GIA, AGS, EGL ... accuracy, allowances and adjustments

[EmeraldCutQuest]

Another post on Pricescope ... the one with MANY replies, made me think the following:

It is genreally accepted (yes?) that GIA and AGS certifications are ''stricter'' than EGL (let me use EGL as a short-hand for EGL-Israel). Does this strictness always result in a more conservative (lower) grading in borderline cases? And since grading is not a science and subject to fluctuations/interpretations (see, for example, the NBC Dateline sticky post), isn''t there a loss of ''accuracy'' anyway?

When people say that EGL is ''looser'' in their standards, does this always mean that they would grade the same stone 1 or 2 levels differently than, say, GIA? And would the EGL classification always be better?

Finally, let''s say I want a stone with color ''H'', and let''s say I assume EGL is overstated by 2 levels. So I compare two EGL-certed stones classified each as ''F''. Why would I care that that they are EGL? Am I paying more for an EGL ''F'' stone than an ''accurate'' GIA ''H'' (all other things equal -- and yes, I mean equal!).

[Note: I am not defending EGL -- personally, I much prefer, and have bought, GIA -- just some food for thought].

--ECQ. (no longer)

 

[Regular Guy]

Search threads more.

Nail experts.

I understand more is at threat than apples to apples on color and clarity.

i.e., other difficult to name quality issues are at risk besides getting same to same on color & clarity...potentially causing a diamond to not be sent to GIA or AGS.

 

[EmeraldCutQuest]

Good points, Ira.

So, what, in general, does a diamond merchant/wholesaler consider when deciding to which lab he/she wants to send a particular stone? (I can''t believe the cost of getting the diamond certified is hugely different from lab to lab).

--ECQ. (no longer)

 

[John P]

Date: 9/18/2008 2:10:40 PM
Author: EmeraldCutQuest
Good points, Ira.

So, what, in general, does a diamond merchant/wholesaler consider when deciding to which lab he/she wants to send a particular stone? (I can't believe the cost of getting the diamond certified is hugely different from lab to lab).

--ECQ. (no longer)

The path a diamond takes from cutter to lab to seller is chosen on-purpose, based on a number of factors which include the target market and knowing how well (or not) a diamond will score at one lab vs the next.

Here is a similar thread which may pique your interest, ECQ(nl).

EGL gets brought in about halfway down.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-gia-igi-question.87892/

 

[EmeraldCutQuest]

Thanks, John! I had missed that thread, and it was very informative, especially your analogy between labs and universities.

Being a wine enthusiast (what on earth does THIS have to do with this post???) ... anyway, it has been said that accurate wine grading/rating/analysis will NEVER be overtaken by pure technology and science. I suspect that the same is true for diamonds; yes, there may be less subjectivity in stone grading, but I can''t believe you can totally take out human eyes and judgement.

And with enough good wine, most diamonds will improve their C''s! (And perhaps so too, with enough good quality bling, a wine may perform better also!)

¡Salúd!

--ECQ. (no longer)

 

[John P]

I like the way you think, since I'm a wine guy. In fact, I like to compare slight performance nuances between closely matched diamonds to slight taste differences in closely matched wines. Two cabs can be equally wonderful and have subtle differences. For the smallest differences it takes time and/or perhaps a trained palate to discern tham. It's not much different with diamond performance...I see far more now than I did when I started this journey, and some of my heroes still detect things beyond my ken.

 

[purrfectpear]

You can guesstimate the difference in color and compare prices like that. You might find a perfectly nice diamond and could then send it to an independant appraiser. However, should you ever decide to sell the diamond you''ll find your market smaller with an EGL document IMO. If you plan to keep it forever then that is moot of course.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/18/2008 2:10:40 PM
Author: EmeraldCutQuest
Good points, Ira.

So, what, in general, does a diamond merchant/wholesaler consider when deciding to which lab he/she wants to send a particular stone? (I can''t believe the cost of getting the diamond certified is hugely different from lab to lab).

--ECQ. (no longer)

right.

So, what if the diamond is fracture filled...for example. Is it safer to send to EGL if you don''t want buyers to know?

See some discussion here...not pointing to EGL, but not for trying...

