International diamond grading standards to be established?

[John P]

Global standards, arising from the trade, have support from a number of our leaders. Interesting is the presence of AGS and EGL (USA/Canada) but the absence of GIA.

IDEX: Task Force Aims to Establish Diamond Grading Standards
https://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullNews.asp?id=30520

Exceprts


...“Modern diamond grading relies upon expertise coupled with sophisticated technical equipment. It is as much about scientific measurement as personal judgment, and it makes sense for the technical aspects of grading to be more tightly defined,”...[/i] >>

Members of the AGA Board were joined at the meeting by:

Peter Yantzer – AGS Laboratory
Tom Tashey – PGI Laboratory
Don Palmieri – GCAL (Gem Certification and Assurance Laboratory)
Michael Allchin – The Birmingham Assay Office, England
Lore Kiefert – to report to the Lab Harmonization Committee
Branko Deljanin – EGL – Canada
Nick Del Re – EGL – USA
Doug Garrard – Gem-A, London
Renata Jasinevicius – University of Arizona, Senior Researcher, Physics Dept.
Chuck Bauman – Dazor Lighting, Research Director

 

[Skippy123]

That is good news John, thanks for the info, that would greatly help the consumer as well as the vendors!

 

[Indira-London]

It would be nice to see HRD involved as well. Do you know if the proposed inter-lab comparisons are limited to those who were represented John?

 

[oldminer]

I suspect that once these representatives get into their private board rooms there will be much discussion about how much more difficult it will become to have an even playing field than the one we have today. Labs are struggling to prove they are equal to GIA. No lab can prove it is "better". How could they since the system is GIA's?

If the GIA stoops from their high tower to participate they are doing it out of self defense of their enviable position. When you are top, the only direction for you to move is down. The others are all struggling to go up to the pinnacle. This is a worthy thing to attempt, but I believe that once each lab recognizes the highly competitive nature of this business, they will try to get to the pinnacle alone and not along with all the baggage of the other labs. It is good to know and understand your enemy, but it is not so good to go into a business agreement with them.

Establishing scientific grading is not long away no matter what the labs want. It is coming in the next few years. The problem is that the science is not necessarily going to come from within the existing lab industry, but from those owning intellectual property rights from the outside of the business. Its going to be a power struggle and a struglel to find enough customers, if everyone plays the same game with the same rules. I am certain that one or more labs will opt to remain "easy" on grading because that is how their business has succeeded. Other labs will not want to lose their prestige and continue to grade at the top 5 or 10 percent of the cut quality stream. Labs will compete rather than grade alike is what I'd predict.

The Accredited Gemologists Association, of which I have been a member for many years, is a highly under-rated organization with excellent intentions. The will to carry out flattening the grading field may simply not be present in such a volunteer organization. It is going to take a ton of money, years of committment, measurement of the potential fallout, and a set of highly complex decisions to be made by a "committee" who are mostly potentially biased..... I'd say it is going to be difficult, very difficult.

If this group could simply define the range of "D" color and the limits of "Flawless" it would be an acomplishment.

Don't put off buying a beautiful diamond in hopes of a better grading system anytime soon. I'd much rather have the stone now and watch the game play out from my box seat right near the 50 yard line. If they wanted to hire me to be the referee that would be the job of a lifetime. I better not quit my current job in anticipation however.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/17/2008 12:53:53 PM
Author: Indira-London

It would be nice to see HRD involved as well. Do you know if the proposed inter-lab comparisons are limited to those who were represented John?

Welcome to Pricescope Indira. I dropped a query to a contact at AGA - I''m interested in more info too.

