GIA tricked & cheated: +63% depth XXX diamonds

[Texas Leaguer]

Serg,
I'm a sucker for the philosophical, so I'll play.

Yes, history is dotted with examples of courageous and brilliant people who dared to challenge the status quo and who succeeded in big ways, sometimes changing the very course of history. But the multitudes that tried and became roadkill are never heard from again! Thus, it may be smarter in many cases to lobby for incremental change rather than sea change.

It could be that Garry's focus on this issue is more likely to result in an improvement in the governing rules, whereas expecting a major ground-up change from retailers may be less realistic.

Successful revolutions can sometimes move us forward, while failed insurrections just result in a bunch of people going to jail for seditious conspiracy.

And sometimes the flea is annoying enough to get a reaction from the elephant. (no offense Garry).

 

[Serg]

Serg,
I'm a sucker for the philosophical, so I'll play.

Yes, history is dotted with examples of courageous and brilliant people who dared to challenge the status quo and who succeeded in big ways, sometimes changing the very course of history. But the multitudes that tried and became roadkill are never heard from again! Thus, it may be smarter in many cases to lobby for incremental change rather than sea change.

It could be that Garry's focus on this issue is more likely to result in an improvement in the governing rules, whereas expecting a major ground-up change from retailers may be less realistic.

Successful revolutions can sometimes move us forward, while failed insurrections just result in a bunch of people going to jail for seditious conspiracy.

And sometimes the flea is annoying enough to get a reaction from the elephant. (no offense Garry).

Bryan,

Yes, very often the true pioneers perish while hacking through most of the jungle, leaving the laurels of history to those who followed and cleared the remaining stretch of the jungle to reach the valuable resource.

However, I don't know of an example where the elephant would heed the flea. For that, it would require either a different elephant or a large swarm of fleas. If someone wants to change GIA's approach and make it more focused on Diamond Optical Performance grade (instead of a parametric Cut grade), then consumers need to be educated to see, understand, and evaluate Diamond Optical Performance. That's when consumers will start exerting real pressure on retail, and retail is the big elephant that can change the direction of GIA's business.

As far as I understand the situation now, it's not GIA that hinders retail from working with a solid Optical Performance, but primarily retail rejects working with Optical Performance, as the introduction of a robust Optical Performance assessment system would significantly devalue the massive diamond inventory, involving tens of billions of dollars.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Bryan,

Yes, very often the true pioneers perish while hacking through most of the jungle, leaving the laurels of history to those who followed and cleared the remaining stretch of the jungle to reach the valuable resource.

However, I don't know of an example where the elephant would heed the flea. For that, it would require either a different elephant or a large swarm of fleas. If someone wants to change GIA's approach and make it more focused on Diamond Optical Performance grade (instead of a parametric Cut grade), then consumers need to be educated to see, understand, and evaluate Diamond Optical Performance. That's when consumers will start exerting real pressure on retail, and retail is the big elephant that can change the direction of GIA's business.

As far as I understand the situation now, it's not GIA that hinders retail from working with a solid Optical Performance, but primarily retail rejects working with Optical Performance, as the introduction of a robust Optical Performance assessment system would significantly devalue the massive diamond inventory, involving tens of billions of dollars.

It is clear and has been for decades that retailers will not join me as fleas.
But savy consumer has been my focus for 23 years.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

It is clear and has been for decades that retailers will not join me as fleas.
But savy consumer has been my focus for 23 years.

Don't feel bad Garry, the American Gem Society tried to lead their network of jewelers in the direction of optical performance. But most of the members invested only minimally in AGSL Ideal diamonds, content to offer mostly GIA graded diamonds because it was the path of least resistance.

Going direct to consumers is perhaps the best strategy to affect change. It is why pharmaceutical companies spend millions advertising their medicines directly to consumers, who then go to their doctors asking about them.

 

[autumngems]

I wish I had copied it because I cannot locate it now. I was on Rare Carat this a.m. looking at Emerald cuts and Ovals. Some listed as excellent and excellent meant 63% depth however the GIA certs were 63.3 or 63.5 and Rare Carat note next to it said "close enough". lol

At what point do we stop?

 

[Serg]

It is clear and has been for decades that retailers will not join me as fleas.
But savy consumer has been my focus for 23 years.

