HCA question

[newtodiam]

Does anyone know what percentage of diamonds have an HCA score under 2? seems like bluenile and others have a fair amount of diamonds above the 2 mark

 

[teobdl]

According to the creator (Garry Holloway), the HCA eliminates "more than 95% of all round diamonds". Assuming this is correct, approximately 5% of all round diamonds score under 2.

It's not clear to me what size diamonds comprise the total number of diamonds included in that calculation. If the total number includes small melee, then the 5% number might be misleading.

 

[diamondgezer]

According to the creator (Garry Holloway), the HCA eliminates "more than 95% of all round diamonds". Assuming this is correct, approximately 5% of all round diamonds score under 2.

It's not clear to me what size diamonds comprise the total number of diamonds included in that calculation. If the total number includes small melee, then the 5% number might be misleading.

I guess the 95% statement was made more than 10 years ago? What were/are the assumptions and method of arriving at that approximation?

Is it still valid in today's market?

Have various market pressures had an effect on cutters and the proportion of well cut diamonds?

Maybe some trade experts have a view on this??

 

[John P]

Maybe some trade experts have a view on this??

I'll play. There have been improvements in global cut-quality since 2006, when GIA introduced cut-grading for the MRB. However, producers have also learned to game the system, meaning that many diamonds are now planned in the steep-deep area of "EX' which permits extra weight.

I did a surface-exercise: A search of modern round brilliants via PS from 0.50-3.00ct, D-K, IF-SI2 returned 194,000.- diamonds listed. Requiring HCA <2.0 reduced that number to 25,000.- diamonds. On it's face that's 13% of the total. Logically there are duplicate listings, but those dups are likely to be eliminated or remain proportionately, so it's somewhat mitigated.

Restricting the PS listings to "In-House" brings the total number of 0.50-3.00ct, D-K, IF-SI2 to 4,500.- Requiring HCA <2.0 returns 1,800.- diamonds for a total of around 35%. But this venue is known for more discriminating cut-quality clients and I am certain there is a proportionately larger number of diamonds fitting into the HCA "approval zone" than (say) shopping on 47th street.

From personal experience in China, India, the USA and Europe, I think you'll find that the markets boasting the most "HCA approved" diamonds would be cut-specialized USA internet channels (like this one) fine-make USA boutiques (Tiffany, Cartier, HOF dealers) and haut monde showrooms in China and India.

 

[diamondgezer]

Thanks John

Didn't think of using the PS tool!!

How did you arrive at 25k below 2 on HCA? - It looks to me as if you can only restrict on HCA by progressively excluding the best/better performers - so I got 182k 'very good - n/a', leaving 12k < 2.

Isn't another problem with the search that the selected stones with HCA rated n/a will in fact include a percentage of HCA < 2 stones.

I was thinking more about trends towards better cut stones, rather than extrapolated specifically on HCA figures which are difficult anyway to correlate with trends because, as HCA is a rejection tool, then not all stones < 2 will be brilliant performers, conversely some of the steep/deeps you referred to will be penalized by HCA but in fact will be excellent performers.

Sorry to confuse by asking multiple questions.

Recognising and excluding the 'niche' markets do you have a perception of trend in the broader market??


Also sorry Newtodiam if I've expanded your question somewhat!!

 

[John P]

How did you arrive at 25k below 2 on HCA? - It looks to me as if you can only restrict on HCA by progressively excluding the best/better performers - so I got 182k 'very good - n/a', leaving 12k < 2.

Aha. It's because you're more observant than I am... I presumed filtering only HCA Excellent implied 2.0 and below. You're correct that further scrutiny is needed. Thanks for pointing that out.

Isn't another problem with the search that the selected stones with HCA rated n/a will in fact include a percentage of HCA < 2 stones.

Sure. That's why I called it a 'surface exercise' only.

I was thinking more about trends towards better cut stones, rather than extrapolated specifically on HCA figures which are difficult anyway to correlate with trends because, as HCA is a rejection tool, then not all stones < 2 will be brilliant performers, conversely some of the steep/deeps you referred to will be penalized by HCA but in fact will be excellent performers.

Understood. In that sense, I hope my macro-answer is more relevant.

 

[Karl_K]

Maybe some trade experts have a view on this??