 

[strmrdr]

Sounds good if they get anywhere.
In my opinion if the industry doesn''t do anything about the problem various governments will.
I don''t want to get into a debate again about if it is a good or bad thing because it is both but I see it as a sure thing that it will happen if the industry continues to stick to the current system.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/17/2008 1:43:25 PM
Author: oldminer

If the GIA stoops from their high tower to participate they are doing it out of self defense of their enviable position. When you are top, the only direction for you to move is down. The others are all struggling to go up to the pinnacle. This is a worthy thing to attempt, but I believe that once each lab recognizes the highly competitive nature of this business, they will try to get to the pinnacle alone and not along with all the baggage of the other labs. It is good to know and understand your enemy, but it is not so good to go into a business agreement with them.

Thoughtful comments as usual Dave.

I was also pondering why some of the big players may have attended the meeting and others didn't.

As you say, global standards could weaken GIA's global reputation as "the" lab of strictness...and alternately a lab like IGI would have to adjust grading to be tighter in the US which could upset their customers.

Meanwhile EGL-USA could benefit from such a campaign. They are caught between scylla and charybdis; constantly playing catch-up to GIA - with intelligent people in their organization making the push - while being damaged by the softer grading of their overseas labs. Unifying standards could help them.

AGS may have been represented simply out of curiosity. They're as strict as GIA but not as well-known because only diamonds that can compete in their cut grading system are sent there. Jewelers who don't carry AGS diamonds (9 of 10 or more) have no motivation to talk about the lab, whereas GIA is unavoidable in discussion. It's possible participation in a unified campaign would help them in an advertising sense (?)

I am making all of this up as I go however.

The Accredited Gemologists Association, of which I have been a member for many years, is a highly under-rated organization with excellent intentions. The will to carry out flattening the grading field may simply not be present in such a volunteer organization. It is going to take a ton of money, years of committment, measurement of the potential fallout, and a set of highly complex decisions to be made by a 'committee' who are mostly potentially biased..... I'd say it is going to be difficult, very difficult.

No doubt. I'm actually more interested in results of the proposed study and inter-lab comparisons.

 

[oldminer]

We already know what the results of studying the labs will be. The market has been telling us its free opinion for years. It is no secret, but a lot more time can be spent, or wasted, in the analysis. It depends on your point of view whether it is time well spent or just a delaying tactic. Inter-lab cooperation is most welcomed. The guys on the top will surely want to know what their dangerous competitiors have up their sleeves. The competitiors will not readily find out anything much about what GIA has in store. They know how to keep things discreetly quiet.

It is difficult to imagine cooperation going a long way in solving the problem that we preceive which the labs see as their way of differentiating themselves and not so much a "problem".

Once science quantifies color grading in a way that can't be denied and is accurate, repeatable, consistent and meaningful, the labs will be dragged into the future. The fact that a 1 carat GIA-E color diamond is visibly less colored than a 5 carat GIA-E color under the present system is not a scienctific problem, but a problem of how to break out of a tradition without creating tremendous financial and consumer fallout. If one chips of a 1 carat stone from the 5 carat stone the colors should match, but due to size and absortion of light, the 5 carat stone looks darker. All tools which measure color measure the object, not a sample taken from it. Tools can be made to adjust for size and absorption. This has mostly been done already, but to get everyone in power to agree that any machine can do "their job" as well as or better than they do it manually will be a huge challenge.

Automated, scientific clarity grading is less far advanced than the color problem, but it is being tackled. The number of variables is very large and it is not going to happen any time soon.

 

[John P]

From the article:

,” the parties said in a release.

Its principal objective was to determine standard light sources for grading fluorescent diamonds; however, it was revealed that while the experts agreed that lighting standards must be re-examined, the urgent need for clearly defined technical procedures went far beyond this.>>

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/18/2008 11:07:41 AM
Author: strmrdr
Sounds good if they get anywhere.
In my opinion if the industry doesn''t do anything about the problem various governments will.
I don''t want to get into a debate again about if it is a good or bad thing because it is both but I see it as a sure thing that it will happen if the industry continues to stick to the current system.

I agree with you that it would be a good thing if the industry could attack this problem Storm. You and probably every one else in the room knows how I feel about the government getting involved. That would be a complete disasster for the trade in my opinion.