Personally, I don't see any fundamental difference between the HCA and GIA RBC cut grading systems. Both systems:

1. Do not take into account the size of the stone. They do not allow for the comparison of Optical Performance of diamonds with different masses, even in cases of the same cut and identical proportions.
2. Are based on averaged cutting parameters (they assess Cut, not Polished Diamond Performance).
3. Serve as rejection tools.
4. Have errors even within the framework of the parametric model of an ideal diamond.
5. Do not allow for the comparison of round diamonds with fancy cuts.
6. Do not create conditions for the improvement of cuts.

The differences between these systems are negligible when compared to the gap in the diamond grading system that would incentivise cutters to enhance designs, diamonds, and the technologies of their production. Such a system would enable retailers to effectively communicate with consumers about the beauty of diamonds and its variations based on cut designs.

Therefore, pointing out the issue with GIA evaluation for diamonds with a total depth of 64% only distracts everyone from addressing the truly important problems in diamond beauty assessment. This critique of the GIA system is akin to a typical consumer intimidation tactic: "Only in my store will you not be deceived, because I am an honest seller who works for customer satisfaction. In other stores, they will sell you poor diamonds at higher prices."

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Personally, I don't see any fundamental difference between the HCA and GIA RBC cut grading systems. Both systems:

1. Do not take into account the size of the stone. They do not allow for the comparison of Optical Performance of diamonds with different masses, even in cases of the same cut and identical proportions.
2. Are based on averaged cutting parameters (they assess Cut, not Polished Diamond Performance).
3. Serve as rejection tools.
4. Have errors even within the framework of the parametric model of an ideal diamond.
5. Do not allow for the comparison of round diamonds with fancy cuts.
6. Do not create conditions for the improvement of cuts.

The differences between these systems are negligible when compared to the gap in the diamond grading system that would incentivise cutters to enhance designs, diamonds, and the technologies of their production. Such a system would enable retailers to effectively communicate with consumers about the beauty of diamonds and its variations based on cut designs.

Therefore, pointing out the issue with GIA evaluation for diamonds with a total depth of 64% only distracts everyone from addressing the truly important problems in diamond beauty assessment. This critique of the GIA system is akin to a typical consumer intimidation tactic: "Only in my store will you not be deceived, because I am an honest seller who works for customer satisfaction. In other stores, they will sell you poor diamonds at higher prices."

Firstly Sergey,
As you know I spent a 6 figure sum fighting GIA as they ran roughshod over my 5 year earlier patent. The probably spent several million and outlawyered me!
Neither is a perfect system - never claimed it to be.
Secondly,
HCA has had Looks Like added to it so it does indeed take account the size of the stone - PLUS it accounts for probably leakage at the girdle and goes a step further to indicate likely visual performance.
Thirdly,
If you were not so obstropolous, you would have helped me enable ray tracing using DiamCalc to actually calculate the leakage near a diamonds periphery and then that could be applied accurately to rounds rather than a estimate.
Fourthly,
hat would then enable the estimation of comparative visual size for any shape of diamond!
Finally,
You could enable a cut grading system as a Beta101 and that would help the world enormously, but your perfectionism holds back your brilliance. A shame for all.

 

[Karl_K]

Back on topic.....
If you include code/methods to catch 1000 ways to cheat, over time 1100 will be thought up and someone will slam you.
The problem is at that point in a big organization all it takes is one person to say so what and nothing gets done about it.
Even if everyone agrees it needs to be changed it may not be economically viable or get put on the back burner by more pressing needs.

 

[Serg]

Firstly Sergey,
As you know I spent a 6 figure sum fighting GIA as they ran roughshod over my 5 year earlier patent. The probably spent several million and outlawyered me!
Neither is a perfect system - never claimed it to be.
Secondly,
HCA has had Looks Like added to it so it does indeed take account the size of the stone - PLUS it accounts for probably leakage at the girdle and goes a step further to indicate likely visual performance.
Thirdly,
If you were not so obstropolous, you would have helped me enable ray tracing using DiamCalc to actually calculate the leakage near a diamonds periphery and then that could be applied accurately to rounds rather than a estimate.
Fourthly,
hat would then enable the estimation of comparative visual size for any shape of diamond!
Finally,
You could enable a cut grading system as a Beta101 and that would help the world enormously, but your perfectionism holds back your brilliance. A shame for all.