I'll play. There have been improvements in global cut-quality since 2006, when GIA introduced cut-grading for the MRB. However, producers have also learned to game the system, meaning that many diamonds are now planned in the steep-deep area of "EX' which permits extra weight.

It most certainly led to an increase in those scoring 2-3 on the hca, but hca score aside not all of those are bad combos.
The biggest problem is the gia gross rounding makes finding the ones that are good within that range without seeing an IS/ASET very hard. Some combos will go from AGS0 to AGS4 within the gia rounding.
That makes the gia numbers useless for those combos.

 

[diamondgezer]

Maybe some trade experts have a view on this??

I'll play. There have been improvements in global cut-quality since 2006, when GIA introduced cut-grading for the MRB. However, producers have also learned to game the system, meaning that many diamonds are now planned in the steep-deep area of "EX' which permits extra weight.

It most certainly led to an increase in those scoring 2-3 on the hca, but hca score aside not all of those are bad combos.
The biggest problem is the gia gross rounding makes finding the ones that are good within that range without seeing an IS/ASET very hard. Some combos will go from AGS0 to AGS4 within the gia rounding.
That makes the gia numbers useless for those combos.

John/Karl
I believe I read that GIA round then average?? Presumably this encourages some cutters to play games with individual facets, rather than simply aiming for, say a 35.7 CA overall which they might miss. (or am I being naïve as to how cutters work?) Would this cause symmetry issues and would an ASET/IS be sensitive to this or would a sarin be necessary??

 

[Karl_K]

John/Karl
I believe I read that GIA round then average?? Presumably this encourages some cutters to play games with individual facets, rather than simply aiming for, say a 35.7 CA overall which they might miss. (or am I being naïve as to how cutters work?)

Yes, the actual angles can have a wide range within the average and some cutters do play that game.

GIA rounds then averages then grossly rounds.
Rounds to the nearest .1 degree then averages then:

Total depth is rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.1%
Table size is rounded to the nearest multiple of 1%
Crown angle is rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.5°
Pavilion angle is rounded to the nearest multiple of 0.2°
Pavilion angles ending in odd numbers are always rounded UP, for example 40.7° would be rounded to 40.8°
Star length is rounded to the nearest multiple of 5%
Lower-half (lower-girdle facet) length is rounded to the nearest multiple of 5%

.2 on the pavilion .5 on the crown and 5% on the lowers can with some number combos can range from awesome to well yucky with in the rounding. AGS0 to AGS4 and it would not surprise me to find a combo that the possible combos in the rounding range from AGS0 to AGS5.
That makes the numbers useless for some combos.

I'm off to bed, if Sir John or one of the awesome prosumers don't address the is/aset question I will later today.

 

[diamondgezer]

How did you arrive at 25k below 2 on HCA? - It looks to me as if you can only restrict on HCA by progressively excluding the best/better performers - so I got 182k 'very good - n/a', leaving 12k < 2.

Aha. It's because you're more observant than I am... I presumed filtering only HCA Excellent implied 2.0 and below. You're correct that further scrutiny is needed. Thanks for pointing that out.

Isn't another problem with the search that the selected stones with HCA rated n/a will in fact include a percentage of HCA < 2 stones.

Sure. That's why I called it a 'surface exercise' only.

I was thinking more about trends towards better cut stones, rather than extrapolated specifically on HCA figures which are difficult anyway to correlate with trends because, as HCA is a rejection tool, then not all stones < 2 will be brilliant performers, conversely some of the steep/deeps you referred to will be penalized by HCA but in fact will be excellent performers.

Understood. In that sense, I hope my macro-answer is more relevant.

John

Back to the trends. I'm not confident we can get anything reliable out of the PS analysis but I've done a little further work anyway.

Using same selection criteria as you did I got
1) 195000 diamonds in total
split 179000 GIA, 2000 AGS, 14000 other

2) Of the AGS all but 100 were < 2 HCA

3) Of GIA 80000 were xxx and only 5000 were identified as HCA <2, 60000 HCA n/a, and therefore 15000 HCA > 2

4) Hairy extrapolations here :-
a) GIA xxx 25 % of the 60000 n/a are HCA < 2 i.e 15000
b) There are 100000 non xxx GIA - say 50% of these are penalized for symmetry and/or polish, then 50% have equivalent of excellent cut, and of these 25% are HCA < 2 I,e 12500

Ignoring 'other' labs that gives 35000 out of 180000 GIA/AGS with HCA < 2 or 20%


That would suggest that, at least by HCA standards there has been a movement towards ideal in cut precision. I don't know how these 195000 diamonds relate to current global inventory and how they inter relate between the niche markets and other markets.