Indira, welcome to the forum. It will be good to have another European influence on the boards!

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/18/2008 11:19:03 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 6/17/2008 1:43:25 PM
Author: oldminer

If the GIA stoops from their high tower to participate they are doing it out of self defense of their enviable position. When you are top, the only direction for you to move is down. The others are all struggling to go up to the pinnacle. This is a worthy thing to attempt, but I believe that once each lab recognizes the highly competitive nature of this business, they will try to get to the pinnacle alone and not along with all the baggage of the other labs. It is good to know and understand your enemy, but it is not so good to go into a business agreement with them.

Thoughtful comments as usual Dave.

I was also pondering why some of the big players may have attended the meeting and others didn''t.

As you say, global standards could weaken GIA''s global reputation as ''the'' lab of strictness...and alternately a lab like IGI would have to adjust grading to be tighter in the US which could upset their customers.

Meanwhile EGL-USA could benefit from such a campaign. They are caught between scylla and charybdis; constantly playing catch-up to GIA - with intelligent people in their organization making the push - while being damaged by the softer grading of their overseas labs. Unifying standards could help them.

AGS may have been represented simply out of curiosity. They''re as strict as GIA but not as well-known because only diamonds that can compete in their cut grading system are sent there. Jewelers who don''t carry AGS diamonds (9 of 10 or more) have no motivation to talk about the lab, whereas GIA is unavoidable in discussion. It''s possible participation in a unified campaign would help them in an advertising sense (?)

I am making all of this up as I go however.

The Accredited Gemologists Association, of which I have been a member for many years, is a highly under-rated organization with excellent intentions. The will to carry out flattening the grading field may simply not be present in such a volunteer organization. It is going to take a ton of money, years of committment, measurement of the potential fallout, and a set of highly complex decisions to be made by a ''committee'' who are mostly potentially biased..... I''d say it is going to be difficult, very difficult.

No doubt. I''m actually more interested in results of the proposed study and inter-lab comparisons.

In my opinion they are stricter, especially on clarity, which is good for the consumer, but bad for the cutters, which probably is also a reason why many do not use them.

Wink

 

[Indira-London]

Date: 6/18/2008 12:18:28 PM
Author: John Pollard
From the article:

<< The move was initiative by the Accredited Gemologists Association, in reaction to “consumer dissatisfaction with inconsistent grades and a specific concern that current procedures used to color grade fluorescent diamonds result in grades that are inaccurate, unscientific and misleading,” the parties said in a release.

Its principal objective was to determine standard light sources for grading fluorescent diamonds; however, it was revealed that while the experts agreed that lighting standards must be re-examined, the urgent need for clearly defined technical procedures went far beyond this.>>

It is interesting to note that a GIA study on the effects of fluorescence found that human observers, professionals and consumers alike, were unable to agree on the effects of fluorescence:
http://www.gia.edu/pdfs/W97_fluoresce.pdf Here is summary from that study:
"Some gem diamonds fluoresce, most commonly blue, to the concentrated long-wave ultraviolet radiation of a UV lamp. There is a perception in the trade that this fluorescence has a negative effect on the overall appearance of such a diamond. Visual observation experiments were conducted to study this relationship. Four sets of very similar round brilliant diamonds, covering the color range from colorless to faint yellow,
were selected for the different commonly encountered strengths of blue fluorescence they represented. These diamonds were then observed by trained graders, trade professionals, and average observers in various stone positions and lighting environments. For the average observer, meant to represent the jewelry buying public, no systematic effects of fluorescence were detected. Even the experienced observers did not consistently agree on the effects of fluorescence from one stone to the next. In general, the results revealed that strongly blue fluorescent diamonds were perceived to have a better color appearance when viewed table-up, with no discernible trend table-down. Most observers saw no relationship between fluorescence and transparency." For more information see http://www.gia.edu/pdfs/W97_fluoresce.pdf which is the results of GIA research on this subject.


