HRD introduces new cut grading system for rounds 1/1/09

[denverappraiser]

http://www.hrd.be/uploads/media/Cut_Grade_English.pdf

What do y''all think?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[denverappraiser]

Here''s the proportions chart directly from the above document.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Wow, excellent is a pretty wiiiiide range, isn''t it?

 

[John P]

Date: 1/18/2009 1:46:00 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Wow, excellent is a pretty wiiiiide range, isn't it?

On the surface it appears that way.

I've attached the EX ranges from GIA and HRD below, with a few asterisks.

NOTES

* HRD has no STK appraisal for girdle; they go from M to TK.

** The GIA grade depends on how T, PA, CA work together. Lookup charts show what grade each crown-pavilion combination will get, so you must cross-reference all three. It appears that HRD is putting out a flat range for each (?)

For example, 40.6P 32.0C appears to get HRD EX in table sizes 54-62.
GIA gives it VG in middle tables and closer to G at the extremes.

On the deep end, 41.8P 36.0C gets HRD EX in table sizes 54-62 (really? see red text below)
GIA gives it G (52-53T), VG (54-60T) and G (61-62T).

So, on the surface, HRD appears to have a very wide EX range with a worse steep-deep area than GIA’s, which is already dubious. This allows factories to carry more carat weight without penalty but it really a detriment for consumers who are looking to be protected by the 'highest grade' from a reputable authority…

*** Escape clause: With that said, HRD does have a visual exam listed to cull for too shallow or too deep. While I hope this will be used for the purpose of eliminating halibuts and those crazy steep-deep combos allowed on the surface of this chart I have a hard time conceiving how they are going to impose this on factories that will cut ‘by the numbers’ released here. It would be great to hear from someone associated with the lab on that question.

Edited to add: SUM 72.5-77.0

I now see the SUM equation they include in chart Neil posted. One must add PA and CA to arrive at a number between 72.5-77.0 for the grade to remain EX. Adding 41.8 to 36.0 =77.8. That is 0.8 over max allowed, so the crown would need to come down to 35.2 (or the pavilion to 41.0) to earn EX. While this is better, certainly, I'm not too wild about 41.8/35.2 as EX. Even GIA gives it VG at highest.

Star-LH: HRD ranges are more narrow, especially star length.

Finish: Like GIA, a diamond can receive VG in p/s and still carry the HRD EX grade overall.

Thank you Neil, for posting the link.

 

[strmrdr]

Great another useless cut grade to confuse consumers.

 

[oldminer]

A wide range for the top grade gives a lab more business opportunities. Cutters and dealers tend to want the maximum lattitude in cutting while still being able to tout "excellent". Unfortunately, this increasingly makes "excellent" only a word without significant meaning.

I don''t think this is going to make or break HRD and it sure isn''t the cutting edge of diamond grading. I belive the Cut Class sytem I put together much more than a decade ago is just as adequate a tool for screening and weeding out and has the feature of very tight categories in the upper range of 1A and 1B.

A major failing of parametric screening occurs when chains using I1 and I2 diamonds use parameters instead of actual light performance to define their Premium Cut branded stone. There are some imperfect diamonds which can''t be beautiful because of interference with light return due to inclusions no matter how the parameters may read. This is not a big issue for quality conscious Pricescope consumers, but they are in the minority.

 

[denverappraiser]

My first reaction was to look at the other end. Unlike the GIA system, there is no ‘poor’ grade so ‘fair’ is the catchall for the real dregs but the dividing line between ‘very good’ and ‘good’ seems spectacularly low as well. For example it seems like a 70% table, a 50% depth and a 7.5% girdle with G/G symmetry and polish would still qualify for VG. I suppose such a stone would surely be ruled out during the visual inspection and to call it a fish eye would be an understatement but they do seem like oddly broad ranges and if the visual inspection and the expert opinion of the grader are the real deciding point, what’s the purpose of the charts? Rather like the GIA scale where ‘poor’ is effectively non-existent in the marketplace, ‘fair’ and even ‘good’ here seems unlikely and we’re left with a scale that only has 2 realistic choices remaining. I’m going to have to do some research into this system. Today is the first I’ve heard of it. Maybe I’m missing something.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 1/18/2009 3:07:46 PM
Author: oldminer

A major failing of parametric screening occurs when chains using I1 and I2 diamonds use parameters instead of actual light performance to define their Premium Cut branded stone. There are some imperfect diamonds which can''t be beautiful because of interference with light return due to inclusions no matter how the parameters may read. This is not a big issue for quality conscious Pricescope consumers, but they are in the minority.

