you want a real D...
But their cut grade is much to tolerant.
My guess is they won''t have any chance in the US.
But this is only the opinion of a Belgian consumer.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/20/2008 12:02:51 PM
Author: strmrdr
not a chance on a large scale.
They could be a small player on the market.
The biggest reason is that GIA despite all its faults still does a pretty good job.
Every Asscher I have ever recommended here except for maybe 2 or 3 has had a GIA report (1 had an egl with a SGL (Richard) report the others AGS).

IGI reports are more common than GIA anyway in the USA as far as what the average consumer will see.

All its faults?? What would you say are some of their faults?

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/20/2008 1:23:21 PM
Author: niceice
HRD is definitely a respected laboratory within the industry, we definitely recognize their contribution to the market and their expertise. However many of the diamonds graded by the HRD in Antwerp are sent for regrading at the AGS or GIA upon entry to the U.S. simply because their paper is not widely recognized by U.S. consumers at this point in time. That said, the AGS Laboratory was not widely recognized by consumers here in the United States a little more than a decade ago. I like to think that the popularity of AGS grading reports was made popular largely by those of us who sell and promote ideal cut diamonds on the internet - a decade ago, the AGS had a niche when they entered the scene because they were the only laboratory who was really pushing a reliable cut grade. What niche will the HRD offer to make themselves a force in the market? It is something to think about.

That said, GIA is still the most recognized diamond grading authority by consumer standards, if for no other reason than they have been visible to consumers since 1954 or thereabouts... I don''t think a day goes by where I''m not explaining to customers why we offer diamonds graded by the AGS who is a pioneer in cut quality. The parents of customers tell them ''buy a diamond with a GIA certificate'' (the correct term is ''Lab Report'' because the labs to not ''certify'' anything) because that is likely all the parents know about diamonds is that ''good diamonds come with GIA certificates''

Consumers who conduct their due diligence come to the realization that the AGS and GIA laboratories offer comparable services and have comparable grading practices, the AGS maintains their niche by offering a Visual Performance grade in addition to providing insight into the polish, symmetry and proportions grades.

Good post DiaGem, it raises an interesting concept.

Not to loud!!!

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/20/2008 4:10:09 PM
Author: QueenMum
I have heard that HRD is harsher on color grade.
So if you want a real D...
But their cut grade is much to tolerant. You mean Round Brilliant???
My guess is they won''t have any chance in the US.
But this is only the opinion of a Belgian consumer.

Depends..., I think the GIA are making too many professional mistakes lately!
And so I really believe other "serious" labs have a chance to grab market share in the NEAR future!!!

 

[Stephan]

Yes, I mean Round Brilliant.
Their maximum cut grade is "very good", and a lot of dogs will receive a "very good" cut from the HRD.
Will American people be happy with a HRD "very good" cut, when GIA has an excellent and AGS an ideal cut?

 

[denverappraiser]

HRD doesn’t seem to be making any serious attempt to market to American customers and, without this, no, they have no chance to build a serious market share here. If all it took to succeed as a lab were to offer a reliable service for a fair price, there would be a very different list of players on the ‘A’ list. PGS comes to mind as an example of an excellent lab based in the US that doesn’t make the consumer radar. If anything, the market grip by the major labs in increasing as the demand for the services escalates.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Jewelry Appraisals in Denver

 

[Pandora II]

I was more used to HRD than I was to other certificates as I worked with Antwerp for a couple of years.

The biggest problem I see with their grading is that they only go up to a ''Very Good'' on the cut grade.

I bought a 1.51ct F VS2 rb with an HRD report and the numbers stacked up extremely well. However, the guy who I bought it for has always given me the impression that he feels he should have bought an ''Ideal'' cut.

The appraisal came out for a lot more than he paid (which I would have been very unhappy if it hadn''t!), but I still feel he has this little doubt even though I have explained the situation and he says he notices how sparkly his wife''s ring is compared with other people''s (despite it being soooo dirty that I take it off for a scrub on a regular basis

- she can''t us a US due to emerald sidestones).

 

[John P]

Date: 5/20/2008 11:03:43 AM
Author:DiaGem

With the many concerns surrounding GIA these days... (and the upcoming issues at stake...), I would like to hear some opinions from consumers, prosumers, and pro's as one as to the chances for HRD (Antwerp) to infiltrate the US market with their Diamond grading and reports!

Not without aggressive marketing and a serious change in historical perception DG. HRD has a good rep among professionals here but, when asked, jewelry salespeople who were working in a shoe store last week have never heard of the lab.

