Does the diamond trade respect GIA?

[Rockdiamond]

HI everyone!
IN a recent thread, Marty (adamasgem) has made disparaging remarks about GIA.
Although GIA did have a problem last year,involving bribery.

This was exposed, resulting in changes to procedures, as well as firings of some high level personnel.
My position is that the problem was extremely limited ( involved only a few extremely high dollar diamonds, and one company) and has been handled.

Furthermore, GIA''s grading and general business practices are accepted by all the major players here in the US. This is how I see it , as a wholesale dealer here in NYC.

Do others in the trade have a different experience?

Marty, in that previous thread, you made this statement

In the PS archives their are some interesting results as to the percentage of time GIA and AGS give a D color... On sample sizes exceeding 200,000 available graded stones, one is about three times as likely to get a D from GIA versus AGS. Now when it comes to secondary labs, we don''t have enough published data, but it appears you can guess how it will turn out....

Can you please show us this study?
How many stones a year does AGS grade? How long did it take to compile a 200,000 stone sample?

 

[Todd Gray]

"Does the diamond trade respect GIA"

Absolutely. GIA Carangi was an absolutely gorgeous model who I have great respect for

 

[HVVS]

Date: 10/15/2009 12:55:51 PM
Author: Todd Gray

''Does the diamond trade respect GIA''

Absolutely. GIA Carangi was an absolutely gorgeous model who I have great respect for

Todd! Didn''t you watch the movie???!

 

[Karl_K]

I have respect for GIA they have done a lot for the diamond industry and consumers. The also have some awesome people working there.
They are however far from perfect.
I agree with Marty that those that paid bribes should have been named and prosecuted.
I even wrote to the prosecutor urging him to act on it.
I think that by that not happening a lot of harm was done to the entire diamond trade.

I feel that they should be more open in what they do and that diamond grading standards should be set in stone and peer reviewed in a scientific manner.
My biggest problem with GIA and this applies to any grading lab is that their customers are the diamond trade not consumers and that is a conflict of interest.

 

[Todd Gray]

Date: 10/15/2009 1:02:39 PM
Author: HVVS

Date: 10/15/2009 12:55:51 PM

Author: Todd Gray

''Does the diamond trade respect GIA''

Absolutely. GIA Carangi was an absolutely gorgeous model who I have great respect for

Todd! Didn''t you watch the movie???!

Of course I watched the movie, I just wanted to say that in response to the title because it made me laugh

 

[AshNZ]

As a new, but educated consumer (relative to the majority, not PSers) I have developed a distaste for GIA. However, this is probably nothing directly against GIA, it is the retailers (not PS vendors) that glorify the magnificane and infallibility that is the GIA, they spit vitrol at you if you even imply a slur or suggest their are better standards out there... The fact is the GIA cut standards are a wide range and far from an insurance of Top Tier cut.

So, is it up to GIA to educate retailers? Probably not.


Ash

 

[John P]

Does the diamond trade respect GIA?

Absolutely.

They are the world's reference-standard. They've done more for the trade than any other body over time - and continue to do the most in terms of education.

*

Longer Answer (for David)...

Just as GIA is respected, so are Sony, Coca-Cola and Starbucks respected.

Let's take Starbucks. Like GIA it is a fantastic organization. Fantastic branding. Fantastic reach. You definitely know what you’re getting worldwide. It's reliable. I do note some variation in a Starbucks Hong Kong cafe latte vs a Starbucks NY cafe latte but the process and results are largely the same. As a world traveler there's comfort in the fact that, when I see that familiar logo, I know it will be (arguably) stricter and more consistent than other pedestrian coffee outlets.

But hold on a minute... In Antwerp there is a small chain of coffee shops called Caffenation. They do things in a somewhat different manner and the result is a product which is better and actually more consistent than Starbucks. The travelers I know who take time to experience this chain agree on this. And while no one expects the rest of the world to acknowledge what "we" know without firsthand experience the simple fact is that people fully educated on both fronts put Caffenation ahead in preference.

There is no harm to Starbucks in this, since they are certainly not threatened by smaller chains - but there is opportunity: If diehard Starbucks fans would decide to explore (really explore) other approaches they might find things they'd like to see incorporated back at Starbucks...which they could report-back and request. But this won't happen if people do not become open-minded enough to explore and become fully educated about what other approaches exist. And yes, somewhere in that paragraph the innuendo shifts back to grading labs.

