International diamond grading standards to be established?
- Thread starter John P
- Start date
- Status
whatmeworry
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,095
Do you think that something graded a borderline F/G will sell at the same price as a middle of the pack G? I think it would command a higher price. It''s not about consumers winning, Paul would benefit also. If something was truly a borderline call, it really should be stated as so, rather than lletting the grade (and the associated financial costs to either the consumer or producer) be decided by "whatever the grader had for breakfast that morning".
There''s the problem, how many times does a borderline diamond get sent for grading before it gets the "correct" for the manufacturer grade? Is that a good system? Not for the average consumer. And most consumers don''t get their diamonds appraised for a second opinion.
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
I was able to discuss this and some other points with my AGA contact:
A long, global list of laboratories received invitations, as well as the AGA Position Paper which served as a catalyst for the meeting. Many labs outside the US didn''t send representatives but sent comments agreeing that problems exist and expressing interest in involvement. The GIA also returned comments discussed at the meeting.
The AGA feels it''s imperative to have representation from Europe and Asia as well as the US. To that end, HRD was included in the initial mailing but never replied (IGI was not included since their focus is not on the research arena).
In keeping with responses received, the AGA has also invited the following people/organizations to join the task force: The GIA, the GIT (Thailand), The GAAJ Zenhokyo Lab, CISGEM in Italy, Thomas Hainschwang and Eickhorst Systems in Germany. These are in addition to those named in the original post.
Discussion began with lighting as a primary concern (some coverage of this is included in the IDEX article). It was agreed that further investigation into the entire area related to lighting and gemstone grading is essential.
Consensus was reached on the following points:
+ The gemological field needs to establish more precise illumination standards for grading diamonds and gemstones, comparable to what is found in other scientific fields and other industries
+ The gemological field needs to develop systems to ensure compliance among labs claiming to adhere to established standards.
+ Procedural guidelines related to basic procedures must be reviewed and revisions considered.
Proposed inter-lab comparisons would be open to all labs that choose to participate. Of course, participate in "what" is the big question. The task force will put together a proposal for a plan that would be workable on a global basis - perhaps something like the "round robin" program currently used in the metals industry. Preliminary findings and recommendations will be presented in Tucson, in February 2009.
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 3,563
While I agree with better consistency I think this is hacking at the branches of the tree of evil, not the roots:
Of 10,000 people buying diamonds with reports today how many do you think even know about "borderline" grades? For that matter how many who are buying IGI graded diamonds (statistically, most of them) know the F they're paying for would be some grades lower to you and me?
Do you see how adding "bordeline grades" to what now exists isn't practical when the largest labs are grades apart?
In fact, this is not consumer-driven at all. As I mentioned on the prior page some are calling for less grades, not more (many consumers simply want to know is it "eye-clean or not" and "does it have tint or not"). I'm sure you've seen diamonds with dual-grades (Color grade H-I) at fine-jewelry counters everywhere. That is going the opposite direction of adding borderline calls and many of those stones are graded soft to begin with, but more people will buy those products today than people buying AGS-graded stones.
You Pricescope consumers know so much and have a unique (educated) consumer perspective. Bless you for that, but the mainstream public simply has no awareness by-and-large. The cry for change is a just cause, but I believe it must arise from the trade. I like the fact that the AGA initiative is giving us the chance to discuss it in this thread.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
This may shock you back, but I am not shocked that you are agreeing with me. I have always respected your intelligence and desire to learn and I can clearly see that you are studying more than just the diamonds themselves, but the economics of the diamond market. Well deserved kudos!
Wish I could offer an easy solution to what is a very serious problem.
Wink
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,700
For sure, some of the goals to harmonize lighting and terminology may pay off in more universally well understood reports. Garry''s graphic is the crux of the issue. The entire current color grading system for diamonds has technical problems. The big money, the powerful players of this business, are NOT the labs, but the CUSTOMERS of the labs. Behind the scenes decisions will be reached to accomodate the existing value of inventory. This is not chump change, but big money at risk. Lots of banks are on the hook, too.
