BrianTheCutter
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2002
- Messages
- 146
As some of you know, I have been out of the country. I have been following conversations here and participating in similar discussions with colleagues in centers of the trade. To that end, I would like to make comments and put forward a suggestion:
To the members of Pricescope:
The 2006 GIA cut grading system has enough flaws at first glance that leading authorities have deemed it problematic since its launch. Issues continue to arise. It is clearly controversial; that is not a question. The more important questions that many of us have been asking are:
1. What problems exist?
2. How did this happen?
3. What can be done?
(1) What problems exist?
Large-scale problems include the width of the ‘Excellent’ grade, the abundant steep/deep combinations allowed, mass-stereotyping of certain diamond types and forced rounding of reported measurements. It is a system which favors mass manufacture and mass sales over consumers. This may please big business and GIA politicians but some aspects are incongruent with known gemology and science. As an authority on diamond cutting, and a specialist in premium make, I can present several key issues in simple terms:
Width of the Excellent grade: Using the current AGS system for comparison, GIA’s top grade is vast: A diamond graded GIA Excellent may be an AGS4 as easily as an AGS0. With GIA’s steep/deep allowances each lower AGS grade leads to extra weight within the same GIA grade. It is logical to presume that mass manufacturers will cut the heaviest possible GIA Excellent. Therefore, when a consumer is buying a GIA Excellent the statistical chance of him buying an AGS4 will be high. GIA may tell you that within their top grade there is no visible difference but AGS will tell you it can be divided into 5 different grades: It is impossible for both of these organizations to be correct. A vast top grade with abundant steep/deep combinations promotes sloppier cutting, which serves mass manufacturers, not the public.
Steep/deep cutting hides weight: As the pavilion is made steeper, weight is added and spread is reduced. Allowing EX to range up to a 41.8 pavilion adds approximately 4% to the bottom of the stone without improving spread. If manufacturers cut the steepest/deepest angles possible, stones with less spread and increased light leakage will proliferate.
Steep/deep cutting entraps body color: This situation will cause dichotomy in an already-imperfect color grading system. We all know that well-cut diamonds show less color face-up due to optimized light return. Now face up appearance will become more incongruent because steep/deep cutting entraps body color (fancy colored rounds are cut either very shallow or steep precisely because of this). At combinations near 41.8 / 34.0 the diamond appears darker and the color becomes more apparent in the face up position. Put a 41.8 angle on a J color and see how yellow it looks. An F may look like an H face up. This is the opposite of masking color with great cut. It is incongruent for these parameters to be graded ‘best’ in a system where colorless diamonds are considered most valuable.
Brillianteering is stereotyped: Certain brillianteering approaches are penalized en masse, even when they improve the look of the stone. This stereotyping is a mass-grading shortcut. Diamonds with premium configurations, optical symmetry and careful finish behave differently than those without. This stereotyping penalizes the art of skillful cutting: If GIA wants to downgrade a diamond because a girdle is inconsistent or wavy that is appropriate. But as long as the girdle is of reasonable thickness, is not wavy and is consistent it should be graded as Excellent. Specific configurations and optical symmetry change the playing field. If the effect on light performance is additive it should qualify for a top cut grade in any system, providing that the girdle is consistent.
Forced rounding: GIA reports altered measurements on their public grading reports. The current popularity of AGS documents and Sarin-type reports has developed a growing expectation among consumers for numbers reported to the tenth of a degree. GIA rounds numbers as much as 2.5 tenths and to nearest 5%. This is not accurate reporting.
Rounding and brillianteering incongruities: The approaches are disproportionate. For example, all diamonds with 34.8, 34.9 and 35.0 CA are stereotyped as 35s, even though they do not behave as 35s. Those are vast angular differences. Meanwhile, brillianteering decisions at the girdle are fractional, measured in microns. These are distinct incongruities. To blindly round up angle measurements as much as a half degree in the crown and view them all as ‘the same’ for grading purposes, while blindly downgrading an individual diamond because of a difference of microns at the girdle is disproportionate and unscientific.