Before addressing the main statements you've made, I would like to first clarify my goals and values in the field of Optical Performance. I hope that by doing so, my answers and decisions will become clearer.

I enjoy creating both new and interesting High Performance cuts as well as establishing conditions and tools for others to create such cuts. In this process, I see only one way to make it sustainable and long-lasting: ensuring that everyone involved either earns well or pays for what they enjoy. Specifically, this means that software and service developers should be able to sell their products at a good price, cut designers should earn from selling licenses for their cuts, cutters who invest in designs should have a better chance of selling many diamonds with that cut at a good margin, jewelry stores should also sell with a favorable margin without having excessive dead stock, and consumers should derive pleasure from both the buying process and selecting a diamond that highlights their individuality.

Moreover, all participants, including consumers, can enhance their profile by reducing the substantial costs of maintaining a large inventory of unsold diamonds.

I detailed how it was possible to achieve such a new business model for diamond raw materials and what needed to be done during my presentation in Surat in 2008.

Over the past 15 years, we've managed to solve many technical problems that were hindering the transition to the new business model. We've developed B2B services that allow cutters to improve cut designs, and technologies that enable accurate cutting according to the design. In recent years, I've observed a steady increase in the percentage of beautiful fantasy cuts and a strong rise in the percentage of fantasy cuts in the market. Currently, we are embarking on the creation of B2C and C2C services necessary for understanding the real needs and preferences of diamond buyers, and incorporating these preferences into a reliable diamond beauty assessment system.

Having done so much to create a system that motivates continuous improvement in cut designs, I will not assist in creating yet another Rejection system that will be swept away by the LGD wave. This is not because I consider Rejection systems useless or very harmful (my opinion is that their harm outweighs their benefits), but because the LGD wave will simply wash away all Rejection grading systems as LGD businesses will have to consistently improve their product to survive. The USP resource of "same as natural diamonds, but cheaper" is already greatly depleted, and for sustainable development, they need to transition to an innovative product and marketing development model. The absence of Rarity in their USP will have to be replaced with something equally valuable, and I'm confident it will be beautiful, diverse designs, imaginative colors, etc. There will be so many designs, changing so frequently, that no organization will be able to keep up with creating Rejection evaluation systems for them. I'm not interested in investing time into something that will soon be swept away by the LGD wave; I want to create products and services that will remain in demand for a very long time.




Now, brief responses to Garry's statements:

re: As you know, I spent a 6-figure sum fighting GIA as they ran roughshod over my 5-year earlier patent.

This confirms my statements about the strong resemblance between HCA and GIA RBC grading systems. I'm sorry that you invested so much of your time in such a battle and continue to fight GIA in a different way now.

re: HCA has had "Looks Like" added to it so it does indeed take into account the size of the stone -

How does it show that a cluster of 10 0.2ct RBC diamonds is brighter than a 2ct RBC diamond? How much more Fire does it show in a 2ct RBC compared to a 0.5ct RBC?

re: If you were not so obstreperous, you would have helped me enable ray tracing using DiamCalc to actually calculate the leakage near a diamond's periphery, and then that could be applied accurately to rounds rather than an estimate.

As I explained earlier, I won't invest my time in creating any Rejection system. You're not the only one I've declined to assist in creating a Rejection cut grading system, despite receiving much more enticing business offers than yours. It's not about money; it's about legacy and enjoying my work.

re: You could enable a cut grading system as a Beta101, and that would help the world enormously, but your perfectionism holds back your brilliance. A shame for all.

A beta version for business clients has been available for a long time, and many actively use it to improve the designs of their cuts. I believe it's essential to give the industry time to gradually enhance cut designs to avoid significant devaluation of stock in retail. To prepare the final version of the cut beauty assessment system, we need to develop metrics for Scintillation and learn how to compare, for instance, Scintillation in Emerald cuts with Round Brilliant cuts. We're working in that direction. You can't evaluate the beauty of cuts like Princess or Crushed Ice without considering Scintillation.