The AGA inititave is definitely something timely, but there is no true voice of authority forcing the industry into the 21st century. I see labs gradually adopting new technology which will make their grading more reliable and scientifically provable. As other labs accept the same technology, the labs will naturally harmonize many of their now differing opinions on cut, color and eventually clarity. I''d predict that the largest changes will come from outside the industry, become accepted practice by major labs and trickly down to the more minor labs. Dealers and Labs can''t stop the advancement of technology as easily as they can delay and hinder arbitrary, subjective changes in a grading policy. Change will not be fast and dealers will shrug their shoulders and have time to get used to the newer grading styles.
I now put my crystal ball back in it''s case. Fortune telling will commence at 1900 hours.
The AGA inititave is definitely something timely, but there is no true voice of authority forcing the industry into the 21st century. I see labs gradually adopting new technology which will make their grading more reliable and scientifically provable. As other labs accept the same technology, the labs will naturally harmonize many of their now differing opinions on cut, color and eventually clarity. I''d predict that the largest changes will come from outside the industry, become accepted practice by major labs and trickly down to the more minor labs. Dealers and Labs can''t stop the advancement of technology as easily as they can delay and hinder arbitrary, subjective changes in a grading policy. Change will not be fast and dealers will shrug their shoulders and have time to get used to the newer grading styles.
I now put my crystal ball back in it''s case. Fortune telling will commence at 1900 hours.
Indira-London
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2008
- Messages
- 308
Thank you for the feedback John. It is disappointing but not surprising that HRD amongst many of the labs invited did not reply, but I guess that the labs have little incentive to collaborate when they are all competiting. Perhaps when the threat posed by "scientific grading" as described by Oldminer becomes more imminent then the labs may be forced to collaborate to survive the resulting tsunami.
Jonathan the Jeweler
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 39
About the split grades system. It seems to me that sellers already take in account where an individual stone''s color lies within its color grade. A dealer would have less need to have the lowest price if his G was more on the boarder of F than H. Perhaps when buying in large lots such nuances are difficult to account for, but when selling individual stones it would be foolish not to mention that the stone in question is actually near the F range. Ultimately a consumer should always get exactly what they pay for, and it makes no sense to sell a high G for the same price as a low G all other things being equal. Diamond pricing is more of a tiered system, but it would be more efficient to make it follow a smooth curve.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,542
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,542
Remeber all are cut from the exact same colored and spectrum rough
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
How would you propose moving from where we are now to a face up grading system without disrupting the sales of diamonds for a long time?
Would you eliminate the d-z scale and replace it with something like c1 to c25 to help eliminate confusion?
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,542
I have no problem with each lab developing their own methods, or using digital versions of the current system.
Personally I prefer less grades, not more - DE, FG, H...... etc because there is so little difference at the top end.
it would be good if there was a lab cross correlation - but there is no need for each system to match up - they do not currently. But if all labs used face up consumers would get what they wanted and cutters could use more brain power to get better results basaed on their cutting prowess.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
It is just this type of thinking that had someone trying to convince us a couple of years ago that we needed a way of grading and pricing each of the color grades in high, middle and low ranges, thus starting the fight about was my stone a high middle G or a low middle G and oh my goodness, pretty soon people will want to know is my stone a high high middle G a middle middle G or just a low middle G and then ..., oh my head hurts to think of the possibilities.
Folks, a color grade, like a clarity grade is a range! We vendors pay for a G whether it is a high or low G. We pay for an SI1 whether it is a high SI1 or a low SI1. (Unless of course you want to send it to IGI or EGL Israel, then you get to sell it for a VS1)
We pay this because that is what the cutter charges us. You don''t want the stone, fine, someone else will buy it from him at that price and sell it to their clients. That is primarily our choice, there is buy, there is don''t buy. Of course there is some negotiation, the more you buy, the more you negotiate, but it is not so much these days because the dollar sucks and the cutters would rather sell the gem to someone with Euros anyway.
