GIA Cut Grade?

[Anon-E-Mouse]

I've seen lots of posts where folks quote their GIA specs. That's fine and dandy, but then they quote a GIA cut quality. Really? I'm looking at my GIA report and there is no mention of cut quality. Am I missing something?

 

[John P]

Fancy shape? Or round brilliant pre-2006?

 

[Anon-E-Mouse]

In my case, fancy 2010.

But I'm wondering about everyone else, maybe pre-2010. Rounds, whatever. I don't get it at all.

 

[kenny]

GIA only grades cut quality of rounds...for now.

 

[yssie]

GIA only grades cut quality of rounds...for now.

yup. AGS will grade cut (w/ light performance cg) in RBs, princesses, and apparently ECs and ovals. Haven't seen either of the latter two and don't know how successful they are - either w/ marketing or pinning down "good" "better" "best", but there it is.

 

[Anon-E-Mouse]

Losers.

 

[yssie]

Losers.

??

 

[Anon-E-Mouse]

Losers.

??

Yes. My question, Am I missing something?

 

[yssie]

Losers.

??

Yes. My question, Am I missing something?

Has already been answered - GIA grades only round stones, and their cut grades are really only valuable for modern RBs (older cuts often score poorly in symmetry and polish, newer extra-facet RBs usually score poorly in symmetry again, as GIA is grading physical facet meet-point symmetry only).

GIA established a cut grading scheme in late 2005 I believe, so only stones that have been sent for evaluation since then will have any cut information listed on the report.

Even with modern RBs, the most-studied, most easily characterised of shapes, there is much debate as to what is "best" and whether the various labs have got it right. Personal preferences vary widely, and many disagree with AGS' narrow range for 0 or GIA's 2-D proportion-based modelling. Fancy shapes are even more widely varied in style and make, and different people will prefer such different types that it is a daunting task to try to pin them down and rank them..