P.S. Today, I reread our joint letter with pleasure, October 3, 2008. It was a good crisis year, very productive for innovations. Crises are extremely productive for innovations. An equally productive period for innovations is approaching.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Before addressing the main statements you've made, I would like to first clarify my goals and values in the field of Optical Performance. I hope that by doing so, my answers and decisions will become clearer.

I enjoy creating both new and interesting High Performance cuts as well as establishing conditions and tools for others to create such cuts. In this process, I see only one way to make it sustainable and long-lasting: ensuring that everyone involved either earns well or pays for what they enjoy. Specifically, this means that software and service developers should be able to sell their products at a good price, cut designers should earn from selling licenses for their cuts, cutters who invest in designs should have a better chance of selling many diamonds with that cut at a good margin, jewelry stores should also sell with a favorable margin without having excessive dead stock, and consumers should derive pleasure from both the buying process and selecting a diamond that highlights their individuality.

Moreover, all participants, including consumers, can enhance their profile by reducing the substantial costs of maintaining a large inventory of unsold diamonds.

I detailed how it was possible to achieve such a new business model for diamond raw materials and what needed to be done during my presentation in Surat in 2008.

Over the past 15 years, we've managed to solve many technical problems that were hindering the transition to the new business model. We've developed B2B services that allow cutters to improve cut designs, and technologies that enable accurate cutting according to the design. In recent years, I've observed a steady increase in the percentage of beautiful fantasy cuts and a strong rise in the percentage of fantasy cuts in the market. Currently, we are embarking on the creation of B2C and C2C services necessary for understanding the real needs and preferences of diamond buyers, and incorporating these preferences into a reliable diamond beauty assessment system.

Having done so much to create a system that motivates continuous improvement in cut designs, I will not assist in creating yet another Rejection system that will be swept away by the LGD wave. This is not because I consider Rejection systems useless or very harmful (my opinion is that their harm outweighs their benefits), but because the LGD wave will simply wash away all Rejection grading systems as LGD businesses will have to consistently improve their product to survive. The USP resource of "same as natural diamonds, but cheaper" is already greatly depleted, and for sustainable development, they need to transition to an innovative product and marketing development model. The absence of Rarity in their USP will have to be replaced with something equally valuable, and I'm confident it will be beautiful, diverse designs, imaginative colors, etc. There will be so many designs, changing so frequently, that no organization will be able to keep up with creating Rejection evaluation systems for them. I'm not interested in investing time into something that will soon be swept away by the LGD wave; I want to create products and services that will remain in demand for a very long time.




Now, brief responses to Garry's statements:

re: As you know, I spent a 6-figure sum fighting GIA as they ran roughshod over my 5-year earlier patent.

This confirms my statements about the strong resemblance between HCA and GIA RBC grading systems. I'm sorry that you invested so much of your time in such a battle and continue to fight GIA in a different way now.

re: HCA has had "Looks Like" added to it so it does indeed take into account the size of the stone -

How does it show that a cluster of 10 0.2ct RBC diamonds is brighter than a 2ct RBC diamond? How much more Fire does it show in a 2ct RBC compared to a 0.5ct RBC?

re: If you were not so obstreperous, you would have helped me enable ray tracing using DiamCalc to actually calculate the leakage near a diamond's periphery, and then that could be applied accurately to rounds rather than an estimate.

As I explained earlier, I won't invest my time in creating any Rejection system. You're not the only one I've declined to assist in creating a Rejection cut grading system, despite receiving much more enticing business offers than yours. It's not about money; it's about legacy and enjoying my work.

re: You could enable a cut grading system as a Beta101, and that would help the world enormously, but your perfectionism holds back your brilliance. A shame for all.

A beta version for business clients has been available for a long time, and many actively use it to improve the designs of their cuts. I believe it's essential to give the industry time to gradually enhance cut designs to avoid significant devaluation of stock in retail. To prepare the final version of the cut beauty assessment system, we need to develop metrics for Scintillation and learn how to compare, for instance, Scintillation in Emerald cuts with Round Brilliant cuts. We're working in that direction. You can't evaluate the beauty of cuts like Princess or Crushed Ice without considering Scintillation.

P.S. Today, I reread our joint letter with pleasure, October 3, 2008. It was a good crisis year, very productive for innovations. Crises are extremely productive for innovations. An equally productive period for innovations is approaching.

