GIA Triple EX - Do I really need to know more?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Is there anything that accurately measures dispersion (akin to the idealscope for light return)? Maybe a pure white scope with small leds and a camera that quantifies any colours?

And thanks for the clarification of brilliance Garry, will have a read

In that same article there is a discussion about fire and a proposed crowd sourced way to measure it. However this requires a large number of stones to be assessed, bought etc by people making judgments based on observation, not from reading grading reports. This would be matched up with digital data from movies made in ViBox. The quantitative digital fire flash counting assessment would be fine tuned to match the human assessment.
If you have a small fraction of a billion dollars Sergey et al know how and what to do.
BTW we have known how to measure dispersion for about 100 years and it is the same for all colorless transparent diamonds - it is the Constant - the difference between the speed of light in a given material of 2 specific colors or wavelengths.. What you mean is to measure fire as perceived by humans.

 

[Serg]

@Rockdiamond & Sergy, people with your wealth of experience gives you ability to pick beautiful stones that don't fit the traditional bill. But for the regular consumer in this online e-ring world, there unfortunately is nothing measurable other than light performance with an Idealscope/ASET/AGS light performance, and to play it safe you would get what you can, best within available technology and resources. A well read consumer will not go for a 34.5/41 diamond vs a a 34.5/40.7 if buying blind (all else being equal), because with information available today, it is usually the superior 'looking' diamond, on paper at least...

Sergy if you were a consumer buying online (maybe you never would do such as a thing), you would be happy to consider a diamond with a 34.5/41 over a 34.5/40.7 if symmetry was good but there was a bit more leakage under table, based on your past experience?

IdealScope/ASET may help sell nice 34.5/41 with same level safety as it was done for 34.5/40.7.
ASET/IS is not grading tools, they are reference , identification tools.
You may select any proportions , fix it, tell it is best and use ASET reference photos to sell identical diamonds .
Problem is in different side. Diamond trade demanded simple , standard solution and AGS delivered it. it was big simplification.
And now regular consumer receives regular diamond.
How many regular consumers are exciting during diamond buying process now?
Consumer can not more find best round cut diamond he may buy just only regular one( please do not tell me the tale me that less than 2% diamonds may receive AGS0).
Yes, it is more safe now and it is more and more boring now in same time.
Less and less consumers are happy to spend time and money for boring process to receive regular round cut.
IS , AGS, ASET, GIA say nothing about fancy cut beauty .
It was big mistake to use inside diamond sales a negative promotion: as blood diamonds, Leakage, child labour, synthetic diamond..
If many salesman's tell to consumer :" My diamonds are not blood diamonds, have not leakage ,…but diamonds from other shop may be have its then it reduce total sales.
Too many stress come from diamond salesman's. They use too much negative instead positive, because it is just more simple for them, because it demands less self education ,..
Instead quantity of Fire or Brilliancy demonstrations for particular diamond , explanations a consumers hear in shops about Leakage, dead zones,GIA Ex is to wide, etc.
and final stage now :salesman sell papers by Internet instead diamonds.
Who did win in this War?

 

[ChristineRose]

BTW, I'm loving this discussion. Believe it or not, I'm an optics and physics and computer science person and accounting person, not a jewelry person. This is why I'd rather have a synthetic--identical physics, better price.

The Internet is with us, like it or not. Anytime you add an option (in store vs. in store OR online) things get better. Online options are so much better (600,000+ stones on PS!) that the in person stores are vanishing, despite having some considerable advantages. Likewise the ability to cut pretty much whatever you want and know what it's going to be like in advance, is going to outweigh the advantage of a skilled craftsman making an offbeat buy lovely stone.

Of course there's still a market for that sort of thing, it will just get much more expensive and harder and harder to find. I often wish it weren't true but it applies to everything from blenders to shoes. The one bright spot I see (if you can call it that!) is that when everyone sells the same thing the prices drop and eventually someone will have to change their strategy or go bankrupt. We're already seeing custom precision cutting dominating the colored stone market. Maybe the tech will jump a few more hoops and we'll be seeing one of a kind diamonds for sale on Etsy.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Yes, interesting turn in this discussion.