Feel free to drive a truck through this!!!

Karl

Look forward to your response on the Aset/IS question!! and thanks

 

[Texas Leaguer]

No doubt in my mind that cutting of rounds has improved dramatically over the past decade. This trend is driven largely by GIA introducing an overall cut grade combined with better access to information on the consumer level thanks to the internet.

While GIA Ex is very broad and cutters are generally cutting to the perimeter of the EX grade where they can get the most yield while still getting the best grade, the result is they are making more beautiful diamonds than before when there was no incentive to cut for much other than yield.

Now if GIA would do the same for princess cuts, there would be a significant improvement in cutting of those stones as well. It is an absolute shame what a backseat beauty takes to yield in mainstream princess manufacturing.

I am in no way minimizing the role AGS has played in advancing the importance and understanding of cut quality and light performance. It's just that GIA is the 800 pound gorilla in the equation. They have by far the greatest impact on the industry.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Geezer,
With regard to your question about ASET and IS revealing variances around the averages, yes they can provide some evidence. But there is an even better tool that the AGS developed and provides for free. Its called the VPA (Visual Proportion Analyzer). It allows you to see in a graphical way where angles and azimuths vary from the mean. It gives insights into both the level of precision and perhaps to the cutters intent. It does require that you have a .srn file on the diamond to start with.

 

[Karl_K]

In a perfectly taken is/aset image it shows up but in the real world only gross errors will show up clearly.
Is there a wide cutting range or is the diamond tilted 1 degree? This is where experience reading them comes in and it takes a long time to get to this level and comparing multiple image helps because it is not likely it will be tilted the same way in every image.
The hearts view shows a little more but it can be hidden.

What you have to keep in mind is that rough is sold on expected yield, if a diamond rough will cut a 1.0ct steep/deep gia ex or a .98 hca <2 you can not cut an hca <2 out of it and stay in business.
You either cut the steep deep or sell the rough.
Computerized planning I think has led to the increase more than anything because you can play with different combos for acceptable yield. Then the increased precision in tools and process allows you to better execute the plan.
It will tell you if you can keep the 1ct and cut an ideal cut.
When you get into larger stones .1ct becomes even more important.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

In a perfectly taken is/aset image it shows up but in the real world only gross errors will show up clearly.
Is there a wide cutting range or is the diamond tilted 1 degree? This is where experience reading them comes in and it takes a long time to get to this level and comparing multiple image helps because it is not likely it will be tilted the same way in every image.
The hearts view shows a little more but it can be hidden.

What you have to keep in mind is that rough is sold on expected yield, if a diamond rough will cut a 1.0ct steep/deep gia ex or a .98 hca <2 you can not cut an hca <2 out of it and stay in business.
You either cut the steep deep or sell the rough.
Computerized planning I think has led to the increase more than anything because you can play with different combos for acceptable yield. Then the increased precision in tools and process allows you to better execute the plan.
It will tell you if you can keep the 1ct and cut an ideal cut.
When you get into larger stones .1ct becomes even more important.

Good point about the impact of advanced scanning, computerized planning and other precision technologies. These have all contributed to better execution.

I still submit though, that had GIA not released an overall cut grade, cutters would be using these tools mainly to squeeze more weight out of the rough rather than more beauty.

I think the evidence for this premise is the fact that over the same period we have not seen any trend for better light performance in princess, the second leading selling shape in the market. Yes, there are a handful of specialist manufactures in this niche today, but the needle has not moved for the broad market.

 

[Karl_K]

I still submit though, that had GIA not released an overall cut grade, cutters would be using these tools mainly to squeeze more weight out of the rough rather than more beauty.

I think the evidence for this premise is the fact that over the same period we have not seen any trend for better light performance in princess, the second leading selling shape in the market. Yes, there are a handful of specialist manufactures in this niche today, but the needle has not moved for the broad market.

I agree that the gia cut grade has increased the overall cut quality across the board.
Your right.