Whether we're talking about a coffee company or a grading lab there is always room for improvement. And the people who will be most influential are the constituents who pay the tab.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 10/15/2009 1:36:44 PM
Author: AshNZ

So, is it up to GIA to educate retailers? Probably not.

Ash

Actually the Gemological Institute of America (aka GIA) is the primary gemological training institution in the US and increasingly elsewhere. They are first and foremost a school for jewelers, not a grading laboratory. Nearly every gemologist in the country is an alumni in one form or another.

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

 

[oldminer]

There is much to respect with GIA, but there is room for disagreement within respectful bounds.

The GIA could do a better job with fluorescence grading. It could have given the consumer full physical measurements of diamonds years before it decided to supply them. It could do cut grading without rounding numbers off. It could teach the trade more about the way diamonds are graded in the lab versus how diamond grading is taught in the basic diamond courses.

People in the trade see the GIA as if it was a temple on top of a high mountain. Difficult to get close. Difficult to communicate with. More than a bit mysterious. What worries me is that we depend on the GIA for guidance and when you are on the mountain top there is no place for you to ascend further to. The only future if you are moved, is down the steep slope all around you. What would we do without a pre-eminent authority such as GIA to bring some sort of order to what might otherwise be chaos? I prefer the current order to anarchy if those are the two choices.

 

[AshNZ]

Date: 10/15/2009 1:55:41 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 10/15/2009 1:36:44 PM
Author: AshNZ

So, is it up to GIA to educate retailers? Probably not.

Ash

Actually the Gemological Institute of America (aka GIA) is the primary gemological training institution in the US and increasingly elsewhere. They are first and foremost a school for jewelers, not a grading laboratory. Nearly every gemologist in the country is an alumni in one form or another.

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

Thanks for the info Neil. That makes me more disappointed in GIA. I have delt with several B&M Gemologists who live by ''GIA or the Highway''. They get upset with you when you try to talk to them about AGS ideal ranges being more constrained. They ALWAYS tell you GIA is more reputable and a GIA Excellent cut diamond is the same as AGS Ideal etc etc. Maybe I have had some bad apples? (I am certainly not try to paint a picture of the industry here - just my brief experiences) However, my poor experiences with B&M led me straight to the internet and PS.

Ash

 

[Judah Gutwein]

GIA has always been considered the standard bearer of the industry.
AGS is right up there as well.

I do not see any residual (negative) effect from that story with respect to GIA''s current standing amonst consumers and tradespeople.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI all!

John-that's a great analogy!
There's no question that ANY business can only improve if it listens to criticism, and act to improve.
I believe GIA does this- although maybe not enough for all concerned.
I have never had any problems at all when I've had any type of question to pose to GIA- they've been very easy to work with.
I also believe that current business climates mean that there's less capitol for GIA to use for expanding programs.


Karl- you mentioned "grading standards set in stone"
That is impossible as the nature of grading is, and always will be subjective.
The very same grader might call a stone VS2 one day, and SI1 the next. There is no way to make this an objective "set in stone" system.

I hear what you're saying about GIA's relationship with the trade, but that's simply a by-product of how the industry works.
GIA does accept stones from consumers for grading.


Ash- it's a shame you have had poor experiences with B&M or gemologists....in the interest of learning please don't use these limited experiences to make judgements about the trade or gemologists as a whole
EVERY qualified gemologist I know would agree that AGS is comparable with GIA in terms of the grades issued- as well as the respect each enjoys from the trade as a whole.

You may choose to take the PS view as "gospel" but in the broader view, the diamond trade does NOT agree as to exactly what is a "top tier cut"
GIA's cut grade was designed with wider parameters with this in mind.
AGS widened their own cut grades around the time GIA came out with their cut grade- although AGS supporters claim the timing was unintentional

 

[John P]

Date: 10/15/2009 3:33:44 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

AGS widened their own cut grades around the time GIA came out with their cut grade- although AGS supporters claim the timing was unintentional

David, thanks.

The AGS light performance metric was introduced in June 2005. It's diamond-specific and allows more table sizes and configurations to succeed (including 60/60s) than the previous range-based metric. However the new metric allows fewer total combinations. While it spans more table sizes it is not "wider" it is in fact more restrictive.

Imagine a 10x10 square. It encompasses 100 square feet but doesn't reach 12' off the ground. Now imagine a rectangle following the main cutter's line (C/P angles). It spans all the way from 0' to 12' but is narrower. Upon seeing it reach to 12' some people may think it encompasses more but the rectangle is 12x6 and actually encompasses less.

The GIA metric followed all of this in 2006.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for that explanation John!
Of course, perspective plays a role in what "wider" might mean.

