HRD new cut grade, a camel or a race horse?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

file:///C:/Users/Garry/Downloads/hrd_cut grade-brochure_a4_en_2014-07_web_1 (1).pdf
HRD have added a new grade of Excellent to their cut grading system.
The system is ?explained? in the link above.

I think it was Henry Ford who said a camel was a race horse designed by a committee.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://www.hrdantwerp.be/media/55307/hrdantwerp_cutgrade_overview_july2014.pdf
some charts that appear more useful.
If they were to use crown and pavilion angle total, they should consider a range based on 4 or 5 times crown angle + Pavilion angle.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

http://www.hrdantwerp.be/media/25358/hrd_cutgrade-brochure_a4_en_2014-01_web.pdf

Too late, too complicated, based on proportions, some arbitrary cutoffs like on LGFs, and only for rounds.
Will have very little impact.

 

[Karl_K]

It totally blows chunks even worse than GIA ex.

 

[CanuckAB]

^^^

 

[Karl_K]

first: 52 table cant get EX but 62 can? get real.
All the combos with 41.4 41.6 and 41.8 pavilion are going to have color entrapment issues yet they get EX.
62%t 35c 41.8P Gets EX!
Projected AGS 7

 

[Andelain]

It totally blows chunks even worse than GIA ex.

 

[Karl_K]

It totally blows chunks even worse than GIA ex.

 

[Serg]

Camel has more chances to win in a race than new HRD cut grade system.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

file:///C:/Users/Garry/Downloads/hrd_cut grade-brochure_a4_en_2014-07_web_1 (1).pdf
HRD have added a new grade of Excellent to their cut grading system.
The system is ?explained? in the link above.

I think it was Henry Ford who said a camel was a race horse designed by a committee.

Just correcting bad information here: HRD has had a cut-grade of Excellent for a few years now. The criteria only slightly changed last Friday.

Live long,

 

[Andelain]

It totally blows chunks even worse than GIA ex.

" " =

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

file:///C:/Users/Garry/Downloads/hrd_cut grade-brochure_a4_en_2014-07_web_1 (1).pdf
HRD have added a new grade of Excellent to their cut grading system.
The system is ?explained? in the link above.

I think it was Henry Ford who said a camel was a race horse designed by a committee.

Just correcting bad information here: HRD has had a cut-grade of Excellent for a few years now. The criteria only slightly changed last Friday.

Live long,

You are correct Paul - I thought there had been an HRD Excellent proportion parameter set. It was always hard to comprehend.
Here is the Rapaport announcement:
HRD Antwerp adjusted the proportion parameters of its cut grade to encompass a revision of the proportion parameter. Whereas, previously a diamond was graded "very good" on proportion, it is now possible for certain diamonds to achieve "excellent," increasing the possibility to obtain an overall triple excellent grade. The new cut update means clients may recheck diamonds to possibly obtain a better grading.

And from IDEX:
(IDEX Online) – HRD Antwerp is to adjust the proportion parameters of its Cut Grade, with changes taking place as of July 14.

The Belgian lab said it is making the move "in order to be more compliant with the market standard, while maintaining the highest-quality grading standards that HRD Antwerp is known for".

"The HRD Antwerp Cut Grade is based on symmetry, proportion and polish. The most important change within the adjusted cut grade encompasses a revision of the proportion parameter. Whereas, previously a diamond was graded 'very good' on proportion, it is now possible for certain diamonds to achieve 'excellent', increasing the possibility to obtain an overall triple excellent grade.

Meanwhile, a new Cut Update Service provides an opportunity for clients to have their diamonds rechecked in order to possibly obtain a better grading. The cost of this special service will be charged regardless of the outcome of the recheck.

So Paul, is this system usable? Is it useful? can manufacturers understand it? Does anyone have confidence in it?
IGI decided to use GIA's system - any reason why HRD would not given the statement: "in order to be more compliant with the market standard"

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Celebrating my National Day today, Garry. Will come back to your questions later.

 

[Lorelei]

It totally blows chunks even worse than GIA ex.