Thank you too John for following up on my HRD question - it will be interesting to see what response you get on that topic.

 

[diagem]

Date: 6/18/2008 1:47:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 6/18/2008 11:19:03 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 6/17/2008 1:43:25 PM
Author: oldminer

If the GIA stoops from their high tower to participate they are doing it out of self defense of their enviable position. When you are top, the only direction for you to move is down. The others are all struggling to go up to the pinnacle. This is a worthy thing to attempt, but I believe that once each lab recognizes the highly competitive nature of this business, they will try to get to the pinnacle alone and not along with all the baggage of the other labs. It is good to know and understand your enemy, but it is not so good to go into a business agreement with them.

Thoughtful comments as usual Dave.

I was also pondering why some of the big players may have attended the meeting and others didn''t.

As you say, global standards could weaken GIA''s global reputation as ''the'' lab of strictness...and alternately a lab like IGI would have to adjust grading to be tighter in the US which could upset their customers.

Meanwhile EGL-USA could benefit from such a campaign. They are caught between scylla and charybdis; constantly playing catch-up to GIA - with intelligent people in their organization making the push - while being damaged by the softer grading of their overseas labs. Unifying standards could help them.

AGS may have been represented simply out of curiosity. They''re as strict as GIA but not as well-known because only diamonds that can compete in their cut grading system are sent there. Jewelers who don''t carry AGS diamonds (9 of 10 or more) have no motivation to talk about the lab, whereas GIA is unavoidable in discussion. It''s possible participation in a unified campaign would help them in an advertising sense (?)

I am making all of this up as I go however.

The Accredited Gemologists Association, of which I have been a member for many years, is a highly under-rated organization with excellent intentions. The will to carry out flattening the grading field may simply not be present in such a volunteer organization. It is going to take a ton of money, years of committment, measurement of the potential fallout, and a set of highly complex decisions to be made by a ''committee'' who are mostly potentially biased..... I''d say it is going to be difficult, very difficult.

No doubt. I''m actually more interested in results of the proposed study and inter-lab comparisons.

In my opinion they are stricter, especially on clarity, which is good for the consumer, but bad for the cutters, which probably is also a reason why many do not use them.

Wink

Wink..., why do you think it is good for the consumer but bad for the cutters?

 

[John P]

Date: 6/18/2008 2:29:47 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 6/18/2008 1:47:17 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 6/18/2008 11:19:03 AM
Author: John Pollard

...AGS may have been represented simply out of curiosity. They're as strict as GIA but not as well-known because only diamonds that can compete in their cut grading system are sent there. Jewelers who don't carry AGS diamonds (9 of 10 or more) have no motivation to talk about the lab, whereas GIA is unavoidable in discussion. It's possible participation in a unified campaign would help them in an advertising sense (?)...

In my opinion they are stricter, especially on clarity, which is good for the consumer, but bad for the cutters, which probably is also a reason why many do not use them.

Wink

Wink..., why do you think it is good for the consumer but bad for the cutters?

Wink can reply on his own, but I'll take a stab at it.

I know that for some time a number of manufacturers have reported that AGS grading has been somewhat stricter on this count. I don't know that it's "bad" for cutters but I believe a natural temptation, if this is going to continue, is to send to GIA instead.

The reason: GIA is known in all arenas as "the" global standard. Ask any jeweler. Because of this consistent buzz the education curve is very slight when it comes to validating GIA as a preeminent lab to consumers.

Meanwhile (as alluded-to above) AGS is far less-known in common markets. An AGS jeweler must teach the consumer that AGS color & clarity is on-par with GIA. He must teach that AGS cut requirements are stricter. He may then find it necessary to explain why the ten prior jewelers (who don't carry AGS-graded diamonds) never even mentioned AGS. In fact, those ten prior jewelers might have said the same thing about their own store's second/third-tier lab reports; "Oh yes - Joe's bar-and-lab is on par with GIA - isn't this shiny?" They may be full of bunk while our AGS advocate is not, but the inconsistent information can turn the learning curve into a slippery slope in the consumer's eyes.

