Does HRD have a chance in the US??

[Kaleigh]

Date: 5/24/2008 12:12:49 AM
Author: 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.

I agree 100%. AGS wasn't a lab I knew about until PS. I don't see AGS0 stones around here, not to say they aren't avaliable, you have to ask for them. B&M's don't carry them as a norm. GIA mostly. My preference is for AGS, and buy online to get them. HRD does have an uphill battle to rival the status of AGS and GIA. Time will tell, I just don't see it happening.

 

[John P]

Date: 5/23/2008 7:17:18 AM
Author: DiaGem

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 was reported instead of a weak 1.253 I might agree.

GIA reports table, depth and girdle as solid values. But then they go and measure 8 bezel facets, average them to get a single number and then round it up or down to the nearest increment (half a degree) that fits in their system. Pavilion mains are similar (nearest 0.2) as are lower halves and stars (nearest 5%).

Here is an example (assume 58T):

Bezels: 33.2, 33.3, 33.8, 34.3, 34.6, 34.7, 34.8, 34.9
Average: 34.2 Reported: 34.0

Pavilion: 40.5, 40.6, 40.7, 40.8, 40.9, 41.0, 41.2, 41.5
Average: 40.9 Reported: 41.0

Lower Halves: 77 (x16) Average: 77 Reported: 75
Stars: 58 (x Average: 58 Reported: 60

So true averages: 58 40.9 34.2 77 58
Are reported as: 58 41.0 34.0 75 60

GIA maintains the amount of rounding is beyond human perception (strengthening the premise from both major labs that current scanners go much farther than human perception). In a practical sense I don’t disagree.



However, for what it's worth I believe this is an area where the AGS approach = the future.
They create a digital model of the entire diamond and assess how all of its facets work together.

Comparing them:

It reminds me of the difference between getting a suit tailored versus locating one on the rack that fits. To that end, here is an exaggerated version of the differences (satirical) which may be worth a chuckle.

A. AGS creates a digital model of each diamond in order to grade its values specifically.
B. GIA converts most measurements into averages, rounds them up or down and assigns a grade.

 

[John P]

Date: 5/24/2008 12:12:49 AM
Author: Allison D.

...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.

To become rejuvinated and popular in the USA maybe HRD could marry David Beckham and move to LA.
It worked for Posh Spice.



(great post Allison)

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/24/2008 1:19:41 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 5/24/2008 12:12:49 AM
Author: Allison D.

...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.

To become rejuvinated and popular in the USA maybe HRD could marry David Beckham and move to LA.
It worked for Posh Spice.



(great post Allison)

DId it work for Posh??

Question for you JP..., what kind of difference in degree angles could/would affect a Diamond''s appearance?
Which type of faceting is more sensitive to that difference? Step or Brilliant?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/24/2008 1:53:16 AM
Author: DiaGem
DId it work for Posh??

Question for you JP..., what kind of difference in degree angles could/would affect a Diamond's appearance?
Which type of faceting is more sensitive to that difference? Step or Brilliant?

I'm not JP but I will answer your question step cuts have a much steeper drop off curve once you hit the cliff than with RB's.
RB's tend to degrade where step cuts bomb.
I have seen some designs in step cuts where the line between excellent and awful was .1 degree.
Of course anyone would be insane to try to hit that spot and there were better targets.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/24/2008 2:35:43 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/24/2008 1:53:16 AM
Author: DiaGem
DId it work for Posh??

Question for you JP..., what kind of difference in degree angles could/would affect a Diamond''s appearance?
Which type of faceting is more sensitive to that difference? Step or Brilliant?

I''m not JP but I will answer your question step cuts have a much steeper drop off curve once you hit cliff than with RB''s.
RB''s tend to degrade where step cuts bomb.
I have seen some designs in step cuts where the line between excellent and awful was .1 degree.
Of course anyone would be insane to try to hit that spot and there were better targets.

I fully agree..., now (primarily in Stepcuts) if you mismeasure a few step facets by this 1/10 of a degree..., it could alter the appearance pretty drastically..., correct? I think and know so...

Thats why I would like to better understand what JP was saying when he wrote: "...When a scan goes beyond human cognition it is, by definition, accurate enough to place a stone within a grade..."?

If these cut grades are based on accuracy of the correct angle/proportion combination..., where lies the limit within the range?
I assume (dont know for a fact) that certain fancy shapes (especially step cuts) are more sensitive to this type of accuracy when comparing to rounds (as I dont have too much experience with round shape cutting)..., but based on what Garry said previously..., "...- the table / crown / stars are the hardest bit to measure accurately, but they are also the least important in terms of the impact on appearance..."

I take it that step cuts are more sensitive as the crown facets play an extremely important role in the appearance!

 

[John P]

Date: 5/24/2008 2:35:43 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/24/2008 1:53:16 AM
Author: DiaGem
DId it work for Posh??

Question for you JP..., what kind of difference in degree angles could/would affect a Diamond's appearance?
Which type of faceting is more sensitive to that difference? Step or Brilliant?

I'm not JP but I will answer your question step cuts have a much steeper drop off curve once you hit the cliff than with RB's. RB's tend to degrade where step cuts bomb. I have seen some designs in step cuts where the line between excellent and awful was .1 degree. Of course anyone would be insane to try to hit that spot and there were better targets.

I trust Strm won't mind if I answer too.

I agree and would add that it can depend on make within shape. Near-Tolks have far more leeway than rounds at steep or shallow threshholds and brilliant makes generally have larger 'sweet spots' to target in their respective matrices than steps do. One place RBs do drop quickly is when the pavilion breaks are painted (something Sarin used to have big issues with), but this is easily found by both labs now. The line Strm wrote that I highlighted is policy for assembly-line manufacture.