 

[John P]

Date: 9/18/2008 9:34:41 PM
Author: Regular Guy

right.

So, what if the diamond is fracture filled...for example. Is it safer to send to EGL if you don''t want buyers to know?

See some discussion here...not pointing to EGL, but not for trying...

I don''t think so Ira. First of all EGL-USA does not grade fracture filled diamonds to my knowledge. Secondly it''s unethical to withhold disclosure, whether you''re an individual or an organization.

All of the major labs are strict on detection of treatments, synthetics, etc. EGL-USA is actually one of the leaders in screening, testing and identifying lab-grown diamonds. Branko Deljanin, one of EGL''s Directors of Operations is among the foremost authorities on that subject.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/18/2008 9:50:02 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 9/18/2008 9:34:41 PM
Author: Regular Guy

right.

So, what if the diamond is fracture filled...for example. Is it safer to send to EGL if you don't want buyers to know?

See some discussion here...not pointing to EGL, but not for trying...

I don't think so Ira. First of all EGL-USA does not grade fracture filled diamonds to my knowledge. Secondly it's unethical to withhold disclosure, whether you're an individual or an organization.

All of the major labs are strict on detection of treatments, synthetics, etc. EGL-USA is actually one of the leaders in screening, testing and identifying lab-grown diamonds. Branko Deljanin, one of EGL's Directors of Operations is among the foremost authorities on that subject.

John,

Thanks for sharing your contemporary sentiment on this. In a minute...I'll hope you'll still say it again, if you want.

About 14 months ago, over several threads (maybe there are thousands...but I'm mindful of several in 2007), where we did look at the question of why you might go to one lab or another, I suggested that this business of "smart guys only send diamonds to AGS or GIA" can't hold up well enough for the economics if only color and clarity are name-able factors, and you can see some of the threads here. There was not good confidence that I read that EGL...and at least non-USA...but maybe all...would be regarded as a major lab...with respect to ferreting out the treatments, as you say.

The point returns to this...It is common enough to hear that...if it was to the benefit of a diamond wholesaler to send it to EGL, they would, and that "there are reasons they pick GIA & AGS instead." But, in as many threads, the numbers are worked out to show this to be at least close to a fair game, where...based on discounting for color & clarity, the amount paid, diamond for diamond, is at least close to making this decision a toss up. And yet, and yes...let's eliminate AGS for now. In consideration of GIA against EGL, is it clear enough what the name-able reasons are for choosing one over the other?

In looking at possible issues like treatment and other such factors, I had hoped we could find there were some tangible, nameable factors that would allow a more black and white set of recommendations to a user. It could allow us to say..you might get lucky with EGL, sure...but because of the unknowns...you might get unlucky...and not even know it after having compared for color and clarity...so don't do it.

But...are you clear that...everything else is by and large the same for screening with EGL, as along with both GIA & AGS...so that...when identifying a diamond with equal real clarity, color, and cut, if you paid less with EGL...on all known accounts, you seem to have done better?

 

[John P]

Ira,

I will answer the above after getting some morning work done. In the meantime let me ask you a question. Why do you think some companies use GIA or AGS to the exclusion of others?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/19/2008 11:10:45 AM
Author: John Pollard
Ira,


I will answer the above after getting some morning work done. In the meantime let me ask you a question. Why do you think some companies use GIA or AGS to the exclusion of others?

Consumer mind share in the market they are targeting is my answer.
AGS is a specialty market generally high end cut, GIA for the middle and high end, and EGL/IGI for the lower end of the market.
There is some overlap of course.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/19/2008 11:10:45 AM
Author: John Pollard
Ira,


I will answer the above after getting some morning work done. In the meantime let me ask you a question. Why do you think some companies use GIA or AGS to the exclusion of others?

Tradition is another big reason.
Some will only use GIA because that is what they have used for decades.
It becomes part of their image to use only GIA.
This is very very common in the fancy cut market.

 

[Regular Guy]

John,

Thanks for bothering to respond to a discussion point that may be overly tired...

One new way to consider saying some of the same thing, first...