Dave, I don''t know how often AGS will be called upon to grade diamond with I1 & I2 clarities, and your point is a side bar, I think, to this discussion otherwise...but the more common use of the phrase "light performance"....whether intended to be clarified by the word "actual" or not, is in association with the current AGS system, and this will not help the point you are making, either, in contrast to I suppose something like imagem, which I think is your point.

Though I don''t think this a a point too many Prisescope shoppers will be hassled by...then again...I can''t now think of any discussion where we''ve suggested to put imagem to the test for the more raucous discussions of whether or not a cloud in an SI can be a problem or not.

 

[strmrdr]

This is sad....
HRD EX enough said....

 

[oldminer]

".....whether or not a cloud in an SI can be a problem or not."


Of course a cloud is a problem. It is just a small problem. If you can see it at 10x then it absoulutely makes a difference in measured light return. You need sensitive measuring tools. The difference may be minute, but this is exactly how we grade the tiny differences in color and clarity near the top of the scale for the better grades of diamonds.

I think everyone has come to a consensus that parametric grading is not the best system for diamond cut grading. It is good for screening out and including in which diamonds to dismiss or further examine. Parameters are good for cutters to follow in order to arrive at best cut stones. Loose categorization of grades at the very top do not fit the legitimate exisiting schemes of diamond grading. ImaGem will rise or fall as the market dictates, not necessarily as I envision it. I support this technology, but won''t force it on anyone. This is a function of the free market now it has become a choice for those who want alternatives to existing systems. I''m waiting along with everyone else to see what happens.

My explanation in an earlier post was to call attention to the economic reality of why loose grading seems easy to swallow and to expose who uses and promotes it. Of course, dealers want to make money, but there are ethical limits to loose grading, too.

 

[Upgradable]

How prevalent are HRD stones going to be found in the marketplace? I know that my stone is HRD certed, and one of the few I''ve seen around here, but is the grading system an attempt at keeping up with the Jones''s in hope of breaking into the US marketplace? What was the intent behind setting these standards if, as evident, it was not to raise the bar in cutting precision and performance?

 

[oldminer]

The point of HRD adopting this system was to become a player and to take a position. It certainly is not breaking into any uncharted territory. It was a safe move and won''t be widely criticized or reviewed very much elsewhere.

 

[Upgradable]

Do you see them making a move on the US market? Why is it they''re NOT more of a presence here?

 

[Serg]

Karl,

Did you use rule: Sum (a+b) should be less than 77 degree?
It cut a little bit from table corners

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/19/2009 10:33:58 AM
Author: Serg
Karl,


Did you use rule: Sum (a+b) should be less than 77 degree?

It cut a little bit from table corners

yes I did.
It is right at the max.

 

[denverappraiser]

It seems the visual inspection for 'fish eye' and culet reflection will drop a stone from 'excellent' all the way to 'good' without regard to any of the other parameters and the stone you modeled may fail that test. Since VG isn't available in this situation, it makes for an interesting boundary between EX and G.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[strmrdr]

here is the boundary between vg and good on the steep side.
The equivalent of Garry's bad CZ could get VG!!!

Notice that the center actually looks better than the worst case EX and it is overall brighter but it sure would look smaller.

 

[strmrdr]

Here is Garry''s cz set...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Wow- that''s a ridiculous range of proportions....
My first reaction is that an HRD report is on the same level as any of the myriad of EGL''s or IGI- so who cares what they say?
Dealers won''t accept the color and clarity grades on these sub par lab reports which renders a cut grade to be ever so meaningless......

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 1/18/2009 3:07:46 PM
Author: oldminer
A wide range for the top grade gives a lab more business opportunities. Cutters and dealers tend to want the maximum lattitude in cutting while still being able to tout ''excellent''. Unfortunately, this increasingly makes ''excellent'' only a word without significant meaning.

I see this as the problem for *educated* consumers.

I think it really becomes an even bigger ''cheat'' for non-educated consumers. Buyers will see it this way: "it has a grade of excellent, and excellent is the top earning grade within the metrics. That must mean the stone is among the most well cut."