Sergey you have done more for the diamond industry than it ever deserved. No doubt.
The industry is mostly not very clever and not very innovative or interested in creativity. You are fortunate to work with the clever engineering types who run very large diamond cutting facilities and love your OctoNus and Lexus incremental improvements.

But the dirty side of the business doesn't care and your striving for perfectionism misses the main point.
Making diamonds look perfect for a show room misses the point.

Diamonds are worn by people and people get them dirty. I would love you to forget about making perfect diamonds when they are clean and think about making them better when they are the way they are most of the time.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

PS Sergey I enjoyed going through the presentations Sergey - it had way to many slides. I wish you had have let me edit it down.
And cute to see the 180 degree photos in my store we used to create virtual lighting for diamonds on slides 34 and 35. I still have that lens if you need it?

 

[Serg]

Sergey you have done more for the diamond industry than it ever deserved. No doubt.
The industry is mostly not very clever and not very innovative or interested in creativity. You are fortunate to work with the clever engineering types who run very large diamond cutting facilities and love your OctoNus and Lexus incremental improvements.

But the dirty side of the business doesn't care and your striving for perfectionism misses the main point.
Making diamonds look perfect for a show room misses the point.

Diamonds are worn by people and people get them dirty. I would love you to forget about making perfect diamonds when they are clean and think about making them better when they are the way they are most of the time.

I've observed with what fantastic speed the diamond cutting industry in India has developed over the past 20 years. The pace of development of the city of Surat also amazed me. The contrast is especially striking when compared to Europe, and particularly to Finland, where I live. The speed of these changes demonstrates that the Indian diamond industry has been managed by very intelligent, innovative people over the last 20 years. It's unlikely that within the existing rules established earlier and outside of India, more significant changes in the production process and average diamond quality could have been achieved in 20 years, as has been done in India. To move forward, the rules need to change, the business models of the entire diamond industry need to change. Thanks to LGD, a window of such changes is not merely opening, but an entire wall is collapsing, a wall that had been blocking crucial changes. To create new rules in which it will be beneficial to create new products, manufacturer brands, the leaders of the Indian diamond industry must come together. However, they must avoid creating yet another useless bureaucratic setup, of which there are already plenty. The leaders with a shared vision of what rules are beneficial for the industry need to unite and begin working according to those rules. I find it difficult to estimate how likely such a unity is. This is a social, not a technical, question.

 

[Serg]

PS Sergey I enjoyed going through the presentations Sergey - it had way to many slides. I wish you had have let me edit it down.
And cute to see the 180 degree photos in my store we used to create virtual lighting for diamonds on slides 34 and 35. I still have that lens if you need it?

This presentation is almost 15 years old. Any changes will only diminish its historical value. There are many other presentations available for editing, which we create perhaps not every year, but certainly every other year.

 

[diagem]

I've observed with what fantastic speed the diamond cutting industry in India has developed over the past 20 years. The pace of development of the city of Surat also amazed me. The contrast is especially striking when compared to Europe, and particularly to Finland, where I live. The speed of these changes demonstrates that the Indian diamond industry has been managed by very intelligent, innovative people over the last 20 years. It's unlikely that within the existing rules established earlier and outside of India, more significant changes in the production process and average diamond quality could have been achieved in 20 years, as has been done in India. To move forward, the rules need to change, the business models of the entire diamond industry need to change. Thanks to LGD, a window of such changes is not merely opening, but an entire wall is collapsing, a wall that had been blocking crucial changes. To create new rules in which it will be beneficial to create new products, manufacturer brands, the leaders of the Indian diamond industry must come together. However, they must avoid creating yet another useless bureaucratic setup, of which there are already plenty. The leaders with a shared vision of what rules are beneficial for the industry need to unite and begin working according to those rules. I find it difficult to estimate how likely such a unity is. This is a social, not a technical, question.

I fully agree Serg!!! The willingness of the younger generation to absorb and learn is quite aspiring..., something I have not noticed in any other centers such as Antwerp, Israel or even NY.

What is more amazing is the willingness of the older generations to let go and allow these youngsters freedom in spreading their wings..., with logical caution of course.

Quite amazing, no doubt the future is held in these youngsters minds & hands...