For this reason Jonathon the Jeweler, I must disagree with you. The system must be a tiered system until there is a mechanical way to perfectly grade each and every stone on this smooth curve that you state would be more efficient. I disagree completely, the curve is a nice theory, but certainly under today''s technology completely impossible. It would also increase the complexity of sales to the point where we could no longer work on the paper thin margins that we allowed as we would no longer be searching for a reasonable request, say like a D-IF, but rather a high high high D with a high lower middle Flawless so I can save one tenth of one percent and still say I have a D Flawless.
Thanks but no thanks. I will stick with my tiers. It is hard enough already to try to explain to the poor guy walking in the door with his instructions to buy a diamond without making what is already overly complex to him into something I will need two or three more years of study to understand. He already wants to know two things. Is it eye clean, and is it pretty. He does not need to spend a month trying to decifer the incredibly complex system that will develope if we infinitely break down the catagories into smaller and smaller units.
Wink
P.S. I have not seen you before, welcome to Pricescope. I am sure there will be issues that we agree on, but at least for now, not this one.
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,700
A totally numerical, smoothed curve of grading is ideal at the top range of colors since the market has already decided that virtually identical colors have vastly divergent values. Folks who want the very top will be willing to pay more and those who will accept a low "D" will pay a fraction less. It may be a pain for retailers, like Wink, who already compete on paper thin margins becuase quoting a price in advance of having the diamond will be even more challenging. Besides, there will be another layer or two of needed explanations to make most sales. Diamonds may become a situation of such diminished return of profit that the problems involved in their sale may create a real loss instead of the intended profit. The trade will not willingly go in such a direction. There are some very bright folks steering the ship although they are mostly invisible to us.
When you get below I color, the reason to have categorized color grading remains in roughly matching stones to one another, but price-wise little reason exists from J/K to R/S color. Still, numerical, smooth curve grading, would assist in matching stones better than rough grades and dealers could charge the same for a 7.984 as a 7.371 (just numbers for color grades) if they chose to and if the market accomodated itself to a new system.
Regardless of how many or how few categories there are, there will be a gray zone at the juncture of each arbitrary category. That's what makes the game entertaining. This is why Diamond Clubs exist, so that dealers can show merchandise and haggle over the exact price. The issue of just how repeatable, accurate and consistent will be the technology that gives us such fine gradations will be thoroughly tested and debated. Even when we think we have a rather smooth grading structure there will be some diamonds which defy automated grading due to fluorescence, or inclusions which alter the color in whatever direction it is measured. Also, the pickle of grading fancy colored diamonds based on face-up versus actual color of the rough is a thorny issue of importance.
We are facing a time when we may be asking how much information is sufficient to know what you are buying? I see it here on Pricescope quite often and find it more and more even among very impulse oriented buyers who only have heard a little bit about diamonds. I'd prefer and honest, simple system which follows market values and can be easily demonstrated and explained. I believe we are headed inevitably toward more defined grading which requires investments in hi-tech equipment, much more education and a lot more time to make a sale.
When you get below I color, the reason to have categorized color grading remains in roughly matching stones to one another, but price-wise little reason exists from J/K to R/S color. Still, numerical, smooth curve grading, would assist in matching stones better than rough grades and dealers could charge the same for a 7.984 as a 7.371 (just numbers for color grades) if they chose to and if the market accomodated itself to a new system.
Regardless of how many or how few categories there are, there will be a gray zone at the juncture of each arbitrary category. That's what makes the game entertaining. This is why Diamond Clubs exist, so that dealers can show merchandise and haggle over the exact price. The issue of just how repeatable, accurate and consistent will be the technology that gives us such fine gradations will be thoroughly tested and debated. Even when we think we have a rather smooth grading structure there will be some diamonds which defy automated grading due to fluorescence, or inclusions which alter the color in whatever direction it is measured. Also, the pickle of grading fancy colored diamonds based on face-up versus actual color of the rough is a thorny issue of importance.
We are facing a time when we may be asking how much information is sufficient to know what you are buying? I see it here on Pricescope quite often and find it more and more even among very impulse oriented buyers who only have heard a little bit about diamonds. I'd prefer and honest, simple system which follows market values and can be easily demonstrated and explained. I believe we are headed inevitably toward more defined grading which requires investments in hi-tech equipment, much more education and a lot more time to make a sale.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Am I getting what I am paying for? is a far more often asked question.