Bill Bray, our cutter friend on this board, talks in a sensitive way about the character of a diamond, indicating the material of the diamond itself may have a number of qualities...and I had been more recently inclined to understand that the characteristics I understood to be associated with diamonds...what we call 4 Cs...are only some part of the total picture of what a diamond is...what "regular guys" know...and so, thought it may be that first tier grading agencies might only tend to work with pieces that are "finer" all around...rather than with respect to just the 4 Cs we know. But...this may just be fanciful thinking...and I may be making up stuff here. So, back to your question:

Date: 9/19/2008 11:10:45 AM
Author: John Pollard
Ira,

I will answer the above after getting some morning work done. In the meantime let me ask you a question. Why do you think some companies use GIA or AGS to the exclusion of others?

Conventionally, as you know, retailers may prefer to have only GIA or AGS to deal with having returns be more negotiable. Also, maybe relatedly, to have their channels not so confused, with respect to their audience. Yes, we know AGS & GIA are more chi-chi.

Now...consider what Pricescope is. Because of Pricescope...we don''t have to just go to Tiffanys, Harry Winstons, etc. and other high end stores for good cut quality.

Likewise, do we steer away of EGL because of prejudice, or because that prejudice, even after factoring for variances in color and clarity, is also based on other substantive knowledge.

 

[denverappraiser]

It’s been a while since I chimed in on one of these so I thought I would toss in a few comments.

I think it’s about money.

I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of people who are buying lab services are dealers, that they are well aware of the issues surrounding the reliability of the various labs and the differences in the way they grade, they are well aware of the pricing that’s associated with stones with different kinds of documents and that they make the selection of lab strategically. That is to say, they are doing what they feel is financially in the best interests of their company.

That said, there are some complicated issues at play.
The same stone can be expected to get different grades from different labs. Dealers can and do try to predict how labs will grade things and use this prediction as part of the decision process.

The labs do not all use the same scales. Even ignoring the Si3 clarity issue, this especially applies to cut grading topics. As with the above, dealers can and do predict what the cut grade of a stone will be on the scales of the different labs and will use this information to choose one that they believe will sell the best.

Different labs and different reports from the same labs sell for premiums and discounts over similarly graded stones from each other. A GIA graded stone will sell for more than the exact same stone would get if it were sent to EGL-USA and got the same grading. In certain cases a stone may also sell faster with certain branding of lab docs. For most dealers, GIA docs will move a stone faster because a lot of consumers demand GIA but might or might not accept alternatives and there are few consumers who have such a strong brand preference for the other labs (except for a blip with AGS graded stones where they are specifically looking for Ideal cutting).

The credibility of the lab can rub off on the dealer. There’s a certain status to saying that all stones within a particular brand are graded by GIA or AGS and that this fact makes them ‘better’ by adding the lab’s reputation to that of the dealer. Less regarded labs can have the same affect in the opposite direction.

Sometimes this decision is made even before the stone is cut. AGS-0 and GIA-Excellent, in particular, don’t just happen. The cutter had this objective in mind when they planned the stone. They may rethink the strategy later in the process but the lab decision is often made very early in the chain of events, perhaps even as part of the buying process when the cutting house selects which pieces of rough to buy and work on.

Obviously not every dealer and not every consumer approaches these issues in the same way. If they did, there would be only one lab. There is no correct answer to the question of which lab is best because not everyone has the same objectives.

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

 

[elmo]

Just had to say 'hi' to the wine guys on this thread.

We will have to head over to 'hangout' forum sometime and compare notes...I'm into Burgs and Rhones.

Here's another wine analogy. Even if you consistently disagree with a wine writer (lab) I can still respect their reviews (reports) if the writer (lab) has consistent notes (grading). Consistency is critical.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/19/2008 12:33:00 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Sometimes this decision is made even before the stone is cut. AGS-0 and GIA-Excellent, in particular, don’t just happen. The cutter had this objective in mind when they planned the stone. They may rethink the strategy later in the process but the lab decision is often made very early in the chain of events, perhaps even as part of the buying process when the cutting house selects which pieces of rough to buy and work on.

Narrowing the question is important, I think.

Deciding to favor GIA or AGS is easy. Sociologically, maybe we can appreciate why EGL is around.

But...maybe the question dujour...with EGL...are you adequately protected.

Elmo...you mentioned consistency is critical. I disagree now and in the thread noted right here.