All things being equal, the AGS report has value and to cutters emphasizing cut quality. But if things stop being equal diamonds graded by cutting houses as AGS Y are coming back AGS Y-1 or Y-2 and will now be sold for less in situations where a steeper learning curve is also required. Easier to send to GIA where they will come back as predicted.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/18/2008 1:47:17 PM
Author: Wink


In my opinion they are stricter, especially on clarity, which is good for the consumer, but bad for the cutters, which probably is also a reason why many do not use them.


Wink

And slightly softer on color so it is a wash.
What consumers and cutters need is consistent and accurate grading.
One lab being stricter or softer than another in any area is not good for consumers or cutters.
It brings distrust and confusion into the market which hurts everyone.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/18/2008 6:44:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/18/2008 1:47:17 PM
Author: Wink


In my opinion they are stricter, especially on clarity, which is good for the consumer, but bad for the cutters, which probably is also a reason why many do not use them.


Wink

And slightly softer on color so it is a wash.
What consumers and cutters need is consistent and accurate grading.
One lab being stricter or softer than another in any area is not good for consumers or cutters.
It brings distrust and confusion into the market which hurts everyone.

Not for the past year Strm; at least not for us and manufacturers we're familiar with.

Graders are human and borderline calls depend on a number of things including experience, time of day, even what one had for breakfast. Pair that with AGS' commitment to staying on par with GIA. If you urge the strictness mantra too hotly with human graders those borderline calls start going 60/40 to one side...70/30 and so on.

One of the lab execs described it like this: When you're in the shower the water temperature needs bordeline adjustments. Go a bit too far left and it's warmer than perfect. Dial it back too far and it's cooler than you want. The idea is to be "just right," but with constant urging of consumer protection and strictness it's easy to err too hot.

 

[whatmeworry]

"Graders are human and borderline calls depend on a number of things including experience, time of day, even what one had for breakfast."

Why not just state that it''s a borderline call? Better for consumers. More transparency.

 

[Lynn B]

Interesting thread. And THIS made me LOL!

Date: 6/18/2008 5:58:07 PM
Author: John Pollard

...In fact, those ten prior jewelers might have said the same thing about their own store''s second/third-tier lab reports; ''Oh yes - Joe''s bar-and-lab is on par with GIA - isn''t this shiny?'' ...

How about Joe''s Bar and Lab, Transmissions and Nails???!!!

 

[John P]

Date: 6/18/2008 7:37:01 PM
Author: whatmeworry
''Graders are human and borderline calls depend on a number of things including experience, time of day, even what one had for breakfast.''

Why not just state that it''s a borderline call? Better for consumers. More transparency.

That would expand 11 clarity grades to 22 ... and 23 color grades to 46. Some in the trade consider that going the wrong way when a lot of consumers just want to know "is it eye-clean or not?" and "does it face up with tint or not?"

Trade members look at it differently, as each tier represents a different price point.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/18/2008 7:42:34 PM
Author: Lynn B
Interesting thread. And THIS made me LOL!

Date: 6/18/2008 5:58:07 PM
Author: John Pollard

...In fact, those ten prior jewelers might have said the same thing about their own store''s second/third-tier lab reports; ''Oh yes - Joe''s bar-and-lab is on par with GIA - isn''t this shiny?'' ...

How about Joe''s Bar and Lab, Transmissions and Nails???!!!

If they do nails can they do re-cutting? Or at least re-polishing? Ho ho.

 

[John P]

Date: 6/18/2008 7:37:01 PM
Author: whatmeworry
'Graders are human and borderline calls depend on a number of things including experience, time of day, even what one had for breakfast.'

Why not just state that it's a borderline call? Better for consumers. More transparency.

