Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Is GIA good cut really fair/poor ?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
C

clueless_in_boston

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
17
How can GIA give this stone a good cut rating, when HCA advisor (and common sense) is saying stay away. Remember when all the stock analysts used to rate a stock neutral, that really meant to sell? lol.

Does GIA good really mean fair/poor? I am losing faith in GIA. Seems like there should be plenty of room for a new grading house to come along and replace them.
 
I think AGS is very quickly surpassing GIA as the "go to" graders.

GIA is very on target with many things, but people often say their cut is lacking. Another thing to remember is that HCA occasionally gives a good stone a bad rating because it just doesn''t like certain angle combinations.
 
It''s almost like the girdle inscriptions for H&A.

The labs don''t grade for the patterns, they just report the inscription is there.

In this case, GIA doesn''t say the diamond is a chip risk, they just graded what they saw and sent the stone on it''s way.
 
Date: 6/14/2007 10:39:31 AM
Author:clueless_in_boston
How can GIA give this stone a good cut rating, when HCA advisor (and common sense) is saying stay away. Remember when all the stock analysts used to rate a stock neutral, that really meant to sell? lol.

Does GIA good really mean fair/poor? I am losing faith in GIA. Seems like there should be plenty of room for a new grading house to come along and replace them.
Click to expand...
I think mainly some perspective & appreciation of language is needed. We are not talking about the nuances here of whether their top grade of excellent is acceptable, or not.

For example...going to the grocery, looking for a big box of laundry detergent...you might think you''d be doing well picking up the "big" box...except that...oops...they also carry: Huge, gigantic, and enormous, and wacko big.

On top for GIA is Excellent, then very good, then good. Someone knows what''s next...(fair, poor?).

You don''t want good, as their third tier. You could want very good. Excellent...is generally at least thought to be possible, among the most stringent readers here. It''s also their best category.
 
Date: 6/14/2007 11:07:10 AM
Author: Regular Guy

I think mainly some perspective appreciation of language is needed. We are not talking about the nuances here of whether their top grade of excellent is acceptable, or not.
Click to expand...
This is a good point. In AGSL terms the third tier would be in the AGS 4-6 range. For better or worse, "good" is the word used by GIA for that tier.


On top for GIA is Excellent, then very good, then good. Someone knows what's next...(fair, poor?).
Click to expand...
Right and right.
 
If it looks decent and it''s discounted 30-40%, would that be "good" or "excellent"?
 
Date: 6/14/2007 11:16:08 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

In AGSL terms the third tier would be in the AGS 4-6 range.
Click to expand...
Well, I checked the cutting guides. AGS predicts this configuration to earn between AGS 6-10 (it's actually 'off the chart' on the low end of CA). So while my prior post may be ok in terms of nomenclature it doesn't actually hold water in terms of parallel standards.
 
Point taken about this particular dog, the point I'm trying to make is more general, i.e. for GIA "good" as a whole. The original question was whether GIA "good" really means fair or poor.
 
Date: 6/14/2007 11:49:04 AM
Author: elmo

Point taken about this particular dog, the point I'm trying to make is more general, i.e. for GIA 'good' as a whole. The original question was whether GIA 'good' really means fair or poor.
Click to expand...
And your point is key: Terminology & descriptors are widely used, but not always interpreted the same way.

Al Gilbertson mentioned that this has been problematic before in his Vegas presentation about "American Cut;" precursor to Tolkowksy-Ideal. Near the turn of the (last) century "American Cut" indicated a certain configuration (Henry Morse's) which was highly desired. Well, some firms started setting up shop in the USA and using the term "American Cut" but they were not cutting to those proportions. In the early 1900s JCK organized a campaign to restrict use of the term to appropriate makes. Deja vu? Maybe JCK will help us out with 'ideal'?
2.gif
 
So GIA gives a "good" cut to an AGS that is predicted to be 6-10, and off the chart possibly? WOW.

Also notice the date of the report: Date of Issue: May 30, 2007



so is it getting worse before it gets better? Is GIA heading in the direction of IGI/EGL and the rest of the labs with a bad rep? (i.e. bend/break the rules to give stones a favorable grading).

I have totally lost faith in GIA stones - in a number of their measurements. About the only thing I remotely trust at having a high probability of accuracy/consistency is color, and I'm sure someone gonna jump on this thread and tell me a story about that too. lol.
 
