GIA - "Cut Grade affected by Brillianteering"

[MarkP1]

What is meant by this statement... "Cut Grade affected by Brillianteering" on the GIA report?
also, what is meant by "Additional clouds are not shown" under "comments" section on GIA?

Thank-you very much.

 

[aljdewey]

Brillianteering refers to the last steps of the polishing process when the star facets along with the upper and lower half facets (also known as upper and lower girdle facets) are polished on the diamond.

GIA considers this when it grades stones, and it docks the grading rank of stones if they exhibit what GIA considers more than a nominal amount of brillianteering. So, more than an "acceptable" amount of brillianteering will cause the stone cut grade to drop from EX to Very good, for instance.

"Additional clouds not shown" means that there are clouds in the diamond that aren''t plotted on the inclusion plot (usually because it may make the stone look far worse to plot them...i.e. if they are large clouds, etc.)

 

[MarkP1]

Thank-you for your feedback. Much appreciated.
Unfortunately, it looks as though these are two substantial knocks against this diamond...

Is it safe to assume that if the "comments" section on the GIA report is left blank (ie. no comments), there won''t be any additional negative points against the stone?

 

[JulieN]

Those could be points off, or not at all. It is inconclusive without more information.

 

[aljdewey]

...

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/21/2006 1:31:32 AM
Author: MarkP1
Thank-you for your feedback. Much appreciated.
Unfortunately, it looks as though these are two substantial knocks against this diamond...

Is it safe to assume that if the 'comments' section on the GIA report is left blank (ie. no comments), there won't be any additional negative points against the stone?

I wouldn't necessarily calls these knocks myself.

Grading reports can sometimes end up looking a bit like attorneys' disclaimers.....things are said in the interest of full disclosure, but they aren't necessarily meant to be interpreted negatively.

It's kind of like the Halloween costume cape coming with a paper that says "Wearing cape will not result in wearer actually being able to fly". It's not *negative*, it's just disclosure.....don't try to jump off a building wearing this cape with the expectation of safety because this cape will not make you able to fly.

If you have a chance to actually see the diamond, I'd do it. The clouds comment appears quite frequently, and it makes things sound much, much worse than it is a good portion of the time.

If you're paying to have candidates shipped in, though, and you have other candidates as well that don't have such notations, I'd probably err on the side of paying less shipping and going with candidates that you feel more confident in.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

GIA has admitted it made some errors in their interpretation of painting and digging.
It may be they would grade the stone diffeerently if it was graded before the June Vegas conference when after questions raised here and during that conference by John Pollard from WhiteFlash.

In addition my experiance tells me that painting and digging to a small amount can enhance some diamonds with varying proportions.
Can you get an ideal-scope pic of the stone in question?

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/21/2006 6:54:25 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
GIA has admitted it made some errors in their interpretation of painting and digging.
It may be they would grade the stone diffeerently if it was graded before the June Vegas conference when after questions raised here and during that conference by John Pollard from WhiteFlash.

In addition my experiance tells me that painting and digging to a small amount can enhance some diamonds with varying proportions.
Can you get an ideal-scope pic of the stone in question?

re:GIA has admitted it made some errors in their interpretation of painting and digging.

Garry, could you give link?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/21/2006 7:04:32 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/21/2006 6:54:25 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
GIA has admitted it made some errors in their interpretation of painting and digging.
It may be they would grade the stone diffeerently if it was graded before the June Vegas conference when after questions raised here and during that conference by John Pollard from WhiteFlash.

In addition my experiance tells me that painting and digging to a small amount can enhance some diamonds with varying proportions.
Can you get an ideal-scope pic of the stone in question?

re:GIA has admitted it made some errors in their interpretation of painting and digging.

Garry, could you give link?

There were announcements that brillianteering comments would be moved to less prominent position on reports. Old reports could be returned and reprinted. this was early July?

John Pollard can answer the other issues because there was no ''announcement''.

 

[MarkP1]

Thank-you everyone for your help and comments.

Garry,
Unfortunately, the retailer does not have an ideal-scope pic available but I am planning on purchasing a scope and taking it in with me.

Just an fyi... the GIA report was issued in July 2005.