GIA has done a fantastic job of marketing their brand to the trade. The GTL is a single aspect. Their education, publications and tools permeate the trade. The sheer volume of pros over here who list a GIA diploma in their credentials strengthens them by association and their alumni associations are quite active in many regions.

Public perception also remains strong. The trickle-down of "Certifigate" to consumers is minimal. A jeweler isn’t likely to say to a shopper “Here is a lovely diamond with a GIA report, you know, the lab that had that grading scandal...” You may be shocked to learn there are workers in jewelry stores who haven't even heard of Certifigate.

Over time the GIA has become the undisputed majority shareholder of reputability (in an at-large sense): Sellers with GIA reports hold them up as the best. Sellers with softer reports compare them to GIA; sometimes fraudulently. Sellers who offer AGS reports may mention that GIA/AGS were founded as companion organizations; to separate the GIA/AGS wheat from the chaff... Despite any recent stumbles the GIA is still Wheaties.

 

[niceice]

Well there''s a familiar face, welcome back to Price Scope John

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/21/2008 11:52:10 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 5/20/2008 11:03:43 AM
Author:DiaGem

With the many concerns surrounding GIA these days... (and the upcoming issues at stake...), I would like to hear some opinions from consumers, prosumers, and pro''s as one as to the chances for HRD (Antwerp) to infiltrate the US market with their Diamond grading and reports!

Not without aggressive marketing and a serious change in historical perception DG. HRD has a good rep among professionals here but, when asked, jewelry salespeople who were working in a shoe store last week have never heard of the lab.

GIA has done a fantastic job of marketing their brand to the trade. The GTL is a single aspect. Their education, publications and tools permeate the trade. The sheer volume of pros over here who list a GIA diploma in their credentials strengthens them by association and their alumni associations are quite active in many regions.

Public perception also remains strong. The trickle-down of ''Certifigate'' to consumers is minimal. A jeweler isn’t likely to say to a shopper “Here is a lovely diamond with a GIA report, you know, the lab that had that grading scandal...” You may be shocked to learn there are workers in jewelry stores who haven''t even heard of Certifigate.

Over time the GIA has become the undisputed majority shareholder of reputability (in an at-large sense): Sellers with GIA reports hold them up as the best. Sellers with softer reports compare them to GIA; sometimes fraudulently. Sellers who offer AGS reports may mention that GIA/AGS were founded as companion organizations; to separate the GIA/AGS wheat from the chaff... Despite any recent stumbles the GIA is still Wheaties.

Welcome back John..., nice having you back on board...

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/21/2008 11:52:10 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 5/20/2008 11:03:43 AM
Author:DiaGem

With the many concerns surrounding GIA these days... (and the upcoming issues at stake...), I would like to hear some opinions from consumers, prosumers, and pro''s as one as to the chances for HRD (Antwerp) to infiltrate the US market with their Diamond grading and reports!

Not without aggressive marketing and a serious change in historical perception DG. HRD has a good rep among professionals here but, when asked, jewelry salespeople who were working in a shoe store last week have never heard of the lab.

GIA has done a fantastic job of marketing their brand to the trade. The GTL is a single aspect. Their education, publications and tools permeate the trade. The sheer volume of pros over here who list a GIA diploma in their credentials strengthens them by association and their alumni associations are quite active in many regions.

Public perception also remains strong. The trickle-down of ''Certifigate'' to consumers is minimal. A jeweler isn’t likely to say to a shopper “Here is a lovely diamond with a GIA report, you know, the lab that had that grading scandal...” You may be shocked to learn there are workers in jewelry stores who haven''t even heard of Certifigate.

Over time the GIA has become the undisputed majority shareholder of reputability (in an at-large sense): Sellers with GIA reports hold them up as the best. Sellers with softer reports compare them to GIA; sometimes fraudulently. Sellers who offer AGS reports may mention that GIA/AGS were founded as companion organizations; to separate the GIA/AGS wheat from the chaff... Despite any recent stumbles the GIA is still Wheaties.

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...

 

[niceice]

Date: 5/21/2008 11:52:10 AM
Author: John Pollard
Over time the GIA has become the undisputed majority shareholder of reputability (in an at-large sense): Sellers with GIA reports hold them up as the best. Sellers with softer reports compare them to GIA; sometimes fraudulently. Sellers who offer AGS reports may mention that GIA/AGS were founded as companion organizations; to separate the GIA/AGS wheat from the chaff... Despite any recent stumbles the GIA is still Wheaties.

