GIA undetermined "D" color??

[diagem]

For the first time today I heard GIA decided not to decide on a "D" color grade...

A colleague of mine just completed cutting four "D" colored Diamonds (out of one piece of rough)..., the four were graded Int. Flawless.
He submitted them to GIA NY and the results where undetermined "D" color, IF clarity..., he then re-submitted to GIA California and got the same results...

Anyone witnessed the same previously??

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Maybe D+?

Aren''t they the authority?

Keep us posted please.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[WinkHPD]

What the heck is an "undetermined" D?

Wink

 

[Steel]

This is worrying.

 

[Kaleigh]

Never heard of this before... Please keep us posted...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/16/2009 5:37:06 PM
Author: Wink
What the heck is an ''undetermined'' D?


Wink

I am glad I am not the only one that don''t know that.

 

[Todd Gray]

Date: 6/16/2009 5:36:31 PM
Author: Modified Brilliant
Aren't they the authority?

I'm totally clueless, but the statement cracked me up!

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/16/2009 5:37:06 PM
Author: Wink
What the heck is an 'undetermined' D?

Wink

I believe it refers to the origin of the color, possibly being due to HPHT decolorization treatment...
D's and E's are difficult, in some circumstances to determine treatment, due to spoofing techniques, like post HPHT decolorization radiation and then annealing to sharpen the radiation induced GR1.

I've heard of other paper, where they basically admit, they can't tell, which is the PROPER thing to do.

Stone is probably a type IIa.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Ahhh, yes that makes sense.

It happened to me once on a stone I sent in. It was a type 2a OMC that had been recut. I knew the color was an authentic "D", but GIA sent it back "undertermined".

 

[stone-cold11]

So what happen to the perceived value of the stone in this case?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/16/2009 6:56:42 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 6/16/2009 5:37:06 PM

Author: Wink

What the heck is an ''undetermined'' D?


Wink

I believe it refers to the origin of the color, possibly being due to HPHT decolorization treatment...

D''s and E''s are difficult, in some circumstances to determine treatment, due to spoofing techniques, like post HPHT decolorization radiation and then annealing to sharpen the radiation induced GR1.


I''ve heard of other paper, where they basically admit, they can''t tell, which is the PROPER thing to do.


Stone is probably a type IIa.

I checked and Marty is correct.
If it was artificially enhanced or not, could not be determined and that MUST be disclosed.
So GIA did the right thing by reporting it.

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Hey Marty...thanks for the explanation!

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 6/16/2009 7:25:15 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
So what happen to the perceived value of the stone in this case?

Good question, Stone Cold.

In the case of my client's stone, it was the kiss of death. We're talking about a very large, high quality, high dollar stone, and the GIA's "indeterminate" designation not only cut the value in half, but killed the liquidity.

Bear in mind that we had documentation that this stone had been held in my client's family for three generations.

So what I did was thoroughly document the origin of the diamond, and its subsequent passing through the generations, and the recutting (to an Infinity super ideal cut by the way). Then I noted the GIA's certification as to color and clarity (D/VVS1), and with Paul Sleger's help obtained a "free and clear" cert from the HRD lab in Belgium, which considered the origin and pedigree of the stone in arriving at their final designation.

My client then realized sale of the diamond on the Antwerp market. He was very happy.

It was a long and involved process, but well worth the trouble. My client realized double what he would have if he'd have if he'd rolled over and played dead after receiving the GIA report.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/16/2009 11:18:01 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood

Date: 6/16/2009 7:25:15 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
So what happen to the perceived value of the stone in this case?

Good question, Stone Cold.

In the case of my client''s stone, it was the kiss of death. We''re talking about a very large, high quality, high dollar stone, and the GIA''s ''indeterminate'' designation not only cut the value in half, but killed the liquidity.

Bear in mind that we had documentation that this stone had been held in my client''s family for three generations.

So what I did was thoroughly document the origin of the diamond, and its subsequent passing through the generations, and the recutting (to an Infinity super ideal cut by the way). Then I noted the GIA''s certification as to color and clarity (D/VVS1), and with Paul Sleger''s help obtained a ''free and clear'' cert from the HRD lab in Belgium, which considered the origin and pedigree of the stone in arriving at their final designation.

My client then realized sale of the diamond on the Antwerp market. He was very happy.

It was a long and involved process, but well worth the trouble. My client realized double what he would have if he''d have if he''d rolled over and played dead after receiving the GIA report.

Rich seems a lot of labs AND DeBeers totally ignorned the my interpretation of AGS test findings when we tapped into the DeBeers DiamondView 218nm excitation to show a pre/post HPHT correlation

see http://www.adamasgem.org/typeiia.html

At the time, years ago, DeBeers didn''t even try to duplicate the findings, although, EGLUSA did.. Maybe the self proclaimed world''s foremost authority in everything should take take notice, although it wasn''t "invented" there, it might resolve help to some issues. I''ve got more, I''ll discuss privately, I have issues about DeBeers article on GR1 HHHW criteria published on GR1, as a be all end all for HPHT treatment, as well as Debeers supposed lack of resources to verify what AGS and I tried to investigate, quite a while ago. Alll the labs were informed. And then Debeer''s changed the design of the original DiamondView to no longer accomodate the plug in fixture tied to my SAS2000.