Variability that''s somewhat measurable is critical.

That is to say..yes...it''s good to use consumer''s reports if you''re buying a car...but if you use, equivalently, EGL...are you sufficiently protected from buying a jalopy...

Is the downside possibly perilous enough...that we should just say no.

I think that''s my question.

 

[denverappraiser]

Cutting houses tend to specialize but they aren''t all specialists in the high end even though those tend to be the ones who hang out here and it’s not just the AGS or GIA decision that’s made before cutting. People also choose EGL, HRD, IGI and others at that point. EGL grading, for example, is very conducive for stones that are cut to maximize weight for example because they have report formats that don''t discuss the cutting at all. The various definitions of EGL-Ideal will produce a different approach to cutting than if they’re aiming for GIA-excellent. Stones that are expected to be lower clarity, especially the I-1 and I-2 ranges are regularly planned to be sent to one of the labs that will give them an SI-3 grade because they are hoping this will raise the prices in the target marketplace.

It’s also worth adding that those ‘other’ labs are generally quite a bit less expensive than either GIA or AGS. If they have the work done overseas, the lab fees can be ¼ or less of what they would be with a higher status lab. Especially on smaller stones, this can be important.

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

 

[elmo]

Date: 9/19/2008 1:44:09 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Elmo...you mentioned consistency is critical. I disagree now and in the thread noted right here.

Not consistency with other labs a la LMHC, rather consistency amongst their own grading reports. So suppose if EGL's reference master set is different than GIA's reference master set I'm fine with that, as long as they grade consistently to their set.

 

[John P]

Date: 9/19/2008 1:06:11 PM
Author: elmo
Just had to say 'hi' to the wine guys on this thread.

We will have to head over to 'hangout' forum sometime and compare notes...I'm into Burgs and Rhones.

Here's another wine analogy. Even if you consistently disagree with a wine writer (lab) I can still respect their reviews (reports) if the writer (lab) has consistent notes (grading). Consistency is critical.

There are enough of us here to petition Andrey for our own Hangout. The Whinery maybe?

Just had a 2004 Calix cellars Syrah the other night. Syrah is becoming my new grilled steak wine. Maybe it's an outdoor/fall thing. Elmo, have ever tried anything from Sean Thackery? His tale is more compelling to some than his wines; sommeliers for great wine-carriers I've been to (Bern's House of Legends in Tampa and Randolph's in Chicago) are cult followers of the guy.

 

[John P]

Date: 9/19/2008 12:44:59 AM
Author: Regular Guy

John,

Thanks for sharing your contemporary sentiment on this. In a minute...I'll hope you'll still say it again, if you want.

About 14 months ago, over several threads (maybe there are thousands...but I'm mindful of several in 2007), where we did look at the question of why you might go to one lab or another, I suggested that this business of 'smart guys only send diamonds to AGS or GIA' can't hold up well enough for the economics if only color and clarity are name-able factors, and you can see some of the threads here. There was not good confidence that I read that EGL...and at least non-USA...but maybe all...would be regarded as a major lab...with respect to ferreting out the treatments, as you say.

The point returns to this...It is common enough to hear that...if it was to the benefit of a diamond wholesaler to send it to EGL, they would, and that 'there are reasons they pick GIA & AGS instead.' But, in as many threads, the numbers are worked out to show this to be at least close to a fair game, where...based on discounting for color & clarity, the amount paid, diamond for diamond, is at least close to making this decision a toss up. And yet, and yes...let's eliminate AGS for now. In consideration of GIA against EGL, is it clear enough what the name-able reasons are for choosing one over the other?

In looking at possible issues like treatment and other such factors, I had hoped we could find there were some tangible, nameable factors that would allow a more black and white set of recommendations to a user. It could allow us to say..you might get lucky with EGL, sure...but because of the unknowns...you might get unlucky...and not even know it after having compared for color and clarity...so don't do it.

But...are you clear that...everything else is by and large the same for screening with EGL, as along with both GIA & AGS...so that...when identifying a diamond with equal real clarity, color, and cut, if you paid less with EGL...on all known accounts, you seem to have done better?

Ok Ira, I went and read those threads and I think everything said still applies.