But when talking specifically hca<2 it is less clear to me.
I was shown a list of a large cutters production before and after the gia cut grade and there was a sharp increase in the number of moderately steep deeps(hca ~2.5) vs hca under 2 after the gia cut grade system came out.
We are talking 1000+ stones on the list at any one time.
It is complicated.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I still submit though, that had GIA not released an overall cut grade, cutters would be using these tools mainly to squeeze more weight out of the rough rather than more beauty.

I think the evidence for this premise is the fact that over the same period we have not seen any trend for better light performance in princess, the second leading selling shape in the market. Yes, there are a handful of specialist manufactures in this niche today, but the needle has not moved for the broad market.

I agree that the gia cut grade has increased the overall cut quality across the board.
Your right.

But when talking specifically hca<2 it is less clear to me.
I was shown a list of a large cutters production before and after the gia cut grade and there was a sharp increase in the number of moderately steep deeps(hca ~2.5) vs hca under 2 after the gia cut grade system came out.
We are talking 1000+ stones on the list at any one time.
It is complicated.

That makes perfect sense. When GIA came out with their cut grade, the manufacturers were of course keenly interested. Now they had very specific targets. Get the EX and retain as much weight as possible getting there. Hence, a spike in production cut to the margins of the Ex range.

 

[diamondgezer]

In a perfectly taken is/aset image it shows up but in the real world only gross errors will show up clearly.
Is there a wide cutting range or is the diamond tilted 1 degree? This is where experience reading them comes in and it takes a long time to get to this level and comparing multiple image helps because it is not likely it will be tilted the same way in every image.
The hearts view shows a little more but it can be hidden.

What you have to keep in mind is that rough is sold on expected yield, if a diamond rough will cut a 1.0ct steep/deep gia ex or a .98 hca <2 you can not cut an hca <2 out of it and stay in business.
You either cut the steep deep or sell the rough.
Computerized planning I think has led to the increase more than anything because you can play with different combos for acceptable yield. Then the increased precision in tools and process allows you to better execute the plan.
It will tell you if you can keep the 1ct and cut an ideal cut.
When you get into larger stones .1ct becomes even more important.

Thanks Karl

Given your points on is/asset, and given I'm a novice with pretty poor eyesight anyway, I think I'll bring any such data to the experts to interpret!!

Re the larger stones and keeping wright I assume you mean '0.1ct becomes even more important' at spike points only, because as size increases small actual increases become less in percentage spread increase?

Karl/Texas

On the trends, it seems you guys and John all agree that there has been an improvement in cut quality in the last 8 years or so. It seems perfectly reasonable to attribute a lot of this improvement to the GIA cut grading. They certainly are the behemoth!! I was surprised to see on the PS analysis that 90%+ of stones were GIA graded and AGS were a mere 1%.

I wonder if there are articles out there that analyse and confirm this improvement??

On the HCA, it was a tool I latched onto (prompted by the op question) to try and gauge a trend. I'm interested in the comments re a spike in HCA scores circa 2.5 (albeit on a small sample). We know that GIA excellent tolerates HCA scores of 5+, so maybe over time cutters have learnt to 'game the system' even more, aided by improvements in precision technologies that you refer to. Using the dubious figure I produced there are 65000 GIA xxx with HCA > 2 out there on PS. I wonder what the HCA score breakdown on those is now??

This leads back to GIA and a discussion that I think has taken place before. While they have such market dominance they are the only constituency with the clout to drive improvements in average cut quality, and yet from my uneducated viewpoint most of these precision technologies and innovations are coming from organisations other than GIA (is rhis true?) . An increase in the numbers of educated cut oriented consumers of course will have some impact, but GIA are the key. I wonder what the effect on the market place would be if, for example they remained with a proportion based system but adopted the AGS performance metrics - what would be the effect down the chain - production - cutters - wholesalers - retailers - consumers?? Turbulence is the first word that springs to mind!!! Price increases are the second!!
What if they moved to a 3d performance based system? Could they accommodate that within their current modus operandi? What would be the effect on the market chain then?? I guess another question is what would be the effects on/risks for GIA themselves?


Do GIA only grade cut for Rounds? AGS grade princesses but is this done based on mathematical models or individual stone performance in light return?? Are there mathematical models to define Ideal/very good etc by proportions for other cuts?

A fool can ask more questions than a wise man can answer but maybe a 'gathering of wise men' ..................

