GIA Bad Paper

[Richard Sherwood]

It's a David and Goliath situation.

Except in Marty's case, he packs a .44 Magnum instead of a slingshot...

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

dont worry too much, consumers such as myself looking at these smaller stones will note the slip ups and recent controversy and choose other labs as 1st choice. I can say that with confidence as it happened to me. true I would have had confidence in GIA but after looking over the last few years events and cut grade requirements I decided I personally would rather have an AGS cert, though I am sure they both must make mistakes from time to time.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Date: 8/16/2007 10:05:43 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/16/2007 3:32:33 PM
Author: strmrdr
Marty we get it, you hate the gia lab with a passion, frankly to the point that a lot of people ignore anything you say about them without a ton of proof, you lose credibility every time you go off even when you have a good point.
A well reasoned calm post with proof that something went wrong would go a long ways towards fixing that.
In this case it appears your right they did mess up and need to track it down and fix it but saving the dramatics would be much more pleasant and effective.

Storm, I''m not alone in ''hating'' what the GIA lab has done to the consumer...

Unfortunately, it is only the large $ lawsuits and the coverups because of multi million dollar diamonds that get and will get the press.

Few here seem to care about the sliipage in grading, that might only ''cost'' the ''average'' consumer a overly generous color grade or a color grade because of fluorescence or a liberal clarity grade or being sold a bill of goods on a cut grade because of a tax exempt institution pandering to the trade, in my opinion.

I have lost so much respect for the labs work.

As a reminder to the current or former GIA student and/or graduate....aside from the lab issues...GIA "gets it right" regarding education, in my humble opinion.


Jeff Averbook, G.G. (Graduate Gemologist since 1986)

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/17/2007 9:27:29 AM
Author: Modified Brilliant
As a reminder to the current or former GIA student and/or graduate....aside from the lab issues...GIA ''gets it right'' regarding education, in my humble opinion.


Jeff Averbook, G.G. (Graduate Gemologist since 1986)

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

Jeff.. I''ve always supported the GIA GG education program, and commend them on removing the fluff that dominated ehat I considered the dumbed down program of the 90''s, as opposed to that of the 50-70''s, and also increasing the number of stones the GG''s have to examine.

Donna has been doing some well deserved house cleaning.

There are many great people there, and many have expressed to me their pleasure and confidence with the new management and attitude.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Marty,

I''ve known that to be your feelings from speaking to you in the past about GIA education. Thanks for the update.

Jeff Averbook, G.G. (Graduate Gemologist since 1986)

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/17/2007 12:33:23 AM
Author: Richard Sherwood
It''s a David and Goliath situation.

Except in Marty''s case, he packs a .44 Magnum instead of a slingshot...

Rich.. Way too much recoil for me, sold my S&W 44 a long time ago.

I wish I still had my Hammerli 22 free pistol (2 gram trigger pull), but I still know how to deliver a well placed shot.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/17/2007 10:06:30 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/17/2007 12:33:23 AM
Author: Richard Sherwood
It''s a David and Goliath situation.

Except in Marty''s case, he packs a .44 Magnum instead of a slingshot...

Rich.. Way too much recoil for me, sold my S&W 44 a long time ago.

I wish I still had my Hammerli 22 free pistol (2 gram trigger pull), but I still know how to deliver a well placed shot.

I love my 44s but cant shoot them since I blew out my elbows sold them off all but one.
Im going to download it too 200gr at 1000fps so I can shoot it.
Id love a Hammerli.

back on topic...
thanks for the info on gia messing up the numbers.
That is why I insist that a trusted vendor look over my diamonds no matter who the report is done by.
double check and sometimes triple check is the path to peace of mind which is why using an independent appraiser is a great idea.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/17/2007 3:17:52 AM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
dont worry too much, consumers such as myself looking at these smaller stones will note the slip ups and recent controversy and choose other labs as 1st choice. I can say that with confidence as it happened to me. true I would have had confidence in GIA but after looking over the last few years events and cut grade requirements I decided I personally would rather have an AGS cert, though I am sure they both must make mistakes from time to time.

Working with a vendor who catches mistakes by actually seeing the diamonds and considering an independent appraiser keeps everyone on their toes and goes a long way too avoiding issues.
Frankly I ignore both the AGS and GIA cut grades as a primary consideration.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/17/2007 12:13:18 PM
Author: strmrdr
I love my 44s but cant shoot them since I blew out my elbows sold them off all but one.
Im going to download it too 200gr at 1000fps so I can shoot it.
Id love a Hammerli.

back on topic...
thanks for the info on gia messing up the numbers.
That is why I insist that a trusted vendor look over my diamonds no matter who the report is done by.
double check and sometimes triple check is the path to peace of mind which is why using an independent appraiser is a great idea.