Something else that occurred to me with this WMW, along the lines of Oldminer's input:

There is less and less subjectivity with advancements in tools and measuring devices. Carat weight and (within tolerances) proportions are all non-subjective now. I wager you and I will both be around when standardized mechanical color grading becomes accepted. Clarity is a tougher nut to crack but our friends at Octonus have been at this for some time - and other companies like Imagem are in the grading instruments game too.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 6/18/2008 6:44:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/18/2008 1:47:17 PM
Author: Wink

In my opinion they are stricter, especially on clarity, which is good for the consumer, but bad for the cutters, which probably is also a reason why many do not use them.

Wink

And slightly softer on color so it is a wash.
What consumers and cutters need is consistent and accurate grading.
One lab being stricter or softer than another in any area is not good for consumers or cutters.
It brings distrust and confusion into the market which hurts everyone.

As John already pointed out, your assessment of AGS being softer on color is incorrect at this point in time. Let me give you a current example.

Last month, I had two shipments leaving our office on the same day. Both shipments were graded in-house by the same persons, and we tried to predict as accurately as possible the AGS-grade, since we have most experience with their grading.

22 stones left for AGS. In clarity, we got a better grade on 3 stones and a worse grade on 3 stones. In color, we got a better grade on 3 stones and a worse grade on 8 stones. In value, our estimated value of 100 before shipping returned a value after grading of 95.7

8 stones left for GIA. We only have first grading on this, so something might still improve. Currently, in clarity, we have 1 stone getting a better grade from GIA, and 2 getting a worse grade (we expect this to be corrected in re-check). In color, we have a better grade on 3 stones and a worse grade on 3 stones. In value, if GIA does not change its first grading in the re-check, our estimated value of 100 returns a value after GIA grading of 99.5. If as we expect, two clarity-grades will be corrected in re-check, the value after GIA-grading becomes 101.7

This represents a difference in value of 6.3%, caused both by stricter grading in color as in clarity.

Live long,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/19/2008 7:33:14 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

As John already pointed out, your assessment of AGS being softer on color is incorrect at this point in time. Let me give you a current example.


Last month, I had two shipments leaving our office on the same day. Both shipments were graded in-house by the same persons, and we tried to predict as accurately as possible the AGS-grade, since we have most experience with their grading.


22 stones left for AGS. In clarity, we got a better grade on 3 stones and a worse grade on 3 stones. In color, we got a better grade on 3 stones and a worse grade on 8 stones. In value, our estimated value of 100 before shipping returned a value after grading of 95.7


8 stones left for GIA. We only have first grading on this, so something might still improve. Currently, in clarity, we have 1 stone getting a better grade from GIA, and 2 getting a worse grade (we expect this to be corrected in re-check). In color, we have a better grade on 3 stones and a worse grade on 3 stones. In value, if GIA does not change its first grading in the re-check, our estimated value of 100 returns a value after GIA grading of 99.5. If as we expect, two clarity-grades will be corrected in re-check, the value after GIA-grading becomes 101.7


This represents a difference in value of 6.3%, caused both by stricter grading in color as in clarity.


Live long,

On average over the last year how close has your grader been to AGS and GIA grading? There are a lot of variables in such a small sample.
I would consider a couple percent to be line noise between 2 graders given today''s system. The system itself isn''t any more accurate than that.

Which grades would you consider the proper grades?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

On average, after AGS-grading, our estimated value of 100 comes back between 93 and 96. I was relatively happy with 95.7 this time.

GIA, 2 out of 3 times, grades higher on average than our estimate.

I have no idea which one is the proper grade, and would say that our estimate is. But GIA is the standard that the public and the trade compares to, they are the benchmark.

Live long,

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/18/2008 2:29:47 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 6/18/2008 1:47:17 PM

Author: Wink

Date: 6/18/2008 11:19:03 AM

Author: John Pollard

Date: 6/17/2008 1:43:25 PM

Author: oldminer


If the GIA stoops from their high tower to participate they are doing it out of self defense of their enviable position. When you are top, the only direction for you to move is down. The others are all struggling to go up to the pinnacle. This is a worthy thing to attempt, but I believe that once each lab recognizes the highly competitive nature of this business, they will try to get to the pinnacle alone and not along with all the baggage of the other labs. It is good to know and understand your enemy, but it is not so good to go into a business agreement with them.