Maybe since my favorite type of stone was excluded before the AGS change, I noticed that, giving me the impression the 0 range was "wider"

In terms of the timing I believe there''s still debate about who followed who as GIA''s cut grade was announced a few years before it was actually implemented.

 

[tallchickbarbara]

Date: 10/15/2009 1:55:34 PM
Author: John Pollard
Does the diamond trade respect GIA?

Absolutely.

They are the world's reference-standard. They've done more for the trade than any other body over time - and continue to do the most in terms of education.

*

Longer Answer (for David)...

Just as GIA is respected, so are Sony, Coca-Cola and Starbucks respected.

Let's take Starbucks. Like GIA it is a fantastic organization. Fantastic branding. Fantastic reach. You definitely know what you’re getting worldwide. It's reliable. I do note some variation in a Starbucks Hong Kong cafe latte vs a Starbucks NY cafe latte but the process and results are largely the same. As a world traveler there's comfort in the fact that, when I see that familiar logo, I know it will be (arguably) stricter and more consistent than other pedestrian coffee outlets.

But hold on a minute... In Antwerp there is a small chain of coffee shops called Caffenation. They do things in a somewhat different manner and the result is a product which is better and actually more consistent than Starbucks. The travelers I know who take time to experience this chain agree on this. And while no one expects the rest of the world to acknowledge what 'we' know without firsthand experience the simple fact is that people fully educated on both fronts put Caffenation ahead in preference.

There is no harm to Starbucks in this, since they are certainly not threatened by smaller chains - but there is opportunity: If diehard Starbucks fans would decide to explore (really explore) other approaches they might find things they'd like to see incorporated back at Starbucks...which they could report-back and request. But this won't happen if people do not become open-minded enough to explore and become fully educated about what other approaches exist. And yes, somewhere in that paragraph the innuendo shifts back to grading labs.

Whether we're talking about a coffee company or a grading lab there is always room for improvement. And the people who will be most influential are the constituents who pay the tab.

Goodness, I enjoy your analogies, John. Though I do dislike Starbucks greatly, and what they've become.


I also agree with Mr. Atlas' statement of "What would we do without a pre-eminent authority such as GIA to bring some sort of order to what might otherwise be chaos? I prefer the current order to anarchy if those are the two choices." Can you just imagine what a diamond buyer's life would be like without the AGS and GIA to use at least a a guideline? How many times have we read or heard on this forum of a customer who visited a local store and viewed a certification issued by the store itself? As a member of the trade, do I respect the GIA? Absolutely. Respect them for their research and question them when necessary. Einstein said "the most important thing is to not stop questioning"... and we shouldn't, in any aspect, about any subject, with regard to any information given.

Being a free-thinking human being kicks butt.

 

[John P]

Date: 10/15/2009 4:41:49 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Thanks for that explanation John!
Of course, perspective plays a role in what 'wider' might mean.

Maybe since my favorite type of stone was excluded before the AGS change, I noticed that, giving me the impression the 0 range was 'wider'

In terms of the timing I believe there's still debate about who followed who as GIA's cut grade was announced a few years before it was actually implemented.

You're welcome David.

To be clear, you originally said: >[/i]

But mathematically AGS narrowed their top grade. Perspective is irrelevant.

As for timing, it was AGS in 2005. GIA in 2006. No debate.

The fundamentals of the two systems are substantively different, and the personnel at those labs are very committed to their own independent research paths. I'd file any "copycat" prattle (in either direction) under "invented drama."

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 10/15/2009 3:54:43 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 10/15/2009 3:33:44 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

AGS widened their own cut grades around the time GIA came out with their cut grade- although AGS supporters claim the timing was unintentional

David, thanks.

The AGS light performance metric was introduced in June 2005. It''s diamond-specific and allows more table sizes and configurations to succeed (including 60/60s) than the previous range-based metric. However the new metric allows fewer total combinations. While it spans more table sizes it is not ''wider'' it is in fact more restrictive.

Imagine a 10x10 square. It encompasses 100 square feet but doesn''t reach 12'' off the ground. Now imagine a rectangle following the main cutter''s line (C/P angles). It spans all the way from 0'' to 12'' but is narrower. Upon seeing it reach to 12'' some people may think it encompasses more but the rectangle is 12x6 and actually encompasses less.

The GIA metric followed all of this in 2006.

LOL! I learned never to try to out fact John, he has a steel trap mind and knows exactly where to find everything in his notes if he does not remember it.