Couldn''t agree with you more Storm...

PS: My shoulder took the beating with the 44mag..

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/16/2007 2:50:21 PM
Author: elmo

Date: 8/16/2007 2:42:52 PM
Author: adamasgem
And what they have done to the diamond buying public in the last eight to ten years is going to bite them where it hurts.

What I want to see now is the youtube video of Marty burning his GG diploma while biting them where it hurts

.

Well, I won''t burn the diploma, because I earned it, but think of me as the puppy below..

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/16/2007 2:42:52 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 8/16/2007 2:22:25 PM
Author: aljdewey

IF the goal is to mock the system for the sake of mockery, then no tact need be applied.
IF the goal is to improve the system (and fix the serious problems Marty identifies), then approach becomes as important as the data.

Marty is well beyond smart enough to help influence the right kind of change.....but smart doesn''t mean anything if you can''t get a receptive audience, and you aren''t gonna do that by repeatedly poking them in the eye.

Aljdewey.. You don''t know the history.. I didn''t have the money to sue the b**tards when they intentionally and maliciously maligned my product, a Lanham Act violation.

They don''t like criticism of any sort, regardless of whether it is correct or not, and have had the age old problem of not admitting mistakes.

I combine the truth and a sometimes lack of tack, to kick them in the backside when they need it. They don''t respond to anything else, in my opinion, and from historical perspective.

They are the 800# Gorrilla who does anything they want to do, including massive coverups.

And what they have done to the diamond buying public in the last eight to ten years is going to bite them where it hurts.

And their cut grade system is a sell-out, in the guise of ''science''.. It is all about money, PERIOD!!!!!!

Marty, you''re missing my point.

I''m not saying you don''t have justification for feeling as you do. I''m not saying you''re aren''t completely right.

What I''m saying is, people aren''t gonna listen to message -- NO MATTER HOW CORRECT IS IT -- if it''s delivered offensively.

If you just want to bitch about it for the sake of it, then your approach is fine as is.
If you REALLY want to be a catalyst for change, you''re not going to be terribly effective unless you modify the delivery.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/17/2007 12:37:28 PM
Author: aljdewey

Marty, you''re missing my point.

I''m not saying you don''t have justification for feeling as you do. I''m not saying you''re aren''t completely right.

What I''m saying is, people aren''t gonna listen to message -- NO MATTER HOW CORRECT IS IT -- if it''s delivered offensively.

If you just want to bitch about it for the sake of it, then your approach is fine as is.
If you REALLY want to be a catalyst for change, you''re not going to be terribly effective unless you modify the delivery.

bingo and said more effectively than I did.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/16/2007 10:05:43 PM
Author: adamasgem

Storm, I'm not alone in 'hating' what the GIA lab has done to the consumer...

Unfortunately, it is only the large $ lawsuits and the coverups because of multi million dollar diamonds that get and will get the press.

Few here seem to care about the sliipage in grading, that might only 'cost' the 'average' consumer a overly generous color grade or a color grade because of fluorescence or a liberal clarity grade or being sold a bill of goods on a cut grade because of a tax exempt institution pandering to the trade, in my opinion.

I have lost so much respect for the labs work.

How do you conclude that few here care? Because we don't run around calling things "farceware"? Because many of us don't outwardly mock GIA?

Let me tell you something, Marty. I DO care, and I express that by voting with my dollars. Only one of my stones has a GIA grading report (and it was purchased quite a while ago); the other five don't. I prefer not to buy GIA-papered stones because I'm not thrilled with some of the GIA practices.

If I was buying and the only stone within my parameters had GIA paper, I'd have no choice but to go with it, but you can bet I'd have it thoroughly checked over by someone I TRUST. But that would only be an avenue of last resort for me; if there is a non-GIA option, I'll take that instead.

I'm not deluded enough to think that my little embargo makes a hill of a difference....but it's what I can contribute, and it's how I can 'vote'.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/17/2007 12:42:41 PM
Author: aljdewey

How do you conclude that few here care? Because we don''t run around calling things ''farceware''? Because many of us don''t outwardly mock GIA?

Let me tell you something, Marty. I DO care, and I express that by voting with my dollars. Only one of my stones has a GIA grading report (and it was purchased quite a while ago); the other five don''t. I prefer not to buy GIA-papered stones because I''m not thrilled with some of the GIA practices.