As long as the industry continues to make pricing decisions based on narrow ranges and multiple divisions then consumers need to know where in that range the diamond is so they can know they are paying the going rate and not being over charged.
As long as pricing is based on is it eyeclean?, is it pretty? then I am all for it.
But the frugal side of me wants to know exactly what I am buying to make sure I get a fair price under the current system because that is what the price is based on.
The industry created its own monster and I really don''t have an answer on how to slay that monster.
The monster is going to lead to places you aren''t going to like at all and likely some places I''m not going to like either.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,542
Storm and Dave there will always be variations - there will never be a simple single system, just as there is not and will not be in cut grades.
Wink is an experianced retailer - many watch maker trained gift stores that sell diamonds are not.
The main point I am making is that colour should be done face up.
Each lab should decide how it will handle fluoro and colour - my preference is for a small amount of UV to be in the light - say half as much as in an average of natural shaded daylight based on the latitude where the median population lives (30-40 degrees?).
But each lab should make its own rules - and then it is up to the markets and Pricescope and orgs like us to set the pricing rules. Would it was simple - but humans like to differentiate.
Wink is an experianced retailer - many watch maker trained gift stores that sell diamonds are not.
The main point I am making is that colour should be done face up.
Each lab should decide how it will handle fluoro and colour - my preference is for a small amount of UV to be in the light - say half as much as in an average of natural shaded daylight based on the latitude where the median population lives (30-40 degrees?).
But each lab should make its own rules - and then it is up to the markets and Pricescope and orgs like us to set the pricing rules. Would it was simple - but humans like to differentiate.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
But, we have. already as an industry decided that there is a range of stones that fit into all catagories, with the possible exception of D-IF. It either is or it isn''t, and that those ranges have a price. No one in the industry that I know has decided that all the catagories should be divided into dozens of sub catagories and the prices thus changed by micro percentages. The first who runs that up the pole will be pilloried and probably hoisted upon his own Pitard. (rightfully so!)
If you are buying a G-VS1 at the price of a G-VS1 then you are indeed getting what you pay for. The thing I am against is now further dividing the G-VS1 catagory into hundreds or thousands of sub catagories. It is NOT a worthy endeavor.
Just my opinion, and I am going now to have lunch.
Wink
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,700
It is a matter of perception whether it is an unleashed monster or simply the pain which accompanies progress. I hope we will never lose the possibility to sell or buy a diamond based on "is it pretty, affordable and will it make someone happy". On the other hand, many of us for years, if not decades, have been gritting our teeth over inconsistent and substantial purposely incorrect grading which to date has generally gotten filed under the "subjective" excuse without making the culprits pay for their cheating.
When big players, labs, retailers and dealers, quietly conspire to let faulty grading go out to the ultimate consumer a crime, thankfully not life and death, is being committed. This has made legitimate secondary labs struggle to gain a decent client base. It has cost legitimate retailers millions of dollars in lost sales, and has caused generations old diamond firms to struggle with keeping honest, losing their clients or choosing to go with the flow, stay in business and lose their hard won integrity. No one should have to make such choices. For me, the sooner we have progressive change for the better, the better the long term prospects will be. Pain in the present for future good business is proably worthwhile.
When big players, labs, retailers and dealers, quietly conspire to let faulty grading go out to the ultimate consumer a crime, thankfully not life and death, is being committed. This has made legitimate secondary labs struggle to gain a decent client base. It has cost legitimate retailers millions of dollars in lost sales, and has caused generations old diamond firms to struggle with keeping honest, losing their clients or choosing to go with the flow, stay in business and lose their hard won integrity. No one should have to make such choices. For me, the sooner we have progressive change for the better, the better the long term prospects will be. Pain in the present for future good business is proably worthwhile.
- Status
Did You Miss the May 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the May 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 05/31
The Best Time to Buy a Diamond Engagement Ring
The Best Time to Buy a Diamond Engagement Ring - 05/29
Did You Miss the Throwback Thursdays for May 2024?
Did You Miss the Throwback Thursdays for May 2024? - 05/28
300x240.png)