Thoughtful comments as usual Dave.


I was also pondering why some of the big players may have attended the meeting and others didn''t.


As you say, global standards could weaken GIA''s global reputation as ''the'' lab of strictness...and alternately a lab like IGI would have to adjust grading to be tighter in the US which could upset their customers.


Meanwhile EGL-USA could benefit from such a campaign. They are caught between scylla and charybdis; constantly playing catch-up to GIA - with intelligent people in their organization making the push - while being damaged by the softer grading of their overseas labs. Unifying standards could help them.


AGS may have been represented simply out of curiosity. They''re as strict as GIA but not as well-known because only diamonds that can compete in their cut grading system are sent there. Jewelers who don''t carry AGS diamonds (9 of 10 or more) have no motivation to talk about the lab, whereas GIA is unavoidable in discussion. It''s possible participation in a unified campaign would help them in an advertising sense (?)


I am making all of this up as I go however.

The Accredited Gemologists Association, of which I have been a member for many years, is a highly under-rated organization with excellent intentions. The will to carry out flattening the grading field may simply not be present in such a volunteer organization. It is going to take a ton of money, years of committment, measurement of the potential fallout, and a set of highly complex decisions to be made by a ''committee'' who are mostly potentially biased..... I''d say it is going to be difficult, very difficult.

No doubt. I''m actually more interested in results of the proposed study and inter-lab comparisons.

In my opinion they are stricter, especially on clarity, which is good for the consumer, but bad for the cutters, which probably is also a reason why many do not use them.


Wink

Wink..., why do you think it is good for the consumer but bad for the cutters?

While I see that my friend John has made a reasoned and in depth response I will answer slightly differently, and also to my friend Storm.

Say a cutter who is quite good at grading stones sends what he feels are worth at wholesale $100,000 to AGS and gets back $93,000 to $94,000 in value from AGS even after having certain stones rechecked and paying the extra fees for the rechecks. But hey, at least they were all AGS 0 cut grades with maybe one or two AGS 1 cut grades.

Frustrated and tired of being under graded he now sends the same batch of diamonds to GIA and gets back $104,000 worth of diamonds, ALL OF WHICH ARE GIA EX CUT GRADES.

Which do you think is worse for the cutter? Which do you think is better for the consumer? Same diamonds, same cutting, WAY different pricing.

Storm, your comment that they are slightly softer on color is questionable to me, but even if it were true, it is not a wash. The affect on pricing between a VS2 and an SI1 is much greater than the difference between an F and a G.

While to some point, standards or no, clarity grading will always be subjective, it is NOT to the lab''s benefit to be more strict than GIA and it is to the detriment of the cutter, and eventually to the public as cutters will stop sending diamonds to AGS if they can not be graded equally with GIA in the color and clarity grade.

At the AGA educational meeting during the Las Vegas show there was an excellent seminar on diamond grading by a gentleman with 25 (or was it 28?) years of experience at GIA in their laboratory. One of his comments stands strong with me. "It''s like baseball, in the event of a questionable borderline call, the tie goes to the runner." (Since this quote is without all of the context in which it was given, translation: If the call is between a VS2 and and SI1 and it is too close to call with certainty, then it should be called a VS2. Apply to any two contiguous grades that you wish.)

I have his most excellent workbook at the office, perhaps one of the other posters will refresh my mind as to his name, he is now the head of the GCal laboratory. It was THE BEST seminar that I was privileged to attend and I am told that it was indeed one of the best at the whole show this year.