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/22/2009 10:44:27 AM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 1/18/2009 3:07:46 PM
Author: oldminer
A wide range for the top grade gives a lab more business opportunities. Cutters and dealers tend to want the maximum lattitude in cutting while still being able to tout ''excellent''. Unfortunately, this increasingly makes ''excellent'' only a word without significant meaning.

I see this as the problem for *educated* consumers.

I think it really becomes an even bigger ''cheat'' for non-educated consumers. Buyers will see it this way: ''it has a grade of excellent, and excellent is the top earning grade within the metrics. That must mean the stone is among the most well cut.''

Metrics composed by HRD..., so thats exactly what HRD is saying...., no?

Why cheat?? Because AGS or GIA are stricter?

I think HRD has been around long enough and backed by professional industry people..., and calling it a cheat is not fair!

 

[Allison D.]

Cheat because in most consumer-based models, the expectation of any newly developed system is to at least keep pace with (if not improve) the already existing efforts.

Most folks do not expect a loosening of the criteria from a newly announced system.

Cheat because their 'system' adopts nomenclature that already exists in the marketplace and therefore implies comparability, even though similar named products aren't comparable.

That's just my honest opinion.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/22/2009 5:25:57 PM
Author: Allison D.
Cheat because in most consumer-based models, the expectation of any newly developed system is to at least keep pace with (if not improve) the already existing efforts.

Most folks do not expect a loosening of the criteria from a newly announced system.

Cheat because their ''system'' adopts nomenclature that already exists in the marketplace and therefore implies comparability, even though similar named products aren''t comparable.

That''s just my honest opinion.

Fair enough for you to pass *your* personal opinion...
But since you are identifying yourself by a signature: "Consumer Relations, Whiteflash".

I would *like/wish* to expect a staff member of Company like Whiteflash to show more respect for the leadership of this industry...

Calling HRD a cheat is either a sign of disrespect or a sign of tremendous lack of knowledge!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/22/2009 6:53:03 PM
Author: DiaGem

Fair enough for you to pass *your* personal opinion...

But since you are identifying yourself by a signature: 'Consumer Relations, Whiteflash'.



I would *like/wish* to expect a staff member of Company like Whiteflash to show more respect for the leadership of this industry...


Calling HRD a cheat is either a sign of disrespect or a sign of tremendous lack of knowledge!

Alj is right, wooo did I say that.
Actually She didn't go far enough, they are so deep in the industries pocket they never see daylight.
Their system is a smooch on the fanny to cutters of crap.
I am sick and tired of labs that bill themselves as independent and helping consumers kissing up to the rest of the trade.
Respect is earned not given.
I have seen nothing from them that would earn my respect.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/22/2009 6:58:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/22/2009 6:53:03 PM
Author: DiaGem

Fair enough for you to pass *your* personal opinion...

But since you are identifying yourself by a signature: ''Consumer Relations, Whiteflash''.



I would *like/wish* to expect a staff member of Company like Whiteflash to show more respect for the leadership of this industry...


Calling HRD a cheat is either a sign of disrespect or a sign of tremendous lack of knowledge!

Alj is right, wooo did I say that.
Actually She didn''t go far enough, they are so deep in the industries pocket they never see daylight.
Their system is a smooch on the fanny to cutters of crap.
I am sick and tired of labs that bill themselves as independent and helping consumers kissing up to the rest of the trade.
Respect is earned not given.
I have seen nothing from them that would earn my respect.

Then I guess you too have more to learn Karl...
HRD (Antwerp World Diamond Center) is NOT just a Lab!!

I have no problem with you (or anyone else) not agreeing with their new cut system...
But to call them a cheat is simply out of line!

They did not earn their reputation by cheating..., and as you should know by now Karl..., reputation is the biggest asset in this industry!

And maybe you dont think their reputation is in par with AGS or GIA..., many others think they are!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/22/2009 7:13:11 PM
Author: DiaGem
Then I guess you too have more to learn Karl...

HRD (Antwerp World Diamond Center) is NOT just a Lab!!


I have no problem with you (or anyone else) not agreeing with their new cut system...

But to call them a cheat is simply out of line!


They did not earn their reputation by cheating..., and as you should know by now Karl..., reputation is the biggest asset in this industry!


And maybe you dont think their reputation is in par with AGS or GIA..., many others think they are!

Just checked out their website and didn''t see anything that impresses me.
Certainly nothing to counter the garbage cut grade system.
It has to be very bad to be worse than GIA''s but they managed to do it.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/22/2009 11:25:41 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/22/2009 7:13:11 PM
Author: DiaGem
Then I guess you too have more to learn Karl...