I do want to recap something that seemed to be a point of confusion then and now: All major labs will grade laser-drilled diamonds, because that is a permanent enhancement. It is always disclosed on their reports. AGS, GIA and EGL will not grade fracture-filled diamonds because the fillings can fall out. End of story.

Moving on…Reading the above, I think you might be asking this question from a prior thread again (?)

Date: 7/8/2007 11:54:02 PM
Author: Regular Guy

The question:

If you know you can get an EGL (this example, EGL Israel rated F VS1 2 carats for $15K) for a price, such that the worst guess in-accurateness applied to it would still make it a good deal (with H SI1 2 carats running $13,5 - $30 K on this board), are there other reasons apart from the defining color & clarity to give you pause, and not go forward?

The answer is (still) yes.

Why? The most obvious reason is diamonds with GIA and AGS reports command higher prices from buyers. In short, higher quality reports = more money.

For us consistency and reputability also top the list.

Consistency: We pre-grade the diamonds we cut before sending them to AGS. Lieve was Coordinator of the Diamond Expert Division for the Belgian ministry of economic affairs and customs before she came to Infinity so we are quite good at predicting GIA and AGS grades. She gets many spot-on. When there is a discrepancy it’s slight (typically +/- 1) and understandable (although Lieve will tell you she is correct). This consistency allows us to make confident decisions and projections when attending tenders, submitting bids and planning and polishing rough, which is an extremely complex and continuous process taking place weeks before the diamonds will ever be submitted.

Reputability is also key (you can call it tradition or status as well). Bear in mind that on Pricescope you’re hearing voices skewed toward GIA/AGS. The reality is that far more mainstream stores are carrying IGI graded goods accompanied by those dubious “report-appraisals.” Thousands also carry EGL-graded stones, and this is not limited to EGL-USA. So, in a market rife with soft and inconsistent reports, dealers carrying GIA reports enjoy a certain status within the trade and the relatively small group of dealers with diamonds graded by AGS are seen as having an elite, cut-focused niche. This may not be important to all, but it is to some, particularly those who desire peer recognition and take pride in high standards.


Consider our company. Why do we use AGS? Why don’t we send our diamonds to softer labs to receive higher color & clarity grades? It would not work for our philosophy and goals. Paul’s vision is producing diamonds at the absolute pinnacle of quality, so sending those diamonds to the lab we believe is most strict and sophisticated is compulsory. Also, after working for years to enforce consistency & standards at HRD and the Belgian ministry, I don’t think Lieve’s heart could take a softer lab. For myself, the passion I have for this career (enough to have pulled me away from another career) is rooted in fundamentals that dovetail with Paul’s vision and Lieve’s strictness. So…we’re trapped.

This is not the case with everyone or every company, nor does it need to be. Every lab has its target customers and target market. That’s life, and whether I personally agree or disagree with other standards probably doesn’t matter a hill of beans to those experiencing success in their own system. That’s fine, and cheers to all who support and embrace what they believe in.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 9/19/2008 12:33:00 PM
Author: denverappraiser
It’s been a while since I chimed in on one of these so I thought I would toss in a few comments.

I think it’s about money.

I think it’s fair to say that the vast majority of people who are buying lab services are dealers, that they are well aware of the issues surrounding the reliability of the various labs and the differences in the way they grade, they are well aware of the pricing that’s associated with stones with different kinds of documents and that they make the selection of lab strategically. That is to say, they are doing what they feel is financially in the best interests of their company.

That said, there are some complicated issues at play.
The same stone can be expected to get different grades from different labs. Dealers can and do try to predict how labs will grade things and use this prediction as part of the decision process.

The labs do not all use the same scales. Even ignoring the Si3 clarity issue, this especially applies to cut grading topics. As with the above, dealers can and do predict what the cut grade of a stone will be on the scales of the different labs and will use this information to choose one that they believe will sell the best.

Different labs and different reports from the same labs sell for premiums and discounts over similarly graded stones from each other. A GIA graded stone will sell for more than the exact same stone would get if it were sent to EGL-USA and got the same grading. In certain cases a stone may also sell faster with certain branding of lab docs. For most dealers, GIA docs will move a stone faster because a lot of consumers demand GIA but might or might not accept alternatives and there are few consumers who have such a strong brand preference for the other labs (except for a blip with AGS graded stones where they are specifically looking for Ideal cutting).