If I was buying and the only stone within my parameters had GIA paper, I''d have no choice but to go with it, but you can bet I''d have it thoroughly checked over by someone I TRUST. But that would only be an avenue of last resort for me; if there is a non-GIA option, I''ll take that instead.

I''m not deluded enough to think that my little embargo makes a hill of a difference....but it''s what I can contribute, and it''s how I can ''vote''.

If more consumers voted with their pocketbook like you, then they would soon get the message.

But it also takes the cutters and retailers to withdraw support, maybe untill things are straightened out, which is the "Few" that I have been referring to.

But GIA has made the selling of stones easier for cutters and retailers by loosening standards across the board, and in my opinion, have mislead and in some cases, have deceived consumers.

The outcome of the GIA cut grade was preordained, in my opinion, when the now-condo salesman and past face of GIA, editoriallized in the publication of the GIA Brilliance study in the late 1990''s.

"Better Paper" = "easier sale" =

, and greenbacks rule, unfortunately.

 

[WorkingHardforSmallRewards]

I think you are underestimating the consumers. Sure there are a lot of consumers who just hit up their local jewelery store and make a purchase. Sometimes they will aim for an Excellent cut and high color and clarity and sometimes not. In those cases where they do aim high there are already PLENTY of labs doing exactly what you are saying. Giving high color and clarity grades in order to make there lab more desirable as there diamonds will be easier to sell to the above mentioned customers.

Thus for those consumers who don't educate themselves as well as they might not much will change, except that there will eventually be more GIA certs available at those lower quality chains than there are now.

However, I imagine that a significant % of those who purchase GIA certified diamonds (In comparison to the % who purchase those other second and third tier labs, or whatever you want to call them) Actually go out and educate themselves and learn why they should purchase a GIA reported diamond rather than one of the numerous other cheaper options.

Thus, those same consumers will, in the process of learning, discover the very things that you are mentioning and will decide not to pay the premiums for GIA and will instead move on to other labs. In fact, if what you are saying is true, I believe that AGS will become the GIA of today, EGL-USA will perhaps one day take over AGS' current position (in America), and good ole GIA--well, if what you are saying is true, I believe that as consumers have more time to spend there money where they want and there is more time observing and more examples of the grading issues you are so upset about, then that will begin to have a noticeable effect on the marketplace, GIA would eventually become something akin to the current EGL-USA (though, I would imagine, never have quite the reputation of Isreal

)

Also note that every jeweler I spoke to in America considered AGS to be higher quality and the more desirable report because of their better cut grade system--so I believe it has in fact already begun.

But don't underestimate the consumers, other labs that play the same game get away with it, but its not as if the consumers totally ignore them, and they won't ignore it if GIA pulls the same stunts as well. But in truth, it is a business, dislike their practices or not if they are making more money and so as long as they do it without breaking any laws, and the laws are protecting us from terribly atrocious immoral acts, then I guess we don't have too much to worry about.

(though I wouldn't mind hearing more about this situation you were referring to, where they seem to have broken the law and done something or another to you directly? and at the very least, while you may lose credibility in sharing said stories...as alot of people won't believe it...it will surely put just enough fear in some consumers minds that they will instead choose a different lab, and in that way you will have, however course and unrefined, accomplished your goal)

 

[stebbo]

Date: 8/16/2007 10:05:43 PM
Author: adamasgem

Few here seem to care about the slippage in grading, that might only ''cost'' the ''average'' consumer a overly generous color grade or a color grade because of fluorescence ...

I understand the historical consistency and devaluing effect, and now the inability to compare GIA color grades to AGS''s, but the ''average'' consumer cares only for the color they see and pay for, regardless of whether fluorescence had a part in it or not.

Now if the world goes filtered, I agree with you 100%.

 

[celtickm]

I called GIA with these report numbers and they are invalid numbers. Someone who doesn''t like GIA created bogus reports. Makes you hmmmmmmmmm...........

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/20/2007 3:28:20 PM
Author: celtickm
I called GIA with these report numbers and they are invalid numbers. Someone who doesn't like GIA created bogus reports. Makes you hmmmmmmmmm...........

Welcome to PS celtickm.

I checked to see if the report data were stored when this was first posted, thinking there might be an error.
According to GIA Report Check they're valid numbers. Here are the links.

http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=15871664&weight=0.52
http://www.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=15823533&weight=0.49

Who did you speak with at GIA?