Date: 5/24/2008 2:57:01 AM
Author: DiaGem

Thats why I would like to better understand what JP was saying when he wrote: '...When a scan goes beyond human cognition it is, by definition, accurate enough to place a stone within a grade...'?

If these cut grades are based on accuracy of the correct angle/proportion combination..., where lies the limit within the range? I assume (dont know for a fact) that certain fancy shapes (especially step cuts) are more sensitive to this type of accuracy when comparing to rounds (as I dont have too much experience with round shape cutting)..., but based on what Garry said previously..., '...- the table / crown / stars are the hardest bit to measure accurately, but they are also the least important in terms of the impact on appearance...'

I take it that step cuts are more sensitive as the crown facets play an extremely important role in the appearance!

Linear error for Helium is inside 0.01 mm. How does that translate to angular (Serg?). I'm going to suspect it's inside 0.1 degree for common sizes.

Why don't you ask the guys at the lab the highlighted DG? I know when AGS has a borderline stone they may turn from Sarin to Helium. They probably have the most independent experience with thousands of subjects between these machines. I know Jim Caudill (AID) or someone in the lab can give answers relevant to what they do where all of us can only speculate.

 

[strmrdr]

speaks for itself,,,

 

[John P]

Send the stone to AGS and see what the same comparison looks like.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/24/2008 2:53:33 PM
Author: strmrdr
speaks for itself,,,

Translate please....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/24/2008 3:59:00 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/24/2008 2:53:33 PM
Author: strmrdr
speaks for itself,,,

Translate please....

helium created a better more real to life model.
That wasnt even at the highest accuracy setting for the helium.(more pictures but a lot more time too)

 

[Pandora II]

Date: 5/24/2008 1:19:41 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 5/24/2008 12:12:49 AM
Author: Allison D.

...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.

To become rejuvinated and popular in the USA maybe HRD could marry David Beckham and move to LA.
It worked for Posh Spice.



(great post Allison)

You''re all very welcome to keep them!

Does anyone know what HRD''s ambitions are - are they seeking to challenge GIA?

 

[diagem]

Step in the right direction???

HRD Antwerp Launches Refined Cut Grade.


http://www.diamonds.net/news/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=22256

 

[oldminer]

Strmrdr;

The Actual image differs a bit from both Helium and Sarin images . I definitely see the lack of perfection of detail in the Sarin image, but what I see in the Helium image looks like "more than Actual" detail. That too worries me a bit. Is the Helium constructing the image in a more perfect than actual form? What would be the advantage of one of these images over the other if neither is a perfect rendition of the diamond?
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but if one is going to make "grading " decisions based on non-actual images, then we ought to understand the merits of the concocted images. Thanks for the advice.

John:

I like the analogy of the human wire figure for the AGS system and the short list of statistics representing the GIA rounded approach. Would you say that a Gemex or ImaGem process would be analogous to a real photograph of the person? If one would be asked to judge how nice a person looked, only a real photo would be a safe way to choose. You could hardly expect to do it from the wire image or the statistics. Right?

 

[John P]

Date: 7/8/2008 2:39:11 PM
Author: DiaGem

Step in the right direction???

HRD Antwerp Launches Refined Cut Grade.

http://www.diamonds.net/news/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=22256

I know Paul Slegers has been privy to these developments. I''m not sure what details he is at liberty to share but I hope the news is promising - we need more labs pushing elite standards.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/8/2008 3:02:50 PM
Author: oldminer

John:

I like the analogy of the human wire figure for the AGS system and the short list of statistics representing the GIA rounded approach. Would you say that a Gemex or ImaGem process would be analogous to a real photograph of the person? If one would be asked to judge how nice a person looked, only a real photo would be a safe way to choose. You could hardly expect to do it from the wire image or the statistics. Right?

Those comments were from some time ago Dave, but I'm glad to see them revisited.

I agree, but only if you wanted to choose a diamond based on a single view in a single lighting environment. That’s the drawback of a photo. Sure, a face shot might work for a dating service, and two mugs might be enough for the police, but I prefer a more thorough evaluation of a diamond.

Ergo, an important reason for constructing the wire-frame is to be able to see how that gem performs through several degrees of tilt, which is how diamonds are actually seen (in-motion, not still). An additional - arguably more important - use of the wire-frame & computing power is light-source independence: It allows you to calculate performance values for ray-tracing using 30 degrees of obstruction, 40 degrees, etc, etc. AGS calculates and factors-in several lighting and tilt scenarios for each diamond. The latest technology in DiamCalc allows you to design your own lighting environment and see how a virtual gem measures up here, there and everywhere.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

HRD will introduce the new cut-grade in two presentations next week.

I will inform you about this after the presentations. As for the H&A-grade, they presented that some weeks ago, and I am awaiting some extra information before reporting on that.

Live long,

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/9/2008 6:48:21 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
HRD will introduce the new cut-grade in two presentations next week.

I will inform you about this after the presentations. As for the H&A-grade, they presented that some weeks ago, and I am awaiting some extra information before reporting on that.

Live long,

Thanks..., looking forward

 

[Indira-London]

Date: 7/9/2008 6:48:21 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
HRD will introduce the new cut-grade in two presentations next week.

I will inform you about this after the presentations. As for the H&A-grade, they presented that some weeks ago, and I am awaiting some extra information before reporting on that.

Live long,

Thank you Paul - I look forward to hearing about bothe their new cut grade as well as the H&A.

Re. HRD: even Cartier sells with either GIA or HRD reports in Europe - I wonder if they do the same in the US?
From a UK perpective, I do get some clients who prefer HRD reports to GIA as they have been put off the GIA after hearng about the bribery scandal.