Girdle thickness: Girdle thickness ranges may have widened. This needs further examination to be confirmed. If this is true, it is another incongruity: GIA penalizes painting and digging, supposedly for ‘retaining weight’ in microns, yet may be allowing far more weight by thickening girdle ranges in a system that already favors steep/deep diamonds.
Facetware rounding issues: When using GIA’s online Facetware the forced rounding may result in a cut grade which varies, depending on user input. For a user who is unfamiliar with GIA’s lab strategies, this is tantamount to flipping a coin to decide the cut grade.
Symmetry never studied: Diamonds with premium symmetry behave differently than those without. The GIA planned to study symmetry deviations in 1998:
From G&G, Fall, 1998: "In addition, we plan to explore two important considerations that have been neglected thus far: symmetry and color. From our efforts and observations of actual diamonds for this study, we suspect that symmetry deviations may produce significant variation in brilliance (this was also suggested by A. Gilbertson, pers. comm., 199
. Incorporation of symmetry deviations requires adding more parameters to describe the shape of the round brilliant, and devising a method of tracking multiple symmetry faults. Once this is done, the model can be used to calculate both images and metric values that show how symmetry deviations, both singly and in combination, change diamond appearance.”
If they had followed through, as other labs have, they would not be downgrading all diamonds based on brillianteering: Stereotyping en masse, without regard for the admitted difference symmetry brings, is a step backward and could be perceived as an insult to some of the world’s finest fashioners of diamonds.
(2) How did this happen?
Robert Shipley founded the GIA and AGS as companion organizations in the 1930s. For over 70 years the GIA contributed to gemology and academia, and set grading standards others aspired to emulate. They earned our trust.
Then, in one short year, the GIA lost considerable ground and trust, first with the internal bribery scandal and now with the release of a grading system that serves mass manufacturers over the public. Business motivations at GIA seem stronger than gemological ones. They have stayed inside the ivory tower rather than participating in global enrichment. For instance, in 2004 the first International Diamond Cut Conference was held in Moscow, Russia. The only world leader not in attendance was the GIA. Resulting studies and technologies may have prevented problems in their new system. Unfortunately the GIA did not benefit from this enrichment.
What is more alarming is that the GIA used trade people (with inherent bias) to perform their human observations. These observations matched only 58% of their prior scientific WLR and DCLR research. Instead of seeking consumer observers they went with a 46 degree obstruction model and put glare back into their metric. In effect, the science was adapted so that it would correlate with the observers. The result is a system which favors mass manufacturers and mass sellers (GIA benefactors) over consumers: Steep/deep were favored. H&A were favored by those who looked for them and not favored by those who didn’t. Girdle ranges appear to have widened, there are no provisions for symmetry and decisions favor mass manufacture, mass marketing and pedestrian sales. The decisions do not raise the bar. It seems to be a system by GIA for GIA benefactors, not for consumers.
What is GIA’s mission?
Why am I complaining? After all, I could embrace this system, advise the factories I design for to shift their parameters and increase my profits by sending diamonds with more weight to GIA for grading. Some have suggested that this may be a GIA political aim: Win business away from other labs by rewarding weight retention and increasing revenues of manufacturers who send them diamonds. This I cannot do. I am committed to the art of cutting and the evolution of beauty. Many esteemed colleagues feel the way I do.
In effect, GIA has sent a message to cutters, telling us to cut steep/deep. I refuse to do so. I also refuse to sit idle while we take steps backward in our evolution. This system that favors mass manufacture over the public interest is in opposition to the vision of GIA’s founding fathers.
GIA's mission "is to ensure the public trust in gems and jewelry by upholding the highest standards of integrity, academics, science, and professionalism through education, research, laboratory services, and instrument development.”
Their own words demonstrate how things have changed in recent years:
“GIA's mission is to ensure the public trust by upholding the highest standards of integrity” GIA betrayed the public trust with last year’s bribery/grading scandal. They have never been open and forthright about who and what was involved. We may never know size and scope. Now we are served with a cut grading system designed to serve mass producing manufacturers over the public. This does not create public trust.