" " = =

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

file:///C:/Users/Garry/Downloads/hrd_cut grade-brochure_a4_en_2014-07_web_1 (1).pdf
HRD have added a new grade of Excellent to their cut grading system.
The system is ?explained? in the link above.

I think it was Henry Ford who said a camel was a race horse designed by a committee.

Just correcting bad information here: HRD has had a cut-grade of Excellent for a few years now. The criteria only slightly changed last Friday.

Live long,

You are correct Paul - I thought there had been an HRD Excellent proportion parameter set. It was always hard to comprehend.
Here is the Rapaport announcement:
HRD Antwerp adjusted the proportion parameters of its cut grade to encompass a revision of the proportion parameter. Whereas, previously a diamond was graded "very good" on proportion, it is now possible for certain diamonds to achieve "excellent," increasing the possibility to obtain an overall triple excellent grade. The new cut update means clients may recheck diamonds to possibly obtain a better grading.

And from IDEX:
(IDEX Online) – HRD Antwerp is to adjust the proportion parameters of its Cut Grade, with changes taking place as of July 14.

The Belgian lab said it is making the move "in order to be more compliant with the market standard, while maintaining the highest-quality grading standards that HRD Antwerp is known for".

"The HRD Antwerp Cut Grade is based on symmetry, proportion and polish. The most important change within the adjusted cut grade encompasses a revision of the proportion parameter. Whereas, previously a diamond was graded 'very good' on proportion, it is now possible for certain diamonds to achieve 'excellent', increasing the possibility to obtain an overall triple excellent grade.

Meanwhile, a new Cut Update Service provides an opportunity for clients to have their diamonds rechecked in order to possibly obtain a better grading. The cost of this special service will be charged regardless of the outcome of the recheck.

So Paul, is this system usable? Is it useful? can manufacturers understand it? Does anyone have confidence in it?
IGI decided to use GIA's system - any reason why HRD would not given the statement: "in order to be more compliant with the market standard"

Hi Garry,

Before I go to your relevant questions, another correction: On what basis are you saying that IGI decided to use GIA's system? I never saw this announced, and suppose that your statement is incorrect.

Live long,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

So, Garry, to your questions:

"So Paul, is this system usable? Is it useful? can manufacturers understand it? Does anyone have confidence in it?"

The short answer is 'Why not?' The longer answer is more philosophical.

After all, when we are discussing lab-reports, this is packaging. Once purchased, the packaging is often not even received by the customer, possibly thrown away, sometimes stored and forgotten, leaving only a small percentage of consumers still remembering the location of the lab-report and the exact lab-grades a few years after purchase. Obviously, the average PS-consumer is more likely to be in that last group.

As a cutting-house,the choice of which packaging to use depends upon various aspects. Part of production goes to programs, and the final customer/retail-chain basically decides on the packaging (the lab-report to use).

Then, there is production still needing to find a customer. Side-remark: for most cutting-houses, a customer is generally not a consumer, so please understand this correctly. Anyway, in that case, GIA worldwide seems to have reached a position that customers do not even open the packaging to check the product. Many cutting-houses are selling businesses of GIA-3EX 'blind', which seems to make GIA an attractive packaging to choose.

Then again, turnaround-times at GIA are long, and extremely long in Mumbai. Garry, I am sure that you are aware of the grieve this causes in Mumbai. And probably, it is no surprise to know (as you probably also do) that HRD-Mumbai is a very often-used lab. Again, why not?

- Disadvantage is that HRD is a packaging, the world does not want to buy 'blind' (yet?).
- Advantage is shorter turnaround-time.
- The lab is definitely more consistent than GIA, but market-recognition worldwide is less.
- And as far as cut-grade goes, it is just as wide as GIA, so why not?

May I end this post with a hypothetical question?

You know that for the CBI-brand, we work with AGSL as our packaging-of-choice. But imagine that we would renew packaging and go for HRD, without making any change to the product.

- Potential differences in grading of Colour and Clarity are a non-isssue in this, as I find HRD to be almost as consistent as AGS, and certainly far more consistent than GIA. And if grading-standards were found to be looser (quid non), it would allow us to adapt apparent pricing downwards.
- Cut-grade will be Excellent, which is meaningless, but so is GIA-EX, and I also find the AGS-Ideal-grade too wide for our purposes. Again, it is also a non-issue, since the 'product' does not change.