 

[Karl_K]

Re the larger stones and keeping wright I assume you mean '0.1ct becomes even more important' at spike points only, because as size increases small actual increases become less in percentage spread increase?

correct.
at 2ct that .1ct between 1.99 and 2ct can cost the cutter many thousands of dollars.

 

[Lorelei]

Also sorry Newtodiam if I've expanded your question somewhat!!

Many a great thread has evolved from questions like yours Geezer, you win a super hero emotie!

Thank you newtodiam for starting this thread and allowing such an informative conversation to continue!

 

[diamondgezer]

Hi Lorelei - Was hoping you'd pop in!! I have a bone to pick with you (and Charks). All this talk about Mr Kipling Bakewell Tarts and Viennese Whirls is making me homesick - and worse - hungry!! I'm supposed to be on a diet - so my wife said STOP IT!!! o

 

[Lorelei]

Hi Lorelei - Was hoping you'd pop in!! I have a bone to pick with you (and Charks). All this talk about Mr Kipling Bakewell Tarts and Viennese Whirls is making me homesick - and worse - hungry!! I'm supposed to be on a diet - so my wife said STOP IT!!! o

I'm sorry 'Geezer, mea culpa....I promise after today, I will do my best to never ever allude to Bakewell Tarts again with their hint of aromatic almond on first bite....delicate buttery insides and velvety icing with the cute little cherry on top....Bakewell Tarts are disgusting and you aren't missing anything....

 

[diamondgezer]

How cruel can one get?????

 

[Lorelei]

How cruel can one get?????

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I was about to launch into a very scholarly reply to geezers last series of questions, but alas, I had to go the the fridge to see what decadent sweets I might find. When I recover from sugar shock, I will resume that reply.

 

[Lorelei]

I was about to launch into a very scholarly reply to geezers last series of questions, but alas, I had to go the the fridge to see what decadent sweets I might find. When I recover from sugar shock, I will resume that reply.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

We know that GIA excellent tolerates HCA scores of 5+, so maybe over time cutters have learnt to 'game the system' even more, aided by improvements in precision technologies that you refer to. [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-help.202886/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/need-help.202886/[/URL]

This leads back to GIA and a discussion that I think has taken place before. While they have such market dominance they are the only constituency with the clout to drive improvements in average cut quality, and yet from my uneducated viewpoint most of these precision technologies and innovations are coming from organisations other than GIA (is rhis true?) . An increase in the numbers of educated cut oriented consumers of course will have some impact, but GIA are the key. I wonder what the effect on the market place would be if, for example they remained with a proportion based system but adopted the AGS performance metrics - what would be the effect down the chain - production - cutters - wholesalers - retailers - consumers?? Turbulence is the first word that springs to mind!!! Price increases are the second!!
What if they moved to a 3d performance based system? Could they accommodate that within their current modus operandi? What would be the effect on the market chain then?? I guess another question is what would be the effects on/risks for GIA themselves?

Do GIA only grade cut for Rounds? AGS grade princesses but is this done based on mathematical models or individual stone performance in light return?? Are there mathematical models to define Ideal/very good etc by proportions for other cuts?

I'll try the easiest ones first. You are correct that GIA Ex includes a range of cut grades that exceed scores of 5 on the HCA tool. I plugged a link into your above comment to a thread that discusses a GIA Triple Ex that scores 6.

Yes, AGS grades princess and various other shapes including oval, emerald cut, and certain cushions. All are graded by the AGS light performance system. The system is mathmatical in nature which makes it consistent, repeatable and objective. It is also a direct measurement of the diamond in that an accurate 3D model is created from a scan of the diamond. The model is then run thru the ray tracing system mathmatically measuring the behaviour of 40,000 light rays applied to the model.

Re GIA and why and how they do or do not do certain things with regard to cut grading, I think your term "turbulence" is an apt one. Consider that GIA has a vast constituency of manufacturers, dealers and jewelers. Consider that the lab generates the overwhelming revenue for the institute. Neil Beatty had some great analysis on that here: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-is-gia-so-slow.202789/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-is-gia-so-slow.202789/[/URL]

Anything GIA contemplates doing must account for the financial impacts on this huge constituency. This most definitely leads to a status quo posture. Releasing a grading system at all highlights all the stones in the market that have deficits. Making that system strict accentuates that. To the extent that it does so it devalues ALOT of inventory. In a situation like the broad princess cut market that contains a preponderance of poorly cut diamonds, it would have enormous consequences for GIA's main constituency. That is why you will not likely see it any time soon.