HRD (Antwerp World Diamond Center) is NOT just a Lab!!


I have no problem with you (or anyone else) not agreeing with their new cut system...

But to call them a cheat is simply out of line!


They did not earn their reputation by cheating..., and as you should know by now Karl..., reputation is the biggest asset in this industry!


And maybe you dont think their reputation is in par with AGS or GIA..., many others think they are!

Just checked out their website and didn''t see anything that impresses me.
Certainly nothing to counter the garbage cut grade system.
It has to be very bad to be worse than GIA''s but they managed to do it.

Fair enough...., but to call HRD a "cheat" is a whole lot different than not agreeing (or being impressed) with their new cut grade....

Thats my point!

I just wish people/companies that hold certain responsibilities on these open public forums practice better (not to mention) professional language!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/23/2009 2:04:29 AM
Author: DiaGem

Fair enough...., but to call HRD a ''cheat'' is a whole lot different than not agreeing (or being impressed) with their new cut grade....

Thats my point!


I just wish people/companies that hold certain responsibilities on these open public forums practice better (not to mention) professional language!

Well that''s why I work hard to stay a 1/4 inch on the consumer side of the line so I can call it like I see it.
So I do get what your saying.

 

[Rockdiamond]

DiaGerm- I can''t speak as a consumer, rather a longtime diamond dealer.
HRD is NOT respected by "industry leaders"- in the same way IGI and EGL are not respected. That means that any given diamond won''t trade on a price based on a grade listed on the HRD report
Are they "cheats"?
I think that''s a strong word- possibly too strong.
But I will say that seeing diamonds that are obviously misgraded by a lab does offend me as a diamond grader and trader.
I have personally seen many diamonds graded by HRD- they are in the same league as EGL or IGI. Many dealers feel that HRD is in the same league as the lesser of the EGL''s....not a good thing.


Upgradable - not to say that your diamond is not awesome- if you love it, I''m sure it''s a lovely stone- just that if it was graded by HRD, the color and clarity can''t be relied upon.
Hopefully you paid a lower price than similarly graded stones with GIA, or AGSL reports.....

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 1/22/2009 6:53:03 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/22/2009 5:25:57 PM
Author: Allison D.
Cheat because in most consumer-based models, the expectation of any newly developed system is to at least keep pace with (if not improve) the already existing efforts.

Most folks do not expect a loosening of the criteria from a newly announced system.

Cheat because their 'system' adopts nomenclature that already exists in the marketplace and therefore implies comparability, even though similar named products aren't comparable.

That's just my honest opinion.

Fair enough for you to pass *your* personal opinion...
But since you are identifying yourself by a signature: 'Consumer Relations, Whiteflash'.

I would *like/wish* to expect a staff member of Company like Whiteflash to show more respect for the leadership of this industry...

Calling HRD a cheat is either a sign of disrespect or a sign of tremendous lack of knowledge!

Diagem:

1. I have no choice but to identify my affiliation with Whiteflash; members in the trade are required to disclose that in their signatures.

2. Again, you're not reading carefully. I didn't call HRD the organization "cheats". The people and the organization per se aren't "cheats", but I think their new system is intentionally structured to give the (mistaken) appearance of comparability in the minds of consumers.

I don't know if this is a language differential issue for you or not, but since you seem to be missing my point, let me try another way.

I don't think it's coincidental that they have adopted a nomenclature for their new system that very closely resembles other grading labs.....in fact, I believe that's precisely the intent. I think they expect (and hope) consumers don't realize that their version of "excellent" doesn't imply the same make quality as other comparable labs.

Given their exceedingly wide range in their top tier, that implication would be misleading to consumers at best.

I don't think the similarity is unintentional. I think it's by design. It lets cutters retain more weight while still achieving a presumably "top" grade for make. The potential loser in that equation is the consumer.

They are certainly free to design their cut grade system any way they choose, but that doesn't mean it has to be widely respected.

People who shop for "excellent" stones may not know that "HRD Excellent" isn't always equitable to another lab's (i.e. GIA, AGS) excellent. It would surprise me if that wasn't the point.

Of course, that's one person's opinion. It's an opinion, and it may very well be wrong. I don't think so, but it's possible.

If it pleases you, though, let's rephrase. I believe it is intentionally ambiguous and I believe the benefactors of that ambiguity will not be end buyers.