He was a teacher for a LONG time before he became a diamond guy, but he learned incredibly quickly is now one of the very best diamond guys I have ever met!

Wink
Wink

 

[John P]

Date: 10/15/2009 5:16:55 PM
Author: BarbaraP

Goodness, I enjoy your analogies, John. Though I do dislike Starbucks greatly, and what they've become.

Interested in joining me at Caffenation in Antwerp one day Barbara?

Can you just imagine what a diamond buyer's life would be like without the AGS and GIA to use at least a a guideline? How many times have we read or heard on this forum of a customer who visited a local store and viewed a certification issued by the store itself? As a member of the trade, do I respect the GIA? Absolutely. Respect them for their research and question them when necessary.

Exactly. Ditto that.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks again John!
I was not aware other combinations ( or stones) were excluded at the time 60/60 again became desirable in AGS''s eyes. ( Yeah, I''m still peeved that 60/60 was excluded in the first place)

IN terms of timing...and let me preface this by agreeing with Wink- you do have a mind like a steel trap John....
Didn''t GIA publish facetware programs prior to rolling out the grade- in fact weren''t facts made available about the new system quite a bit earlier than 2006?

Having 60/60 included in AGS 0 was something I really valued, as a diamond lover. It certainly feels like it took GIA to force AGS off it''s butt on that one....but no doubt "steel trap

" can give us accurate dating info as the when GIA announced the new parameters for their cut grade.



PPSS- to those following this whole conversation today: I had a wonderful conversation with Marty ( adamasgem) this afternoon.
I now have a far greater understanding of his position.
Not that we necessarily agree about that- but turns out we agree on many other things ( Hi Marty

)

 

[Diamond Explorer]

Interesting question and responses, I will weigh in quickly with my two cents.

GIA is known the world wide for consistency and reliability in diamond grading. This near universal recognition, gives diamonds with GIA reports more versatility and predictable values in the global market. AGS or any other similar laboratory could be acceptable in certain settings, but If I want my diamonds universally recognized, I want them sent to GIA.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Yes, I believe the diamond trade respects GIA.
Their grading system is known worldwide and they "get it right" most of the time.
Their instructors are top notch.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[denverappraiser]

GIA trains folks to grade diamonds in a particular way and they definitely convey the message to their students that their approach is the ‘right’ way to do things. To the extent that they are broadly accepted as the veritable definitions of the various grades in their scales then I suppose I agree that they are the most respected authority on those items and all others are judged on their ability to match GIA results. When this starts to become a problem is in areas that they simply don’t grade (for example cut grading on princesses) or areas where others use a different scale (for example the AGSL’s grading scale for round brilliant cuts or the EGL use of the SI3 clarity grade).

AGS-0 is most definitely not the same thing as GIA-excellent any more than a Michelin 5-star hotel is the same as an AAA-5 diamond hotel. A particular hotel may be fabulous in their own system, a few places may qualify for both and some will qualify for one or the other. Which is ‘better’? That’s an issue for the market to decide. Hoteliers choose which system they want to adhere to, pay a considerable fee for the privilege, do whatever the authority says will get them a good ranking and then market based on the results. Consumers get to decide where they want to stay using whatever references they prefer.

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

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 10/15/2009 1:05:07 PM
Author: Karl_K
I have respect for GIA they have done a lot for the diamond industry and consumers. The also have some awesome people working there.
They are however far from perfect.
I agree with Marty that those that paid bribes should have been named and prosecuted.
I even wrote to the prosecutor urging him to act on it.
I think that by that not happening a lot of harm was done to the entire diamond trade.

I feel that they should be more open in what they do and that diamond grading standards should be set in stone and peer reviewed in a scientific manner.
My biggest problem with GIA and this applies to any grading lab is that their customers are the diamond trade not consumers and that is a conflict of interest.

agreed

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/16/2009 4:39:33 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 10/15/2009 1:05:07 PM
Author: Karl_K
I have respect for GIA they have done a lot for the diamond industry and consumers. The also have some awesome people working there.
They are however far from perfect.
I agree with Marty that those that paid bribes should have been named and prosecuted.
I even wrote to the prosecutor urging him to act on it.
I think that by that not happening a lot of harm was done to the entire diamond trade.

I feel that they should be more open in what they do and that diamond grading standards should be set in stone and peer reviewed in a scientific manner.
My biggest problem with GIA and this applies to any grading lab is that their customers are the diamond trade not consumers and that is a conflict of interest.

agreed

Me too..., only one question...