It is true that consumer demand, stimulated by information and the discovery that there ARE actually stones cut for beauty out there if you search, is leading to some pressure building on GIA. This is what happened with rounds- credit AGSL for significant contributions to bringing this about. Of course the system GIA released was not what you would call strict - primarily for the reasons stated above, in my opinion.

I have very little optimism that they will release cut grading on any other shapes in the foreseeable future simply because there will not be enough pressure on them to break from the status quo. They certainly have the knowledge and ability, but not the will to do so.

 

[diamondgezer]

Hi Texas

Thanks for the comments

I take you points on the drivers for GIA preserving the status quo.

As far as introducing cut grades for princess etc, couldn't your point concerning the effect on existing inventory be mitigated by :-

1) Releasing a statement of intent to introduce a cut grade, in say 3 years
2) At the same time releasing a draft of the grading standards for 'comment' and guidance for new production.

Isn't GIA in a monopolistic position, in terms of grading and setting standards? This is causing problems for the industry as a whole (above is an example). It is also apparently causing problems for GIA itself (linking to the thread by Neil Beatty you referred) and the problems of scalability that it appears to be facing.

Neil suggests raising prices as one way of controlling these issues. How about moving to a performance based system akin to AGS.

Wouldn't this drive some custom away from GIA, as, I presume, a client could not be certain of the grade their individual stones would achieve (or at least those that were cut predominantly to preserve weight). The question is where would these stones then go for grading?

Alternatively it would force a further improvement in cut standards. This presumably would be at the expense of yield, which would have a tendency to drive prices up.

Given that AGS stones command a 5% premium over GIA then could/would the market stand erosion of this premium? The economics of this within the industry are above my paygrade but I'm sure some of the experts here can bring their knowledge to bear.

Neil suggested a few ways that GIA could overcome it's operational issues, whilst at the same time delivering better on it's mission.
But for me they still leave the same issue ( I won't call it a problem, I'm too much of a novice for that) - the GIA Brand is too big?



Of course any change is a monopoly position will surely bring fresh issues of their own.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I take you points on the drivers for GIA preserving the status quo.

As far as introducing cut grades for princess etc, couldn't your point concerning the effect on existing inventory be mitigated by :-

1) Releasing a statement of intent to introduce a cut grade, in say 3 years
2) At the same time releasing a draft of the grading standards for 'comment' and guidance for new production.

Isn't GIA in a monopolistic position, in terms of grading and setting standards? This is causing problems for the industry as a whole (above is an example). It is also apparently causing problems for GIA itself (linking to the thread by Neil Beatty you referred) and the problems of scalability that it appears to be facing.

Neil suggests raising prices as one way of controlling these issues. How about moving to a performance based system akin to AGS.

Wouldn't this drive some custom away from GIA, as, I presume, a client could not be certain of the grade their individual stones would achieve (or at least those that were cut predominantly to preserve weight). The question is where would these stones then go for grading?

Alternatively it would force a further improvement in cut standards. This presumably would be at the expense of yield, which would have a tendency to drive prices up.

Neil suggested a few ways that GIA could overcome it's operational issues, whilst at the same time delivering better on it's mission.
But for me they still leave the same issue ( I won't call it a problem, I'm too much of a novice for that) - the GIA Brand is too big?

Geezer,
I'm all for your idea of GIA rolling out a cut grade for fancies with plenty of advance and information to enable the manufacturers to be able to hit the marks they need to hit in cut quality and prepare their businesses for the change. That would be the least "turbulent" way to make the transition.

Regarding GIA as a monopoly, technically they are not quite, but they are certainly dominant. I do not view them as the source of any problems. However, because of their strength they could, in my opinion, do more to improve market conditions. But I have a hard time finding too much fault with them for serving the interests of their main constituencies. It is inevitable that economic considerations would be prioritized in decisions regarding the direction of the lab, in view of the fact that the lab generates the bulk of the revenue for the institute. I do think they have a duty to do more to educate and develop standards for cut quality on fancy shapes. After all, GIA themselves state that cut quality has the greatest impact on diamond beauty. And they have indicated that they would. Eventually.