“academics, science and professionalism” GIA pioneered gemological education but some believe the present state of their academics should be subject to review. Many GGs have great expertise, but others remain unaware of current developments. The coursework has not kept up with academics and science, and there is no regulatory body or requirement for continuing education. Those who have the GG title are held up as trade authorities. Ironically, there are some GGs who know less about diamonds than public buyers they are supposed to serve.
GIA’s science has not kept pace with others’. As recently as last year GIA was still sending the message that depth and table are enough to determine cut quality. Meanwhile, over the last decade, tools have been openly and publicly developed by scientists and trade bodies which have proven reliable in the public mainstream. Other cut grading systems, the HCA, reflector technologies, ray-tracing software and programs such as DiamCalc have pushed the envelope far beyond what GIA offers in terms of simple proportions assessment.
“through education, research, laboratory services, and instrument development.” This is no longer current. Technologies noted above have existed for years but GIA omitted them. Why? OctoNus Helium has the ability to measure with great accuracy, but GIA omitted it. Why? In 1998 GIA stated they would research optical symmetry and color further but neglected to. Why? They are not current in these aspects, just as they did not benefit from the 2004 International Diamond Cut Conference. Why? They invested years and millions of dollars doing scientific research but changed it to accommodate trade observations. Why?
The rejection of prior research, adaptations to fit trade observations, steep/deep predilection, mass stereotyping and rounded reports combine to cast a long shadow on intentions. All of this begs a question: Does the GIA realize they have departed from their mission to ensure the public trust? For a simple answer, just look to the ‘Publicity’ clause included with the launch of Facetware:
“PUBLICITY. Licensee will not issue any press release or make any statement or announcement to the press, the public or any third party (including, without limitation, Licensee’s customers) which (i) reflects unfavorably on the Software or the performance of the Software, (ii) is false or misleading about GIA or the Software or (iii) is damaging to the reputation of GIA or the Software. This paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement.”
Though it was removed due to public pressure, the fact that this clause was handed down shows they knew their system would not engender trust. It also indicates they would have preferred to silence criticism rather than accept peer review.
“To ensure the public trust…” Trust is a two-way street. We must reconsider our faith in what this organization has become. We had respect for them. They have lost ground. They will have to earn it back.
(3) What can be done?
GIA’s die are cast. They are not likely to change this system anytime soon, but if concerns are uniformly shared a growing portion of the public will become aware of them. I would hope the GIA would listen to experts committed to cut evolution, but I fear the ivory tower walls are too thick. As an industry professional I must seriously consider future use of this GIA certificate, because I cannot agree with it. Regardless of my personal decision, I propose to create public and trade awareness, and to invite support.
I know there are many points of view and I don’t expect everyone to hold mine: This system will not meet resistance from common sellers of average goods, or from those who cite portions of it to serve their own interests. However, for those who see the big picture as I do here are some options:
A. Stop using the services of GIA. This is simple enough, but it does not help consumers.
B. Clearly explain why we prefer AGS. For consumers, the example of mass manufacturers cutting AGS-4 equivalents that will receive GIA Excellent should be enough motivation for any educated shopper to seek AGS grading. For the trade, the AGS has earned our trust. In the past 10 years, they have partnered with cutters and experts to seek understanding. Their system rewards careful approaches and proven beauty. The AGS Ideal mark is a top standard and their openness and commitment to “ensuring the public trust” is reminiscent of what Shipley and other founding fathers envisioned for the GIA.
C. Come together and voice public concern. In this internet age we can do this using an independent webpage that people can quickly link. It will cite reasons that people are concerned with aspects of this system and perhaps invite electronic signatures. It will be open to consumers as well as trade people so that this information can be shared concisely and uniformly.
Some will see option C as a waste of energy and that is fine. For those of us who are passionate and wish to express ourselves it can serve as common ground, a symbol of what we believe is right and the opportunity to share our views with others at the click of a mouse. There are many who already feel this way. Others are not yet aware of the implications. As the effects trickle down I believe more people will want and need this information. I believe more voices will be raised in support of moving forward, not backward, in cut evolution.