Can you provide some clarification as to the tone of this statement John, because I do consider the GIA and AGS to be very comparable in their grading practices in terms of the consistency of their grading for carat weight, color, clarity, polish and symmetry. And I believe part of this is due to the fact that Peter Yantzer, Director of the AGS Laboratory is a former director for the GIA Laboratory (So. Cal.). Setting the matter of "Certifigate" aside since it has been well argued on other threads, do you think that GIA / AGS are comparable grading platforms for these factors? Obviously I think that the AGS provides more insight into Cut Quality and the similarity of GIA Excellent / AGS Ideal has already been defined.

I think that AGS is definitely giving GIA a run for their money, but most of the advantage the GIA has at this point in time is only due to their longevity in the market. The AGS certainly provides better customer service in terms of their dealings with the trade, a fact easily verified by simply calling either lab and trying to have a conversation about a specific diamond.

 

[John P]

Thanks Todd & DG.

I''ll respond after a much-needed sammich.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/21/2008 2:12:16 PM
Author: John Pollard
Thanks Todd & DG.

I''ll respond after a much-needed sammich.

must have been a big one!
lol

 

[John P]

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.

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.

Date: 5/21/2008 1:56:01 PM
Author: niceice

Date: 5/21/2008 11:52:10 AM
Author: John Pollard
Over time the GIA has become the undisputed majority shareholder of reputability (in an at-large sense): Sellers with GIA reports hold them up as the best. Sellers with softer reports compare them to GIA; sometimes fraudulently. Sellers who offer AGS reports may mention that GIA/AGS were founded as companion organizations; to separate the GIA/AGS wheat from the chaff... Despite any recent stumbles the GIA is still Wheaties.

Can you provide some clarification as to the tone of this statement John, because I do consider the GIA and AGS to be very comparable in their grading practices in terms of the consistency of their grading for carat weight, color, clarity, polish and symmetry. And I believe part of this is due to the fact that Peter Yantzer, Director of the AGS Laboratory is a former director for the GIA Laboratory (So. Cal.). Setting the matter of 'Certifigate' aside since it has been well argued on other threads, do you think that GIA / AGS are comparable grading platforms for these factors? Obviously I think that the AGS provides more insight into Cut Quality and the similarity of GIA Excellent / AGS Ideal has already been defined.

I think that AGS is definitely giving GIA a run for their money, but most of the advantage the GIA has at this point in time is only due to their longevity in the market. The AGS certainly provides better customer service in terms of their dealings with the trade, a fact easily verified by simply calling either lab and trying to have a conversation about a specific diamond.

Sure. AGS is on the same level as GIA - with stricter cut requirements - but the rarity of AGS documents and the tiny number of mainstream jewelers carrying them means that there is not a consistent message about those standards like there is with GIA. The last time I memorized the numbers less than 2% of graded diamonds are sent to AGS; most often because a manufacturer can send them to GIA (or softer labs) for a better grade. GIA reports are about 10X as abundant and IGI/EGL dozens and dozens of times more abundant. In that sense the rarity of AGS reports works against the lab.

This is the answer regarding the tone of my comments above. I say that an important piece of information for consumers interested in high standards is the history of Robert Shipley, the GIA and AGS, their beginnings together, what the society stands for, the 1955 DGS committee, long-term evolution of cut grading, etc. Without proper perspective and education, the letters AGS are meaningless because there is not a uniform message, as there is with GIA.

Put bluntly, if you don't give that important background any lab apart from GIA (including HRD for the purposes of this thread) will just be another three-letter "also-ran."

 

[niceice]

Date: 5/21/2008 5:34:22 PM
Author: John Pollard
Sure. AGS is on the same level as GIA - with stricter cut requirements - but the rarity of AGS documents and the tiny number of mainstream jewelers carrying them means that there is not a consistent message about those standards like there is with GIA. The last time I memorized the numbers less than 2% of graded diamonds are sent to AGS; most often because a manufacturer can send them to GIA (or softer labs) for a better grade. GIA reports are about 10X as abundant and IGI/EGL dozens and dozens of times more abundant. In that sense the rarity of AGS reports works against the lab.

This is the answer regarding the tone of my comments above. I say that an important piece of information for consumers interested in high standards is the history of Robert Shipley, the GIA and AGS, their beginnings together, what the society stands for, the 1955 DGS committee, long-term evolution of cut grading, etc. Without proper perspective and education, the letters AGS are meaningless because there is not a uniform message, as there is with GIA.