Personally I would like to see GIA provide more support to their sister organization AGS and to the AGSL as a way to promote greater education to the public about cut quality and light performance. Although that would amount to the endorsement of very strict standards, I believe that can be reconciled and it would be an important step in educating the public, which is core to the GIA mission.

 

[diamondgezer]

I take you points on the drivers for GIA preserving the status quo.

As far as introducing cut grades for princess etc, couldn't your point concerning the effect on existing inventory be mitigated by :-

1) Releasing a statement of intent to introduce a cut grade, in say 3 years
2) At the same time releasing a draft of the grading standards for 'comment' and guidance for new production.

Isn't GIA in a monopolistic position, in terms of grading and setting standards? This is causing problems for the industry as a whole (above is an example). It is also apparently causing problems for GIA itself (linking to the thread by Neil Beatty you referred) and the problems of scalability that it appears to be facing.

Neil suggests raising prices as one way of controlling these issues. How about moving to a performance based system akin to AGS.

Wouldn't this drive some custom away from GIA, as, I presume, a client could not be certain of the grade their individual stones would achieve (or at least those that were cut predominantly to preserve weight). The question is where would these stones then go for grading?

Alternatively it would force a further improvement in cut standards. This presumably would be at the expense of yield, which would have a tendency to drive prices up.

Neil suggested a few ways that GIA could overcome it's operational issues, whilst at the same time delivering better on it's mission.
But for me they still leave the same issue ( I won't call it a problem, I'm too much of a novice for that) - the GIA Brand is too big?

Geezer,
I'm all for your idea of GIA rolling out a cut grade for fancies with plenty of advance and information to enable the manufacturers to be able to hit the marks they need to hit in cut quality and prepare their businesses for the change. That would be the least "turbulent" way to make the transition.

Regarding GIA as a monopoly, technically they are not quite, but they are certainly dominant. I do not view them as the source of any problems. However, because of their strength they could, in my opinion, do more to improve market conditions. But I have a hard time finding too much fault with them for serving the interests of their main constituencies. It is inevitable that economic considerations would be prioritized in decisions regarding the direction of the lab, in view of the fact that the lab generates the bulk of the revenue for the institute. I do think they have a duty to do more to educate and develop standards for cut quality on fancy shapes. After all, GIA themselves state that cut quality has the greatest impact on diamond beauty. And they have indicated that they would. Eventually.

Personally I would like to see GIA provide more support to their sister organization AGS and to the AGSL as a way to promote greater education to the public about cut quality and light performance. Although that would amount to the endorsement of very strict standards, I believe that can be reconciled and it would be an important step in educating the public, which is core to the GIA mission.

What form would the support for AGS(L) take? I agree that educating the public is a very important step in promoting cut excellence, but if GIA were to endorse (or be perceived as endorsing) the AGS(round) cut standards, whilst still applying their own standards for grading, I think this would create at best confusion in the consumers mind and it would be a difficult position to justify.

I have no in depth knowledge or involvement with the industry other than as a consumer and some time lurker on this forum, but it's obvious that a lot (if not most) of the trade experts and prosumers agree on the steep/deep gradings as being an issue with the GIA rb cut grade ( maybe as opposed to an issue with GIA itself), and certainly Neil Beatty's thread, that you linked to, speaks to their problems with processing/delivery.

My main purpose in this thread has been to try and understand where the market in now in terms of cut quality and how things could improve further on the premise that AGSL provides the best yardstick we currently have for grading (rb) cut.

As you have pointed out GIA have their reasons for preserving the status quo, but those reasons seem founded, substantially, on the fact that the very size of GIA means that changes could cause shock waves to resonate throughout the industry. That is an inhibitor to change. In some markets, change is gradual and cumulative, in others swift, radical and unforgiving - look at IBM in the 80's and early 90s!!, but change is a fact in all walks of life. How is change for the better to be brought about without wreaking unfair economic havoc?? I don't know, but as has been said in a thread recently, GIA is full of very clever people. All it takes is motivation.

Neil Beatty's thread explores, eloquently and expertly, changes that could produce improvements to benefit GIA specifically, and the market as a whole.

 

[John P]

Small point of order: Neil Beaty's name is spelled with one T, not two (in the interest of future searches RE Neil).

Please forgive the sidebar, your honors.