I'm not sure the diamond salesman is to blame for reducing the excitement of the diamond buying experience, but I will agree with Serg that there is way too much negative selling. And it does turn off buyers. However, I think this stems from the fact that the diamond industry has been historically too secretive. Too much emphasis was placed on trust (blind faith) in the past and facts were treated as inconvenient. Too many jewelers were lazy and failed to develop real competency in the product.

We have entered a new era of information sharing, and consumers today expect transparency. Young male buyers who dominate the engagement ring side of things have a definite preference for an efficient purchase process. They want to 'nail the buy' by doing their homework. It's not that these guys aren't romantic. They are - but just not so much about the purchase process. It's a means to an end for them.

So my point is essentially that much of what we may say is a loss of the romance in diamonds is driven by demand. Demand for proven quality, expertise, dependability, deliverability, and reputation. (Trust is still a big part of the equation!).

I do think jewelers are becoming better educated these days. They have to if they want to survive. They also have to develop their own unique value proposition so that they can have the confidence necessary to avoid resorting to negative selling.

 

[gm89uk]

BTW, I'm loving this discussion. Believe it or not, I'm an optics and physics and computer science person and accounting person, not a jewelry person. This is why I'd rather have a synthetic--identical physics, better price.

ditto. I found the diamond buying experience quite dull until I discovered light performance as a factor. I didn't have much control over the process and I was being fed bad information by most jewellers and had to take their word for it (while paying a lot of money). There was never explanation to what makes a pretty diamond other than "different diamonds have their own character". I don't know if this is the general jewellers culture in the US as well.

Ironically the US internet market was far more useful to shop in than the many UK stores I went to and my personal experience is almost the opposite of the negatively described.

Well before I knew about pricescope, I saw several GIA Excellent cuts that were significantly less beautiful than several others, and it was noted in my research before I was 'tainted in bias' by more in depth reading about cut and biased by my reading. Unfortunately while GIA may have had merit in their assessment, there are many mediocre GIA excellents out there, which adds fuel to the GIA XXX too wide discussion.

Garry, unfortunately I do not see a push for development of that kind of product any time soon. I can't imagine it particularly helping sellers to an extent that would fund the research and developmental costs. The idealscope, I believe took off because the concept is easy to understand and the interpretation is not difficult. Although dispersion is a constant for diamond, the bottom-line is some diamonds give off more colours than others as it's not dealing with a single surface, which is surely not just a human visual perception phenomenon and a measurable outcome. The article does have a lot of explanations to what you are describing and will take more time to read through, but has anyone tried measuring fire on a series of static images from several light sources and found it didn't correlate with real life perception?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

BTW, I'm loving this discussion. Believe it or not, I'm an optics and physics and computer science person and accounting person, not a jewelry person. This is why I'd rather have a synthetic--identical physics, better price.

With your background and interest Christine please read this:http://www.gem.org.au/ckfinder/userfiles/files/GAA_Journal_V25_No3_web2(1).pdf
It appears to have been largely ignored and, perhaps like Tolkowsky's work nearly 100 years ago, may take many years to be acted on.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

BTW, I'm loving this discussion. Believe it or not, I'm an optics and physics and computer science person and accounting person, not a jewelry person. This is why I'd rather have a synthetic--identical physics, better price.

Garry, unfortunately I do not see a push for development of that kind of product any time soon. I can't imagine it particularly helping sellers to an extent that would fund the research and developmental costs. The idealscope, I believe took off because the concept is easy to understand and the interpretation is not difficult. Although dispersion is a constant for diamond, the bottom-line is some diamonds give off more colours than others as it's not dealing with a single surface, which is surely not just a human visual perception phenomenon and a measurable outcome. The article does have a lot of explanations to what you are describing and will take more time to read through, but has anyone tried measuring fire on a series of static images from several light sources and found it didn't correlate with real life perception?