Date: 6/15/2007 8:24:57 AM
Author: clueless_in_boston

I have totally lost faith in GIA stones - in a number of their measurements. About the only thing I remotely trust at having a high probability of accuracy/consistency is color, and I''m sure someone gonna jump on this thread and tell me a story about that too. lol.
Click to expand...
Clueless,

I''m not sure if I failed to be convincing, or clear. Alternately...maybe it''s one of those perception things...where it''s hard to read this word correctly:

red

...because it''s not conventionally red, at all, but blue.

But, given this world of relatives, marketing, CNETs, Consumer Reports...and for that matter, grades in the classroom...

it''s important to simply read the legend from whatever map maker you''re using, and believe the designations they define for you...and learn how to interpret them, with the posted parameters...and then assign your own meaning, once you understand how the map maker has attached their definitions.

It''s not GIA''s fault that they get a lot of diamonds. Also, note, a recent industry professional made the interesting counter-intuitive comment that GIA actually was too stringent for him....was over kill on (either) color or clarity. And, since that system is sourced by GIA, I found the idea somewhat incredulous...but in terms of its application...maybe it''s not unreasonable.

Bottom line...just look for excellent...if looking at GIA graded stones. Or, if you''re casting your net wide, consider also Very good. Also, you can do what many of us do here...ignore these designations entirely, and let a db like the search by cut sorter (above under prices) do the work for us, and only look at diamonds with certain sets of proportions be reviewed at the outset...regardless of what the GIA grade.

The real beauty of the newer certs from GIA grade is they provide the basis for the grade setting...and not just the grade. With crown & pavilions angles...I encourage you to ignore GIA''s legend. Use Garrys. Or broadly, AGS''s. Or as many Pricescopers do, your own.

Regards,
 
I think putting a different perspective on this may be timely.

GIA reports are as good and reliable for weight, color, clarity and parametric numbers as they have been for many years. In fact, they contain more factual data now than any time before. The cut grade provided by GIA as "Excellent" covers every truly excellent diamond and likely covers many that are secondary to slightly third rate. A Very Good can be quite bad and I have yet to see even one rated "Good" on a new report. "Good" is a GIA quality to skip except for "price". Remember, the largest market exists at the "price" level for diamonds, but on Pricescope the nature of the consumer is far different than the national average. Pricescope might better be named Valuescope or Qualityscope.

EGL is a private lab which finances their own qualified and valid research. This is a benefit to the industry and the consumer as they share the results in publications and in practice. Many consumers may be unaware of this, but it is a truth. EGL,USA is working to better its reputation, not to diminish it. Again, this is difficult to see as it happens, but you can sure see how a changing reputation to the downside may be seen with the comment about the GIA that we often read. Its more difficult to climb out of a deep hole than to fall off the mountain's top. Everyone goes after the leader and few want to help anyone else succeed or gain market share. This is a truth about capitalism in general and not just about diamonds and labs.

IGI is king of size and volume in the world. They must be doing something right although Pricescopers don't participate much in the market where IGI has its greatest share. Don't think for a minute that IGI is incapable of grading with just as much repeatability as the GIA. While IGI may use a somewhat different set of categories for its grades, they can be consistent in their application. Sure, we can find "off grades" with IGI, but we can find similar "off grading" with a few GIA or even AGS reports. Human grading of color is about 65% repeatable no matter how many graders review a diamond. Once in a while graders agree on "incorrect" grades no matter what the controls are in the lab.

Since the market is free and very smart the price asked for diamonds usually reflects the "Value" which is based on expert assessment of the actual color, clarity, shape and cut quality. These "experts" are diamond dealers who buy the diamond and not the paper. Yes, they respect the value of the paper and its grade, but they know the real value of the diamond resides in the stone and its inherent properties.

19.gif
 
Date: 6/15/2007 9:34:56 AM
Author: oldminer

The cut grade provided by GIA as ''Excellent'' covers every truly excellent diamond and likely covers many that are secondary to slightly third rate. A Very Good can be quite bad and I have yet to see even one rated ''Good'' on a new report. ''Good'' is a GIA quality to skip except for ''price''. Remember, the largest market exists at the ''price'' level for diamonds, but on Pricescope the nature of the consumer is far different than the national average.
Click to expand...
Well put.
 
In response to the OP''s stone which is a pretty good example of something that''s not very "good", I went back to the GIA estimator page. Looks like many stones with crowns in the lower 60s and pavilions under 40.5 degrees only get a "good". However I think those can make pretty decent earring stones and can be nicely spready. Garry''s tool even likes them. Also, wouldn''t a fairly typical OEC with table under 50 and slightly large culet graded as a round get a "good"? My point is that stones like this aren''t that unusual and can also be attractive even with desirable aspects especially if the price is good. Of course it''s not so attractive if you have to pay anything close to an "ideal cut" price for one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top