The credibility of the lab can rub off on the dealer. There’s a certain status to saying that all stones within a particular brand are graded by GIA or AGS and that this fact makes them ‘better’ by adding the lab’s reputation to that of the dealer. Less regarded labs can have the same affect in the opposite direction.

Sometimes this decision is made even before the stone is cut. AGS-0 and GIA-Excellent, in particular, don’t just happen. The cutter had this objective in mind when they planned the stone. They may rethink the strategy later in the process but the lab decision is often made very early in the chain of events, perhaps even as part of the buying process when the cutting house selects which pieces of rough to buy and work on.

Obviously not every dealer and not every consumer approaches these issues in the same way. If they did, there would be only one lab. There is no correct answer to the question of which lab is best because not everyone has the same objectives.

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

You bring up some great points Neil.

Let me make it real simple for folks.

I have a friend in the business. He goes to shows. When he finds the EGL or IGI papered stone that he thinks is actually graded correctly, he buys it, and if he is right, makes a lot of money on the uptic when it comes back with the GIA paper saying it is what the EGL or IGI paper said it was.

Now understand, he might look at a thousand stones to find one or two that he buys. He even looks at GIA papered stones to find the ones that he thinks he can get bumped up on a recheck.

He is VERY good at what he does.

Most dealers who buy EGL and IGI papered diamonds do so because the VAST majority of their potential clients do NOT HAVE A CLUE abuut how fraudulantly bad they are and they can make more money on them than they can on a well papered (accurately graded) diamond. Some of the rest buy them simply because they too do not know any better. Now THAT is really sad, but it is true. EGL and IGI papered diamonds sell for HUGE discounts over GIA or AGS papered diamonds, primarily because they sell for what they are really worth.

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/19/2008 1:06:11 PM
Author: elmo
Just had to say ''hi'' to the wine guys on this thread.

We will have to head over to ''hangout'' forum sometime and compare notes...I''m into Burgs and Rhones.

Here''s another wine analogy. Even if you consistently disagree with a wine writer (lab) I can still respect their reviews (reports) if the writer (lab) has consistent notes (grading). Consistency is critical.

That is a key and often missunderstood point Elmo.
Personally in that regard I find IGI to be the most consistent - they seem to run between the strictest and softest labs, but i believe they train their staff and administer their standards (especiallialy on below 1ct stones) better than a certain 800lb gorilla.

It is the movie guides i have the most problem with.
Wine wise - downunder - we have Halliday and Jeremy Oliver (my soon to be neighbour) who both do a great job.

 

[John P]

Date: 9/19/2008 9:43:35 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
That is a key and often missunderstood point Elmo.
Personally in that regard I find IGI to be the most consistent - they seem to run between the strictest and softest labs, but i believe they train their staff and administer their standards (especiallialy on below 1ct stones) better than a certain 800lb gorilla.

It is the movie guides i have the most problem with.
Wine wise - downunder - we have Halliday and Jeremy Oliver (my soon to be neighbour) who both do a great job.

Garry, which IGI lab(s) are you talking about? I know the one in Hong Kong is well administered, but when was the last time you walked through our stateside malls and department store counters?

 

[elmo]

Date: 9/19/2008 3:37:41 PM
Author: John Pollard
There are enough of us here to petition Andrey for our own Hangout. The Whinery maybe?

Just had a 2004 Calix cellars Syrah the other night. Syrah is becoming my new grilled steak wine. Maybe it's an outdoor/fall thing. Elmo, have ever tried anything from Sean Thackery? His tale is more compelling to some than his wines; sommeliers for great wine-carriers I've been to (Bern's House of Legends in Tampa and Randolph's in Chicago) are cult followers of the guy.

Garry you're invited too

. I've had Pleiades a few times out and think of it a very good sort of bottle for that...reasonably priced, drinks well on release, accessible for the non-wine-nuts at the table, some interesting flavors going on. Never tried his more expensive offerings, as I almost never drink New World wines anymore...just not enough of the brambly gamy wild thing going on for me

. Besides, for killer syrah, $80 will get you top-notch Cote Rotie and Cornas (say Jamet, Clape, or Verset, at least until he retired recently), or a couple bottles of Chave's estate St. Joseph. But you definitely have me intrigued with Thakrey's website, I'll enjoy browsing that.