Thankyou for taking the time to read the article.
Gemex Brilliancescope, Imagem and ISEE2 (now owned by Sarine) for example have done this. I do not believe any serious scientific reviews of any of those systems have resulted in a 'killer solution'. There has been no 'winner take all' as yet.
Apart from Sergey's OctoNus work (which I am not involved in) there are two approaches I am aware of that could lead to a solution. The leading recently retired researcher from GIA told me they are reviewing the appearance of many fancy shaped diamonds that pass thru the GIA GTL lab with a view to developing a grading system for fancy shapes. That outcome should then enable them to improve their round system too. The other approach I know of is similar to that crowd sourced idea proposed in above linked article.

 

[sparkles24]

IMO AGS000 are more consistently better performing diamonds than GIA XXX. This opinion is based solely on the few dozen or so diamonds I have seen and handled in person. Even if you don't purchase locally I think it's worth your time to compare some AGS000 and GIA XXX side by side to see for yourself which you prefer.

I looked at my ags 000 and a Gia xxx and I liked the Gia xxx more. My ags 000 is a J SI 2 and the GIA XXX is a G VS 2

 

[sparkles24]

…

 

[TXwidow]

I looked at my ags 000 and a Gia xxx and I liked the Gia xxx more. My ags 000 is a J SI 2 and the GIA XXX is a G VS 2

the original post is from 2016; I suspect a decision has already been made.

 

[sparkles24]

the original post is from 2016; I suspect a decision has already been made.

WONDERFUL WONDERFUL SMARVELOUS!!!!!!

 

[marcy]

I looked at my ags 000 and a Gia xxx and I liked the Gia xxx more. My ags 000 is a J SI 2 and the GIA XXX is a G VS 2

I think there will be fantastic diamonds regardless of the certificate and even among non-certified diamonds. They all have their own personality and beauty.

 

[sparkles24]

I think there will be fantastic diamonds regardless of the certificate and even among non-certified diamonds. They all have their own personality and beauty.

 

[diamonddaddy]

I am getting close to buying a diamond and looking at a 2 carat, round, G VS2 diamond. I want the cut to be as good as it gets, best of the best, and the diamond to be brilliant, no pun intended.

I have looked at the "A Cut Above" diamonds from WhiteFlash, "Ascendency" from Good old Gold, Brian Gavin, and finally I am in talks with a local jeweler. My budget is 25k-30k. So, if I can get a little bigger than 2, great, but I wont budge on cut, and for some reason G and VS2 makes me feel good.

My local jeweler has been in the business 50 years and I believe is a GIA certified gemologist. He is bringing in a few GIA Triple Excellent stones for me to look at. He says GIA is the industry standard and if it is Triple EX from them I will be in great shape. He doesn't think I should be worried about getting an AGS certificate or be concerned with the "marketing tactics" of the abovementioned websites, which claim their cuts are better. The website are big on AGS triple 000 ideal, and pitch the light performance testing of the lab and the importance of the AsetScope, hearts and arrows patterns, making sure the diamond has no leakage, etc.

MY QUESTION: If he shows me three GIA triple EX diamonds, do I need to have the supporting evidence of all these light performance tests the websites talk about to make sure the diamond performs spectacularly, or with that rating would the diamond absolutely pass those tests? The websites make me think I need to do the extra due diligence and utilize all these tests in case I get a weak performing GIA triple EX, the jeweler makes me think the GIA triple EX should be enough to show its the best of the best.



Any advice or guidance?

I have literally just gone through this exact scenario with 2+ jewellers, and after having done plenty of research... this isn't entirely true.

A jeweller sent me a nice 1.8ct "Triple Ex" ...along with H&A and ASET. H&A looked decent but then ASET showed a nice fat light leak straight through the bottom of the stone in the table, in three different areas.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

This thread might be of interest:

The New GIA Ideal Cut - A Quantum Leap for Cut Grading at GIA

AGS Ideal Reports from GIA One of the biggest developments in the gemological world took place at the end of 2022 when the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) acquired the technology and intellectual property of the American Gem Society Laboratories (AGSL), and rather quietly began issuing...

www.pricescope.com