It will be unfortunate for our trade if this system is never analyzed and adjusted. In time it is my hope that GIA’s leaders will remember their written mission and pay heed to our public voice.
Sincerely,
To the members of Pricescope:
The 2006 GIA cut grading system has enough flaws at first glance that leading authorities have deemed it problematic since its launch. Issues continue to arise. It is clearly controversial; that is not a question. The more important questions that many of us have been asking are:
1. What problems exist?
2. How did this happen?
3. What can be done?
(1) What problems exist?
Large-scale problems include the width of the ‘Excellent’ grade, the abundant steep/deep combinations allowed, mass-stereotyping of certain diamond types and forced rounding of reported measurements. It is a system which favors mass manufacture and mass sales over consumers. This may please big business and GIA politicians but some aspects are incongruent with known gemology and science. As an authority on diamond cutting, and a specialist in premium make, I can present several key issues in simple terms:
Width of the Excellent grade: Using the current AGS system for comparison, GIA’s top grade is vast: A diamond graded GIA Excellent may be an AGS4 as easily as an AGS0. With GIA’s steep/deep allowances each lower AGS grade leads to extra weight within the same GIA grade. It is logical to presume that mass manufacturers will cut the heaviest possible GIA Excellent. Therefore, when a consumer is buying a GIA Excellent the statistical chance of him buying an AGS4 will be high. GIA may tell you that within their top grade there is no visible difference but AGS will tell you it can be divided into 5 different grades: It is impossible for both of these organizations to be correct. A vast top grade with abundant steep/deep combinations promotes sloppier cutting, which serves mass manufacturers, not the public.
Steep/deep cutting hides weight: As the pavilion is made steeper, weight is added and spread is reduced. Allowing EX to range up to a 41.8 pavilion adds approximately 4% to the bottom of the stone without improving spread. If manufacturers cut the steepest/deepest angles possible, stones with less spread and increased light leakage will proliferate.
Steep/deep cutting entraps body color: This situation will cause dichotomy in an already-imperfect color grading system. We all know that well-cut diamonds show less color face-up due to optimized light return. Now face up appearance will become more incongruent because steep/deep cutting entraps body color (fancy colored rounds are cut either very shallow or steep precisely because of this). At combinations near 41.8 / 34.0 the diamond appears darker and the color becomes more apparent in the face up position. Put a 41.8 angle on a J color and see how yellow it looks. An F may look like an H face up. This is the opposite of masking color with great cut. It is incongruent for these parameters to be graded ‘best’ in a system where colorless diamonds are considered most valuable.
Brillianteering is stereotyped: Certain brillianteering approaches are penalized en masse, even when they improve the look of the stone. This stereotyping is a mass-grading shortcut. Diamonds with premium configurations, optical symmetry and careful finish behave differently than those without. This stereotyping penalizes the art of skillful cutting: If GIA wants to downgrade a diamond because a girdle is inconsistent or wavy that is appropriate. But as long as the girdle is of reasonable thickness, is not wavy and is consistent it should be graded as Excellent. Specific configurations and optical symmetry change the playing field. If the effect on light performance is additive it should qualify for a top cut grade in any system, providing that the girdle is consistent.
Forced rounding: GIA reports altered measurements on their public grading reports. The current popularity of AGS documents and Sarin-type reports has developed a growing expectation among consumers for numbers reported to the tenth of a degree. GIA rounds numbers as much as 2.5 tenths and to nearest 5%. This is not accurate reporting.
Rounding and brillianteering incongruities: The approaches are disproportionate. For example, all diamonds with 34.8, 34.9 and 35.0 CA are stereotyped as 35s, even though they do not behave as 35s. Those are vast angular differences. Meanwhile, brillianteering decisions at the girdle are fractional, measured in microns. These are distinct incongruities. To blindly round up angle measurements as much as a half degree in the crown and view them all as ‘the same’ for grading purposes, while blindly downgrading an individual diamond because of a difference of microns at the girdle is disproportionate and unscientific.
Girdle thickness: Girdle thickness ranges may have widened. This needs further examination to be confirmed. If this is true, it is another incongruity: GIA penalizes painting and digging, supposedly for ‘retaining weight’ in microns, yet may be allowing far more weight by thickening girdle ranges in a system that already favors steep/deep diamonds.