Anyway, I am going on way too long. To answer the question, which was "Why is it good for the consumer but bad for the cutters?" Because it is costing the cutter money in an industry that is leaving precious little for the cutters already, while unjustly giving that money to the consumer, who is getting more than he is paying for.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/18/2008 6:44:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/18/2008 1:47:17 PM

Author: Wink



In my opinion they are stricter, especially on clarity, which is good for the consumer, but bad for the cutters, which probably is also a reason why many do not use them.



Wink

And slightly softer on color so it is a wash.

What consumers and cutters need is consistent and accurate grading.

One lab being stricter or softer than another in any area is not good for consumers or cutters.

It brings distrust and confusion into the market which hurts everyone.

I also agree with you about needing consistent and accurate grading, but fear that 100% consistency is NOT possible, at least not at this time. Perhaps we are close in color, but I do not know how it will ever be possible in clarity.

I certainly agree that it should be closer than the current disparity between some labs which are making their whole living off of being looser than GIA to the benefit of the cutters and the detriment of the consume.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/18/2008 7:37:01 PM
Author: whatmeworry
'Graders are human and borderline calls depend on a number of things including experience, time of day, even what one had for breakfast.'


Why not just state that it's a borderline call? Better for consumers. More transparency.

Because then the gem becomes unsellable at anything other than the price of the lower grade. With today's concern about paper the beauty is often lost. If the consumer "wins" all questions, then soon the producers go broke, thus in the long term negating the "wins" for the consumer. Remember that we are dealing in an industry where tiny changes on the value of a parcel can be more than the total expected profit.

Paul Slegers had a wonderful thread on here a couple of years ago about a parcel where he lost money on the parcel because of the disagreement in the clarity grades of just a few of the stones in the parcel.

I bought many of those stones, at the grades given, and am quite confident I could have sent them to GIA for the clarity grades that Paul was expecting. I did not and my clients got some incredibly bargains, but it was pretty hard on Paul.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/19/2008 10:23:56 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
On average, after AGS-grading, our estimated value of 100 comes back between 93 and 96. I was relatively happy with 95.7 this time.


GIA, 2 out of 3 times, grades higher on average than our estimate.


I have no idea which one is the proper grade, and would say that our estimate is. But GIA is the standard that the public and the trade compares to, they are the benchmark.


Live long,

LOL, this is what happens when you take the afternoon off to prepare a BBQ for 48 people. Paul, who actually knows way more than I do about these things gives good answers with actual numbers rather than my hypothetical examples.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/19/2008 10:43:04 AM
Author: Wink

Anyway, I am going on way too long. To answer the question, which was 'Why is it good for the consumer but bad for the cutters?' Because it is costing the cutter money in an industry that is leaving precious little for the cutters already, while unjustly giving that money to the consumer, who is getting more than he is paying for.


Wink

I'm going to shock you with my answer but I feel this is bad for consumers also not just cutters.
1> another reason not to cut stones better if your going to get nailed on cut color and clarity why not just cut to the worst end of GIA EX and make more money? That means less diamonds cut the way I like them and higher prices for them as there is less supply.
2> long term a supply chain only works well if at each stage a reasonable profit is made.
3> If a product is going to be sold by man made artificial rules then that market will run the best for everyone involved with repeatable and accurate application of clearly defined rules.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/17/2008 1:43:25 PM
Author: oldminer
. Labs are struggling to prove they are equal to GIA. No lab can prove it is ''better''. How could they since the system is GIA''s?

If the GIA stoops from their high tower to participate they are doing it out of self defense of their enviable position.

Excellent review Dave, and thx for posting the topic John.

The scenario in this images shows why we will not encourage people to use DiamCalc to display color of diamonds.

The Side grade colour system is flawed - it does not give consumers what they require. It was developed for gemologists ease, and the time has come for it to be replaced, probably by digital devices. Although that is not as easy as it seems either (study the slde carefully and consider the problems we know that exist with devices like the Brillianscope et al).

The entire system needs to be changed in order to assist customers and non expert retailers and sales staff.