Have you read Kermit Lynch's Adventures on the Wine Route?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

John it is true that most of my IGI experiance is with IGI Mumbai (not HK).

Elmo I wish you guys could use the original name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrah#The_name_Shiraz_and_associated_legends
And you would be please to know there are lighter fruity ones that go with red fish etc rather well too. At quaffing prices.
Lets just not talk about diamonds anymore - i am sure Andrey will not mind

 

[denverappraiser]

An important issue is generally overlooked when consumers are considering the reliability of lab reports.

You are not the client.

This may seem like a tiny detail and an example of getting something for nothing because someone else paid but it’s far from the case. It’s like getting legal advice from opposing council and then accepting it a face value because it’s free.

Two dealer added filters have been pointed out in this thread. First is the selection of the lab. The second is the decision to show the lab results with the stone rather than to send it to a different lab and look for ‘better’ results or simply sell it without paperwork.

People put a lot of value in these documents. A stone described as VS2 by GIA is worth more than the very same stone described by GIA as an SI1. Purists argue that you should buy the diamond not the paper and even I have made this statement but one of the realities is that the paper is a large part of what sets the price. That’s why dealers are willing to go through so much trouble over them. That’s why Wink’s friend can make a good living by converting EGL’s into GIA’s, AGS’s into GIA’s and even GIA’s into EGL’s. The stones don’t change, just the paper (and the price). This activity is not unusual. I have dealer clients and even selling consumers who bring me stones on nearly a daily basis where these are the keys question they’re trying to decide and the reason they hire me. Is it going to get an AGS-0 or should it go to GIA for an excellent? Will EGL call it SI3 or should I go ahead and accept the GIA I1 it deserves? These issues are about documents, not about diamonds but they’re definitely valid issues in the marketplace. The seller is the client and their objective is to produce a document that results in the highest market value for the stone. This process is NOT about communicating clearly to the buyer information about what is being offered, it’s about setting the price.

As a buyer considering a diamond based on information from one of these reports, Elmo is dead on that consistency is the key. What do you know when someone offers you an XYZ lab SI2/I/ideal? Will it be similar to SI2/I/ideals from other labs? Will it even be similar to other SI2/I/ideals from XYZ? The former would be nice and it’s what an awful lot of people assume is the case but without the latter you know nothing at all. The former is pretty clearly false in nearly every case. Unfortunately, in the case of many of these alternative labs, I think the latter is false as well.

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

 

[glitterata]

I own one of those potential I SI2 diamonds that went to AGS because of Infinity's desire to link their reputation for strict cutting to AGS's reputation for strict grading. AGS called my diamond a J I1. GIA might--or might not--have given it a higher grade for color or clarity or even both; Paul and Wink told me they thought AGS had graded it strictly. So did I pay less because of the low grade it got? Compared to an Infinity I I1 or J SI2 or (certainly) I SI2, yes. But I'm also paying for the Infinity brand cutting. In fact, I just looked at James Allen's site and found this ideal-cut GIA I SI2, exactly the same carat weight as my AGS J I1 Infinity, for exactly the same price I paid for the Infinity: GIA I SI2 . So to me the moral of the story here is that Infinity didn't make such a bad decision sending my stone to AGS, if the AGS grading reports allow them to charge a premium for their cutting that makes up for any potential losses due to possible stricter grading. ...Edited to add that there's also this GIA J I1 about the same size as mine, for about $300 less: GIA J I1.

 

[glitterata]

(Just to clarify, I''m very happy with my stone and would not have preferred the higher graded or less expensive alternatives.)

 

[strmrdr]

On the consumer side it sometimes comes down to not supporting the behavior of the lab even if the price is right for the actual color clarity and cut.
Even if I took Neil, Richard and Dave with me shopping and had them tell me what a IGI graded diamond actually was and what it was really worth I would not buy it.
Questionable grading and most of all the inflated values they put on "appraisal" reports are not actions on the part of a lab that I can support with my money.