Put bluntly, if you don''t give that important background any lab apart from GIA (including HRD for the purposes of this thread) will just another three-letter "also-ran."

That is exactly the clarification I was looking for, thanks John. I didn''t want people getting confused about the validity of AGS lab reports and the explanation about how the two laboratories grew out out of the same organization, etc.

 

[John P]

Date: 5/21/2008 4:30:16 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/21/2008 2:12:16 PM
Author: John Pollard
Thanks Todd & DG.

I''ll respond after a much-needed sammich.

must have been a big one!
lol

Dagwood. Thick-VTK girdle.

 

[Regular Guy]

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?

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.

Date: 5/21/2008 1:56:01 PM
Author: niceice

Date: 5/21/2008 11:52:10 AM
Author: John Pollard
Over time the GIA has become the undisputed majority shareholder of reputability (in an at-large sense): Sellers with GIA reports hold them up as the best. Sellers with softer reports compare them to GIA; sometimes fraudulently. Sellers who offer AGS reports may mention that GIA/AGS were founded as companion organizations; to separate the GIA/AGS wheat from the chaff... Despite any recent stumbles the GIA is still Wheaties.

Can you provide some clarification as to the tone of this statement John, because I do consider the GIA and AGS to be very comparable in their grading practices in terms of the consistency of their grading for carat weight, color, clarity, polish and symmetry.

Sure. AGS is on the same level as GIA - with stricter cut requirements - but the rarity of AGS documents and the tiny number of mainstream jewelers carrying them means that there is not a consistent message about those standards like there is with GIA.

And still the only poster I know (who once took the time to tell how he does it) who quotes two separate threads in one.

Not sure if and how he''s on message in a new incarnation...but good to have him back. Welcome back, JP.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/20/2008 4:10:20 PM
Author: DiaGem
All its faults?? What would you say are some of their faults?

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.

 

[niceice]

Date: 5/21/2008 5:57:47 PM
Author: Regular Guy

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?

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.

Date: 5/21/2008 1:56:01 PM

Author: niceice

Date: 5/21/2008 11:52:10 AM

Author: John Pollard

Over time the GIA has become the undisputed majority shareholder of reputability (in an at-large sense): Sellers with GIA reports hold them up as the best. Sellers with softer reports compare them to GIA; sometimes fraudulently. Sellers who offer AGS reports may mention that GIA/AGS were founded as companion organizations; to separate the GIA/AGS wheat from the chaff... Despite any recent stumbles the GIA is still Wheaties.

Can you provide some clarification as to the tone of this statement John, because I do consider the GIA and AGS to be very comparable in their grading practices in terms of the consistency of their grading for carat weight, color, clarity, polish and symmetry.

Sure. AGS is on the same level as GIA - with stricter cut requirements - but the rarity of AGS documents and the tiny number of mainstream jewelers carrying them means that there is not a consistent message about those standards like there is with GIA.

Date: 5/21/2008 5:34:22 PM

And still the only poster I know (who once took the time to tell how he does it) who quotes two separate threads in one.

Not sure if and how he's on message in a new incarnation...but good to have him back. Welcome back, JP.

That's JP being sneaky with the DIV commands

You can also do it like this:

Put what somebody said in a box

And then respond...

And then put what somebody else said in a box

And then respond or simply get creative...

Like this:

Date: 5/21/2008 5:57:47 PM
Author:Strmrdr


I LOVE the GIA

I LOVE the GIA

I LOVE the GIA

Sorry, Strmrdr never said THAT, but I couldn't resist

after he said this:

Date: 5/21/2008 6:07:56 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/20/2008 4:10:20 PM
Author: DiaGem
All its faults?? What would you say are some of their faults?

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.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/21/2008 6:38:21 PM
Author: niceice

Date: 5/21/2008 5:57:47 PM
Author:Strmrdr


I LOVE the GIA

I LOVE the GIA

I LOVE the GIA

Sorry, Strmrdr never said THAT, but I couldn''t resist

after he said this:

Date: 5/21/2008 6:07:56 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/20/2008 4:10:20 PM
Author: DiaGem
All its faults?? What would you say are some of their faults?

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.

evil pure evil!

 

[niceice]

Date: 5/21/2008 7:06:43 PM
Author: strmrdr
evil pure evil!

Who? Me?

 

[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