So, the question for the PS-public is, in that imaginary situation: Would you still buy CBI, if it were to come with HRD-packaging, while the product itself is exactly the same?

Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

So, the question for the PS-public is, in that imaginary situation: Would you still buy CBI, if it were to come with HRD-packaging, while the product itself is exactly the same?

Live long,

Taking off my trade hat and putting on my PS consumer hat the answer is yes.
When I someday buy a CBI product I am buying you not the grading report.
However it would make the sale much harder to those that do not know you.
Maybe I should say buying into you rather than buying you.
But you are a big part of your product for many PSers as is John.
That is a very small and elite group I can say the same about what is interesting is 3 of the group are associated with CBI(Wink is a third) There used to be 4 associated with CBI until Todd stopped selling diamonds.

 

[WinkHPD]

So, the question for the PS-public is, in that imaginary situation: Would you still buy CBI, if it were to come with HRD-packaging, while the product itself is exactly the same?

Live long,

Taking off my trade hat and putting on my PS consumer hat the answer is yes.
When I someday buy a CBI product I am buying you not the grading report.
However it would make the sale much harder to those that do not know you.
Maybe I should say buying into you rather than buying you.
But you are a big part of your product for many PSers as is John.
That is a very small and elite group I can say the same about what is interesting is 3 of the group are associated with CBI(Wink is a third) There used to be 4 associated with CBI until Todd stopped selling diamonds.

Thank you Karl.

I have talked with three clients today who have seen this thread. All three of them emphatically said, "NO!"

We buy from you because we want what we consider to be the best, most consistently cut diamond in the world. If you suddenly stopped wrapping it in the Gold Standard AGS reports and started wrapping it in Bird Cage lining material we would be suspicious and wonder what had changed and would probably not believe that it was the same product. (I did not put this in quotes as I am paraphrasing what was said, but my very small sample of three was totally NOT into the HRD idea. Interestingly, all three broached the subject with me after discussing the diamonds that they called to talk about.)

Apparently, at least according to those that believe in the quality of the CBI diamonds, you CAN judge a diamond by its wrapping.

Wink

 

[Andelain]

So, the question for the PS-public is, in that imaginary situation: Would you still buy CBI, if it were to come with HRD-packaging, while the product itself is exactly the same?

Live long,

Taking off my trade hat and putting on my PS consumer hat the answer is yes.
When I someday buy a CBI product I am buying you not the grading report.
However it would make the sale much harder to those that do not know you.
Maybe I should say buying into you rather than buying you.
But you are a big part of your product for many PSers as is John.
That is a very small and elite group I can say the same about what is interesting is 3 of the group are associated with CBI(Wink is a third) There used to be 4 associated with CBI until Todd stopped selling diamonds.

Thank you Karl.

I have talked with three clients today who have seen this thread. All three of them emphatically said, "NO!"

We buy from you because we want what we consider to be the best, most consistently cut diamond in the world. If you suddenly stopped wrapping it in the Gold Standard AGS reports and started wrapping it in Bird Cage lining material we would be suspicious and wonder what had changed and would probably not believe that it was the same product. (I did not put this in quotes as I am paraphrasing what was said, but my very small sample of three was totally NOT into the HRD idea. Interestingly, all three broached the subject with me after discussing the diamonds that they called to talk about.)

Apparently, at least according to those that believe in the quality of the CBI diamonds, you CAN judge a diamond by its wrapping.

Wink

To me at least, the quality of your packaging shows how much pride you take in your product. You know you have an excellent product, and are justifiably very proud of it.

My first experience with this high end diamond packaging was when I bought my first WF stone. I saw the obvious pride they took, and knew before I opened the ring box that the stone was going to be awesome. It also made recieving the product all the more enjoyable.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Garry,

Before I go to your relevant questions, another correction: On what basis are you saying that IGI decided to use GIA's system? I never saw this announced, and suppose that your statement is incorrect.