 

[strmrdr]

Marty does anyone anywhere today have the equipment/methodology to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a stone is not treated if the history is not known?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/17/2009 12:42:04 AM
Author: strmrdr
Marty does anyone anywhere today have the equipment/methodology to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a stone is not treated if the history is not known?

Storm.. I really can't answer that question definitively, as most seem to hide their information as proprietory.

It requires cooperation between the mine producers and the reseachers, so far, something that is sorely lacking, due to apparent conflicting interests. When asked for a guaranteed untreated D as a pure reference for our research there were lame excuses why they couldn't supply same, nor did DeBeers, to my knowledge, attempt to duplicate the results we obtained with 218nm excitation.

Ambiguity seems to be in the better interests of the producers, and the trade probably wouldn't pay the actual costs involved in testing such stones, as it takes just a much time to test for HPHT treatment, on a 1/4 carat as a 10 carat, let alone the high cost of the equipment.

In my opinion, ALL paper should indicate whether a stone could potentially have been be decolorized (IIa/IaB), a screening test that is relatively easy. Actual typing IIa vs IaB requries FTIR equipment (maybe 30K to 40K $) and some Raman units with enough sensitivity goes for the six figure category, if you want to look at ALL the quazi definitive criteria, now in practice.

Interestingly, there is a GE patent, developed at the same time that it was being said to the trade and public that HPHT was undetectable, that talked to detection using a TWENTY watt laser, not the 50 to 100 MILLI WATT lasers in use in Raman/PL units. I still think that the experiments performed at AGS with the DiamondView excitation, should be further investigated.

We once almost got our hands on a carat sized IIa stone, with indented trigons ,as a potentially representative and plausably untreated D reference, but that fell through for various reasons.

 

[diagem]

Date: 6/16/2009 6:56:42 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 6/16/2009 5:37:06 PM
Author: Wink
What the heck is an ''undetermined'' D?

Wink

I believe it refers to the origin of the color, possibly being due to HPHT decolorization treatment...
D''s and E''s are difficult, in some circumstances to determine treatment, due to spoofing techniques, like post HPHT decolorization radiation and then annealing to sharpen the radiation induced GR1.

I''ve heard of other paper, where they basically admit, they can''t tell, which is the PROPER thing to do.

Stone is probably a type IIa.

Thank you Marty, sure it make sense, I always thought Labs have that corner covered..., I guess not!

I am though a bit divided with the ''PROPER thing to do''...

I guess I think the connection between the "GIA brand" attached to Diamonds graded by the "world''s foremost authority" should be clear as crystal (or should I say D colored Diamonds...

If they (GIA) cant call/issue the grade..., dont grade the stone at subject (period).

The GIA''s silence is way to costly and damaging!!

Not fair to the sellers either (sellers can be consumers and trade as well..., see Richards example above).
But I guess grading it elsewhere (like HRD) could also be translated as semi improper...

, depends in who''s light we are looking....

Catch 22??

 

[DiamondFlame]

Wow. I learn something new today. I''ve heard of color enhancements. I didn''t know they can decolorize diamonds too! In this instance, how did GIA find out about the HPHT treatment prior to its grading attempt?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/17/2009 2:45:14 PM
Author: DiamondFlame
Wow. I learn something new today. I've heard of color enhancements. I didn't know they can decolorize diamonds too! In this instance, how did GIA find out about the HPHT treatment prior to its grading attempt?

There is a prescreen for short wave transparancy that denotes if a stone is of a type IIa or IaB, those types could have been decolorized. Then the expensive equipment comes into play to figure out if it has D's can be troublesome..

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/17/2009 10:45:21 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 6/17/2009 12:42:04 AM

Author: strmrdr

Marty does anyone anywhere today have the equipment/methodology to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that such a stone is not treated if the history is not known?

Storm.. I really can''t answer that question definitively, as most seem to hide their information as proprietory.


It requires cooperation between the mine producers and the reseachers, so far, something that is sorely lacking, due to apparent conflicting interests. When asked for a guaranteed untreated D as a pure reference for our research there were lame excuses why they couldn''t supply same, nor did DeBeers, to my knowledge, attempt to duplicate the results we obtained with 218nm excitation.


Ambiguity seems to be in the better interests of the producers, and the trade probably wouldn''t pay the actual costs involved in testing such stones, as it takes just a much time to test for HPHT treatment, on a 1/4 carat as a 10 carat, let alone the high cost of the equipment.


In my opinion, ALL paper should indicate whether a stone could potentially have been be decolorized (IIa/IaB), a screening test that is relatively easy. Actual typing IIa vs IaB requries FTIR equipment (maybe 30K to 40K $) and some Raman units with enough sensitivity goes for the six figure category, if you want to look at ALL the quazi definitive criteria, now in practice.


Interestingly, there is a GE patent, developed at the same time that it was being said to the trade and public that HPHT was undetectable, that talked to detection using a TWENTY watt laser, not the 50 to 100 MILLI WATT lasers in use in Raman/PL units. I still think that the experiments performed at AGS with the DiamondView excitation, should be further investigated.


We once almost got our hands on a carat sized IIa stone, with indented trigons ,as a potentially representative and plausably untreated D reference, but that fell through for various reasons.

Thanks Marty.
Sounds like the cutter is in a world of hurt on this deal.