shape
carat
color
clarity

GIA NOTICED!!!

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

RockDoc

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
2,509
Well folks........


Guess the powers to be at GIA are listening about my "actual" rantings for the Profile image.

Today I saw a GIA report... that underneath the profile image it said the following:


"PROFILE NOT TO ACTUAL PROPORTIONS"


Thank you for listening GIA..... it is certainly good that they corrected it and improved the description properly.

Rockdoc
 

sunkist

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
2,964
Wow, RockDoc! Way to make a difference
1.gif
Thanks!
 

angeline

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
2,367
Excellent job! It''s good to know that a voice can be heard...
36.gif
36.gif
36.gif
 

kenny

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
33,225
Somebody sneaked an Internet connection cable up into GIA's Ivory Tower?

shock.jpg
 

Bluehammer

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jul 2, 2006
Messages
104
Hey Rockdoc,

It is good to see GIA making changes for the better. At least they acknowledge their limitations. I had a question for you kind of along these lines.

My experience has mainly been with WF stones. I noticed in my research that some of their stones got marked down a cut grade for brillianteering on GIA reports. I realize that WF does this to improve the visual nature of their stones. AGS does not make a remark about this on their DQD. I assume this is why almost all of the ACA stones are done with AGS. This makes sense from a business standpoint.

Do you think GIA will modify their system to account for brillianteering that enhances a stone? Or, even though it can be a benefit, do you think brillianteering will continue to be a GIA downgrade?
 

RockDoc

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
2,509
Date: 8/19/2006 9:47:26 AM
Author: Bluehammer
Hey Rockdoc,

It is good to see GIA making changes for the better. At least they acknowledge their limitations. I had a question for you kind of along these lines.

My experience has mainly been with WF stones. I noticed in my research that some of their stones got marked down a cut grade for brillianteering on GIA reports. I realize that WF does this to improve the visual nature of their stones. AGS does not make a remark about this on their DQD. I assume this is why almost all of the ACA stones are done with AGS. This makes sense from a business standpoint.

Do you think GIA will modify their system to account for brillianteering that enhances a stone? Or, even though it can be a benefit, do you think brillianteering will continue to be a GIA downgrade?

To be honest, I am not sure that GIA garnered this from here. It is very possible, as I do know some people at GIA''s staff to read PS.

A few months ago, Modern Jeweler sent out a questionaire where members of the trade could comment. Lots of jewelers probably answered it, but they saw the answer I had written as meaningful enough to publish it in their magazine, which I also would assume that GIA read and considered.

Regardless, of which venue they considered, the important part here is that they made a positive step to correct it, and for that reason, I think they deserve some acknowledgement of applauding the corrective action they took. If one chooses to criticize what someone does, when it is "fixed" they equally deserve a positive remark, when it is adjusted.

_________________


As for your question about the brillianteering issue, that is being discussed with GIA. At the recent show in Las Vegas, I know some of PSscope regular vendors.... discussed this with some of GIA''s people. I think they''ve already made some adjustments to it, and offer a replacement grading report with the language changed in it.

Rockdoc
 

Rhino

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Mar 28, 2001
Messages
6,340
Thanks for the update Rock. That is good news!
emthup.gif
 

diagem

Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Oct 21, 2004
Messages
5,096
Date: 8/18/2006 9:28:14 PM
Author:RockDoc
Well folks........


Guess the powers to be at GIA are listening about my ''actual'' rantings for the Profile image.

Today I saw a GIA report... that underneath the profile image it said the following:


''PROFILE NOT TO ACTUAL PROPORTIONS''


Thank you for listening GIA..... it is certainly good that they corrected it and improved the description properly.

Rockdoc
Roc,

Do you mean on the rounds?

if yes, thats great news, since all fancy shaped diamonds have that comment...
 

RockDoc

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
2,509
Date: 8/20/2006 8:47:56 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/18/2006 9:28:14 PM
Author:RockDoc
Well folks........


Guess the powers to be at GIA are listening about my ''actual'' rantings for the Profile image.

Today I saw a GIA report... that underneath the profile image it said the following:


''PROFILE NOT TO ACTUAL PROPORTIONS''


Thank you for listening GIA..... it is certainly good that they corrected it and improved the description properly.

Rockdoc
Roc,

Do you mean on the rounds?

if yes, thats great news, since all fancy shaped diamonds have that comment...
Yes - the grading report is for a round stone. The date on the report is June 27,2006.

No comment about brillianteering on it.

Rockdoc
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top