Live long,

The CBI example is interesting. I kept a report on my desk for about 2 years before throwing it away. It was a Fabian gem, very rare.
I looked at it many times with a little smile.
Marc Bruaner told me IGI uses GIA's Facetware. I have never checked it to confirm that but it makes sense.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hi Garry,

Will send you the IGI-charts by email. Or should I say IGI-packaging-method?

Live long,

 

[OoohShiny]

It's an interesting question about CBI swapping from AGS to HRD or any other grading house.

In a way, when I purchased a CBI stone I have already 'taken a risk' because AGS is basically unknown here in the UK, and everytime I've mentioned it to a jeweller I always get that same "oh, another internet mug who's bought a pup of a stone and hasn't bought GIA" face

(I am looking forward to actually taking it to a jeweller and seeing his reaction when they have a look at it, I would hope that 'impressed' would be the correct response but I fully expect at least one charlatan to claim it's a terrible cut and I should buy one of theirs! )

Anyway, skipping on past my waffle part of the reason I had faith was the strong community on here that recognises and promotes AGS as a quality grading house. Is it the case that internet 'hype' sells products, be they soft drinks, the latest handbag, or even a diamond grading house? Perhaps. But if the proof is in the pudding and the product in question, a CBI stone, remains as good as it does in real life, then the only real issue to overcome is customer perception. If the HCA scores and ASET/IdealScopes remain good, that is good evidence of great cut and gives confidence to purchasers, but it seems the rest of the world outside PS puts more value on colour and clarity and, therefore, the question would occur in customers' heads - "is the grading correct? Am I overpaying?"

To my mind, it would take some empirical proof that A.N.Other grading house was as consistent and accurate as AGS or GIA. Perhaps it would mean that, for a time at least, CBI stones had to be sold with HRD and also the 'backup' AGS certificate? Or maybe it would involve moving to a model where CBI stones came with grading papers from all the major grading houses? That would not be a cheap exercise, and it would be interesting to see if grading houses 'tweaked' their grading to fit in with or vary from that already contained within the report numbers already etched on the stone.


So... can I sum up these random thoughts? I'm not sure I can... lol

 

[WinkHPD]

It's an interesting question about CBI swapping from AGS to HRD or any other grading house.

In a way, when I purchased a CBI stone I have already 'taken a risk' because AGS is basically unknown here in the UK, and everytime I've mentioned it to a jeweller I always get that same "oh, another internet mug who's bought a pup of a stone and hasn't bought GIA" face

(I am looking forward to actually taking it to a jeweller and seeing his reaction when they have a look at it, I would hope that 'impressed' would be the correct response but I fully expect at least one charlatan to claim it's a terrible cut and I should buy one of theirs! )

Anyway, skipping on past my waffle part of the reason I had faith was the strong community on here that recognises and promotes AGS as a quality grading house. Is it the case that internet 'hype' sells products, be they soft drinks, the latest handbag, or even a diamond grading house? Perhaps. But if the proof is in the pudding and the product in question, a CBI stone, remains as good as it does in real life, then the only real issue to overcome is customer perception. If the HCA scores and ASET/IdealScopes remain good, that is good evidence of great cut and gives confidence to purchasers, but it seems the rest of the world outside PS puts more value on colour and clarity and, therefore, the question would occur in customers' heads - "is the grading correct? Am I overpaying?"

To my mind, it would take some empirical proof that A.N.Other grading house was as consistent and accurate as AGS or GIA. Perhaps it would mean that, for a time at least, CBI stones had to be sold with HRD and also the 'backup' AGS certificate? Or maybe it would involve moving to a model where CBI stones came with grading papers from all the major grading houses? That would not be a cheap exercise, and it would be interesting to see if grading houses 'tweaked' their grading to fit in with or vary from that already contained within the report numbers already etched on the stone.


So... can I sum up these random thoughts? I'm not sure I can... lol

Pretty sure Paul's comment was meant in the way of saying that the best product wrapped in bird cage liner would not be perceived of in the same way.

Since HRD has a grading for cut that is at least as bad as GIA's, I do not think you ever need worry about seeing the CBI diamonds treated so disrespectfully!

Wink