What would you (want to) envision differently in the GIA''s grading system if hypothetically the consumers were paying the grading report bills? (which at the end I believe they are

).

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 10/16/2009 7:16:03 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/16/2009 4:39:33 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 10/15/2009 1:05:07 PM

Author: Karl_K

I have respect for GIA they have done a lot for the diamond industry and consumers. The also have some awesome people working there.

They are however far from perfect.

I agree with Marty that those that paid bribes should have been named and prosecuted.

I even wrote to the prosecutor urging him to act on it.

I think that by that not happening a lot of harm was done to the entire diamond trade.


I feel that they should be more open in what they do and that diamond grading standards should be set in stone and peer reviewed in a scientific manner.

My biggest problem with GIA and this applies to any grading lab is that their customers are the diamond trade not consumers and that is a conflict of interest.

agreed

Me too..., only one question...


What would you (want to) envision differently in the GIA''s grading system if hypothetically the consumers were paying the grading report bills? (which at the end I believe they are

).

Of course consumers pay for the report in the end as it is added to the price of the diamond but the labs are not working for consumers.
For one thing any errors are almost always against the consumer.
If the person sending it in gets a lucky grade it is passed on as the higher grade.
If there is an error on the low side they are allowed to argue about it and get it changed.

 

[John P]

David,

Respecting the title of your thread I'm going to try not to tangent a lot, but corrections are in order.

Your feeling it feels like it took GIA to force AGS off its butt >> is correctable. The research paths were fundamentally different. You can easily verify this by asking the personnel at either lab or just studying both systems.

IN terms of timing...and let me preface this by agreeing with Wink- you do have a mind like a steel trap John....
Didn't GIA publish facetware programs prior to rolling out the grade- in fact weren't facts made available about the new system quite a bit earlier than 2006?

June 2005: AGS new cut grade introduced for RB and Princess
August 2005: GIA beta Facetware (regulars will remember the weird "no criticism" terms of use - later removed)
October 2005: GIA starts putting proportions on RB reports with no cut grade
January 2006: GIA cut grade introduced on RB reports (Facetware TOU updated, v2.0 since then)

The "copycat" notion is silly in either direction. Why? Because GIA gave years to observational studies based on human physiology. AGS gave years to developing computer ray-tracing based on angular spectrum. GIA converted human results to 2D charts. AGS created their 3D metric from repeatable scientific models. The fact that they overlap (esp where Morse & Tolkowsky predicted) is a testament to the brilliance of those early researchers. The fact that 21st century research also allows other top possibilities (esp in today's lighting) is to be expected. Where they do not overlap it's largely resultant from different obstruction fundamentals, which explains their different treatments of steep/deep versus shallow, again making "copycat" a silly notion...but I am now tangenting, and promised not to.

However, in the spirit of "steel trap"

I'd like to remind you that we already had this conversation on another board in a different year David (forum policies prevent linking).

June 30, 2007

David: I have to admit that AGS's prejudice against 60/60 prior to 2006 have left me feeling that AGS simply moved the bar once the real authority spoke. It also makes me skeptical of the term "Ideal" in general. >>

John: deep vs shallow & overall width of the top grade are the main ones) but they are largely in agreement. i'm a fan of both labs and especially the good people behind the research.[/i]>>

Deja Vu?

 

[tallchickbarbara]

Date: 10/15/2009 6:17:54 PM
Author: John Pollard

Interested in joining me at Caffenation in Antwerp one day Barbara?

You''re on.

 

[Rockdiamond]

John,
Thank you for clearing up the timing.
I''m sure you are correct....
My impression was that before Facetware came out in Beta in August 2005, it was fairly well publicized that GIA was coming out with a cut grade for quite a few months prior.
It''s a competitive marketplace, it could easily be seen as AGS needing to "respond" to GIA''s upcoming cut grade in 2005.
Of course your point about totally different methodology would mean that AGS was preparing the new grade for a while anyway.
Bottom line here is that we both respect GIA and AGS, as well as the intensive research both have undertaken.


PS- remembering- and finding- the ''07 posts- well that proves the steel trap theory beyond a doubt!

 

[30yearsofdiamonds]

4th try at replying!

GIA does a good job for a huge lab. Over 400 graders worldwide, with a huge varience in ability and far too few highly competent graders to QA grading. They grade over 20,000 diamonds per week. Even if they were consistently correct on 90% of them, 2000 diamonds per week go out into the industry and public as incorrect.

I hope my Dr. has a better %.

This is the nature of the business created by GIA and the trade.