Facetware rounding issues: When using GIA’s online Facetware the forced rounding may result in a cut grade which varies, depending on user input. For a user who is unfamiliar with GIA’s lab strategies, this is tantamount to flipping a coin to decide the cut grade.
Symmetry never studied: Diamonds with premium symmetry behave differently than those without. The GIA planned to study symmetry deviations in 1998:
From G&G, Fall, 1998: "In addition, we plan to explore two important considerations that have been neglected thus far: symmetry and color. From our efforts and observations of actual diamonds for this study, we suspect that symmetry deviations may produce significant variation in brilliance (this was also suggested by A. Gilbertson, pers. comm., 199
. Incorporation of symmetry deviations requires adding more parameters to describe the shape of the round brilliant, and devising a method of tracking multiple symmetry faults. Once this is done, the model can be used to calculate both images and metric values that show how symmetry deviations, both singly and in combination, change diamond appearance.”If they had followed through, as other labs have, they would not be downgrading all diamonds based on brillianteering: Stereotyping en masse, without regard for the admitted difference symmetry brings, is a step backward and could be perceived as an insult to some of the world’s finest fashioners of diamonds.
(2) How did this happen?
Robert Shipley founded the GIA and AGS as companion organizations in the 1930s. For over 70 years the GIA contributed to gemology and academia, and set grading standards others aspired to emulate. They earned our trust.
Then, in one short year, the GIA lost considerable ground and trust, first with the internal bribery scandal and now with the release of a grading system that serves mass manufacturers over the public. Business motivations at GIA seem stronger than gemological ones. They have stayed inside the ivory tower rather than participating in global enrichment. For instance, in 2004 the first International Diamond Cut Conference was held in Moscow, Russia. The only world leader not in attendance was the GIA. Resulting studies and technologies may have prevented problems in their new system. Unfortunately the GIA did not benefit from this enrichment.
What is more alarming is that the GIA used trade people (with inherent bias) to perform their human observations. These observations matched only 58% of their prior scientific WLR and DCLR research. Instead of seeking consumer observers they went with a 46 degree obstruction model and put glare back into their metric. In effect, the science was adapted so that it would correlate with the observers. The result is a system which favors mass manufacturers and mass sellers (GIA benefactors) over consumers: Steep/deep were favored. H&A were favored by those who looked for them and not favored by those who didn’t. Girdle ranges appear to have widened, there are no provisions for symmetry and decisions favor mass manufacture, mass marketing and pedestrian sales. The decisions do not raise the bar. It seems to be a system by GIA for GIA benefactors, not for consumers.
What is GIA’s mission?
Why am I complaining? After all, I could embrace this system, advise the factories I design for to shift their parameters and increase my profits by sending diamonds with more weight to GIA for grading. Some have suggested that this may be a GIA political aim: Win business away from other labs by rewarding weight retention and increasing revenues of manufacturers who send them diamonds. This I cannot do. I am committed to the art of cutting and the evolution of beauty. Many esteemed colleagues feel the way I do.
In effect, GIA has sent a message to cutters, telling us to cut steep/deep. I refuse to do so. I also refuse to sit idle while we take steps backward in our evolution. This system that favors mass manufacture over the public interest is in opposition to the vision of GIA’s founding fathers.
GIA's mission "is to ensure the public trust in gems and jewelry by upholding the highest standards of integrity, academics, science, and professionalism through education, research, laboratory services, and instrument development.”
Their own words demonstrate how things have changed in recent years:
“GIA's mission is to ensure the public trust by upholding the highest standards of integrity” GIA betrayed the public trust with last year’s bribery/grading scandal. They have never been open and forthright about who and what was involved. We may never know size and scope. Now we are served with a cut grading system designed to serve mass producing manufacturers over the public. This does not create public trust.
“academics, science and professionalism” GIA pioneered gemological education but some believe the present state of their academics should be subject to review. Many GGs have great expertise, but others remain unaware of current developments. The coursework has not kept up with academics and science, and there is no regulatory body or requirement for continuing education. Those who have the GG title are held up as trade authorities. Ironically, there are some GGs who know less about diamonds than public buyers they are supposed to serve.