 

[celtickm]

My apologies. GIA has two systems and they only looked in one. Reports are valid numbers but they did state most likely it was human error. They stated all stones are weighed coming in and leaving GIA, but mistakes do happen for a few reasons which they wouldn''t eleborate on. They did state the weight is checked manually it is not automated yet.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/20/2007 4:27:12 PM
Author: celtickm
My apologies. GIA has two systems and they only looked in one. Reports are valid numbers but they did state most likely it was human error. They stated all stones are weighed coming in and leaving GIA, but mistakes do happen for a few reasons which they wouldn''t eleborate on. They did state the weight is checked manually it is not automated yet.

Hmmmmmmmmm... Seems like there are too many human "errors" lately, (not in the weight in this case), that can be caught by simple cross checks...

Their primary mistake is their cut grade, but that is caused by the desire to pump out more paper.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/20/2007 4:27:12 PM
Author: celtickm
My apologies. GIA has two systems and they only looked in one. Reports are valid numbers but they did state most likely it was human error. They stated all stones are weighed coming in and leaving GIA, but mistakes do happen for a few reasons which they wouldn't eleborate on. They did state the weight is checked manually it is not automated yet.

Understood. Unless they come up with a scanner that can account for the exact influence of pique/internal characteristics (and Octonus may) I image we'll never move away from manual weighing - nor should we. Always good to cross-check the real vs the calculated.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/20/2007 3:28:20 PM
Author: celtickm
I called GIA with these report numbers and they are invalid numbers. Someone who doesn''t like GIA created bogus reports. Makes you hmmmmmmmmm...........

hmmmm strange first post.
Are you in the trade?

 

[stebbo]

Was there an unintentional mistake with the second example Marty posted? All I could see was the (intentional) hammering of the crown painting. Did I miss it?

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/20/2007 3:28:20 PM
Author: celtickm
I called GIA with these report numbers and they are invalid numbers. Someone who doesn't like GIA created bogus reports. Makes you hmmmmmmmmm...........

celtickm,


........Makes you hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/20/2007 9:25:07 PM
Author: stebbo
Was there an unintentional mistake with the second example Marty posted? All I could see was the (intentional) hammering of the crown painting. Did I miss it?

Stebbo.. If you look at the Sarin scan averages and then the GIA averaged and halfassed rounded numbers you soon realize that GIA apparantly can''t scan a stone correctly, at least this class of stone.

If they were using a Sarin system, they could and should have picked up the phone if they were having scan problems (that is if they even looked at the quality of what they were getting) and found out that The Sarin 4.15 or 4.2 versions fixed the scan issues with painted breaks.

I know because I spent a day in early December at Sarin in Israel going over the fixes and even brought an EightStar to Sarin to test.

I cared about the problems we discussed last year on PS with the scan comparisons of Helium, Sarin and the jonny come lately that builds the GIA equipement, OGI, to notify Sarin of their issues, have people supply them with the raw data, and fix the issue. Four to five months later they apparently totally ignore the problem.

I don''t know how extensive the continual problem at GIA is, but it is probably evidenced by their rounding scheme, instead of getting things fixed by the equipment vendors. So they ignore bad scans and issue bad paper.

Plug in the "rounded averages" from either paper and the averages from the correct Sarin scans, which were available to GIA, if they bothered to ask, into something like the HCA, and you will see the resulting differences. They are too busy pushing paper to question anything.

An I have comments about stones continually having to be returned because they didn''t do the laser engraving, even though apparently the paper said it was.

Couple this with their arbtrary "brillianteering" comments based on what I think is a half-assed and unjustifiable criteria which unjustifiably penalises a class of stone someone there doesn''t like, and their paint by numbers methodology because they are too lazy to look at and analize any stone based on the best available scans and the actual facet interactions and facet balance, is why I deem their cut system FARCEWARE(TM), pandering to most in the international trade, and intentionally smearing the distinction between well cut stones and typical goods.

True, a well cut stone might get a GIA EX, but the the probabilty that off make stones get the SAME higher "grade" is literal deception to the consumer, and makes the GIA paper worthless, in my opinion.

What they call "human error" is an utter lack of attention to needed and desired detail from the consumer, and one of these days, they might realize it before they get caught in another big scandal.

Of course, some in the trade like their paper, since it is an easier sell..

And we haven''t discussed what appears to be a slippage in their overall grading criteria, is it a "NEW D" or a "TRUE D"..

Comments have come to me worldwide, where there is vast disagreement in color and clarity grades. But the 800# gorilla is slowly buying up labs worldwide, so they can foster their brand of deception, in my opinion, to the consumers detriment.