GIA’s science has not kept pace with others’. As recently as last year GIA was still sending the message that depth and table are enough to determine cut quality. Meanwhile, over the last decade, tools have been openly and publicly developed by scientists and trade bodies which have proven reliable in the public mainstream. Other cut grading systems, the HCA, reflector technologies, ray-tracing software and programs such as DiamCalc have pushed the envelope far beyond what GIA offers in terms of simple proportions assessment.
“through education, research, laboratory services, and instrument development.” This is no longer current. Technologies noted above have existed for years but GIA omitted them. Why? OctoNus Helium has the ability to measure with great accuracy, but GIA omitted it. Why? In 1998 GIA stated they would research optical symmetry and color further but neglected to. Why? They are not current in these aspects, just as they did not benefit from the 2004 International Diamond Cut Conference. Why? They invested years and millions of dollars doing scientific research but changed it to accommodate trade observations. Why?
The rejection of prior research, adaptations to fit trade observations, steep/deep predilection, mass stereotyping and rounded reports combine to cast a long shadow on intentions. All of this begs a question: Does the GIA realize they have departed from their mission to ensure the public trust? For a simple answer, just look to the ‘Publicity’ clause included with the launch of Facetware:
“PUBLICITY. Licensee will not issue any press release or make any statement or announcement to the press, the public or any third party (including, without limitation, Licensee’s customers) which (i) reflects unfavorably on the Software or the performance of the Software, (ii) is false or misleading about GIA or the Software or (iii) is damaging to the reputation of GIA or the Software. This paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement.”
Though it was removed due to public pressure, the fact that this clause was handed down shows they knew their system would not engender trust. It also indicates they would have preferred to silence criticism rather than accept peer review.
“To ensure the public trust…” Trust is a two-way street. We must reconsider our faith in what this organization has become. We had respect for them. They have lost ground. They will have to earn it back.
(3) What can be done?
GIA’s die are cast. They are not likely to change this system anytime soon, but if concerns are uniformly shared a growing portion of the public will become aware of them. I would hope the GIA would listen to experts committed to cut evolution, but I fear the ivory tower walls are too thick. As an industry professional I must seriously consider future use of this GIA certificate, because I cannot agree with it. Regardless of my personal decision, I propose to create public and trade awareness, and to invite support.
I know there are many points of view and I don’t expect everyone to hold mine: This system will not meet resistance from common sellers of average goods, or from those who cite portions of it to serve their own interests. However, for those who see the big picture as I do here are some options:
A. Stop using the services of GIA. This is simple enough, but it does not help consumers.
B. Clearly explain why we prefer AGS. For consumers, the example of mass manufacturers cutting AGS-4 equivalents that will receive GIA Excellent should be enough motivation for any educated shopper to seek AGS grading. For the trade, the AGS has earned our trust. In the past 10 years, they have partnered with cutters and experts to seek understanding. Their system rewards careful approaches and proven beauty. The AGS Ideal mark is a top standard and their openness and commitment to “ensuring the public trust” is reminiscent of what Shipley and other founding fathers envisioned for the GIA.
C. Come together and voice public concern. In this internet age we can do this using an independent webpage that people can quickly link. It will cite reasons that people are concerned with aspects of this system and perhaps invite electronic signatures. It will be open to consumers as well as trade people so that this information can be shared concisely and uniformly.
Some will see option C as a waste of energy and that is fine. For those of us who are passionate and wish to express ourselves it can serve as common ground, a symbol of what we believe is right and the opportunity to share our views with others at the click of a mouse. There are many who already feel this way. Others are not yet aware of the implications. As the effects trickle down I believe more people will want and need this information. I believe more voices will be raised in support of moving forward, not backward, in cut evolution.
It will be unfortunate for our trade if this system is never analyzed and adjusted. In time it is my hope that GIA’s leaders will remember their written mission and pay heed to our public voice.
Sincerely,
300x240.png)