Just Suppose? A color grading POLL

[oldminer]

THE POLL:

Would you like to see more accurate and repeatable color grading of diamonds? These grades would be machine generated to an accuracy of 1/6 of the present GIA color grade.

This might make current GIA letter grades obsolete over time, but there would be a rough conversion available so that there would be no mystery created. There used to be old, pre-GIA color grading terms such as Jaeger, Wesselton, and Cape.

Please enter the poll and leave your comments....

 

[lmurden]

I voted yes. Although, I think if people knew that the real color grade was a "weak G" they probably wouldn't buy it. I think that I would end up buying a "solid G" or a "high G", or if I were able to see the diamond in person I would buy it based on how it looked to me and not the color assignment

 

[oldminer]

Of course, if the price for a weak G was properly less than a mid or strong G, the a person looking for an H might be very happy with a weak G. A person on a budget might go for the weak G as well, since it would be a regular G in the existing market.

I can just see dealers diamond dealers haggling over high G, middle G, low G instead of guessing a high G might be an F or a low G might be an H. Nothing would change except there''d be more to haggle over....which is good as it is a free market.

 

[strmrdr]

Id rather just see a 1-100 range with a chart with the coresonding color grade for backwards compatibility.
1 = better than gia D and 100 being vivid yellow.
The range on the gia scale differs for each color grade so just splitting the gia grades as they are now isnt a step forward.

 

[oldminer]

This exactly what is being discussed. If you now have 23 color grades from D-Z multifplied by 6 is
129 possible grades. This certainly would be able to extend further into the fancy color ranges. The highest D would be a 1, the lowest D would be 5, the D/E split would be a 6.....Does this make sense?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/4/2004 12:45:51 PM
Author: oldminer
This exactly what is being discussed. If you now have 23 color grades from D-Z multifplied by 6 is
129 possible grades. This certainly would be able to extend further into the fancy color ranges. The highest D would be a 1, the lowest D would be 5, the D/E split would be a 6.....Does this make sense?

yes but the difference between:
gia i to j is a bigger difference than between e and f.
6 steps between in both cases wouldnt be the same step size.
What im saying is that 100 or 129 or whatever number equal steps with a chart instead of the variable steps in the gia scale.
For example there might be 6 numbers between e and f but 12 between i and j.

 

[Patty]

These grades would be machine generated to an accuracy of 1/6 of the present GIA color grade.

Can you explain what this means?

 

[oldminer]

Interesting. I do understand and you are correct. However, the value of more steps in lower value diamonds evades me. Since the steps each mean more at the high value end, nearest D, then the value to us or to you of dividing into more steps where the dollars and value will be of less importance does not contribute much. If 6 steps is what can be done where the most important discrimination takes place, I don''t believe it would be productive to offer more steps elsewhere.

Let''s say I can only divide the most difficult range of color grades into 6 reliable parts. What benefit would ensue if I did divide the less important grades into more parts? Would you want this? I believe people would wonder why the best colors were split into more coarse grades than the unimportant colors if I followed your logic in this.

I hope I am making sense. Please don''t take offense at my approach.

 

[oldminer]

Patty: Color is a continuum, not distinct blocks of color with steps between. Our present system has 23 steps. What if I could give you 138 steps over the same range. This would be a refinement of the system, not a change in anything, but just more precision.

 

[Patty]

Okay, got ya, David, thanks. I could see going to maybe low, medium and high within the color, but having 6 variations of a "G" seems a bit much to me. It seems like it would make grading very difficult.

 

[oldminer]

Whenever you make steps in what actually is a continuum, there will be questions about the stones that are in the borderline situation. The more steps, the more accurate the grade is and the fewer questionable split grade situations. If the best four or five colors had 6 steps, the little difference between each step would mean far less than the difference bewteen only 3 steps. The diamond business will never stop splitting hairs over grading and related value, but right now we have a situation where rather coarse grading makes for a lot of problems. We have issues with accuracy, intentional misgrading and the dollar value of higher and lower same graded stones. A more refined and smoother set of steps may help. This is what the poll is all about.

 

[oldminer]

Hi Cranky;

I think the even D-Z grading is somewhat overkill, but we have seen the rising desire for even finer grading, not looser grading. By fine tuning the grades, less stones will be in the unenvieable position of being considered split grade or borderline colors. Those that are borderline will be reaadily discerned and those safely within a color grade will not be falsely accused of being borderline stones.

If one looks at the lack of price difference between O color and S color, then one can see splitting these into even finer steps is pretty much meaningless, but readily possible with technology. Beyond Z, shoppers for fine fancy color diamonds will surely be well served by finer and more precise color grading. It may help to create a more regular market and also make it easier to match the colors of these rare stones over a great dsistance. Communication of a sufficiently exact color has always been a problem. The way we handle the very best stones will dictate how we handle all the rest.

 

[Greentree]

Such a system would necessarily HAVE to be machine evaluated. The human eye couldn''t possibly make out such slight differences. It would, however, take the subjectiveness out of evaluating color and make it more objective.

You haven''t really told us why such a new system would be desireable --if that''s what you are thinking.

 

[oldminer]

Of course, this is machine grading, albeit under the scrutiny of a Graduate Gemologist in a lab facility. It will remove nearly all the subjectivity from color grading. We only accept color grading as subjective because we had no way to do it better. Human judgment is very good, but not a perfect discriminator. Machine grading is far more precise, yet there will be instances where a specific diamond may fail to grade properly. There are diamonds with colorful inclusions or stains of color in zones, that may not machine grade correctly. They are rare, but no matter how one plans, it would cost a fortune to make any scheme 100% perfect versus 97% perfect before it is initially introduced. Once the vast majority of diamonds can be graded with no subjectivity, there will be more money, more time, and more technology applied to make any system, even a new one even more accurate.

It is entertaining to argue over a disputed color grade and the corresponding value, but it is my belief that time could be better spent doing business instead of haggling.

 

[diagem]

How can it be so close to the gia grades, as far as i know there are humans eyes who grade the color of a diamond, and theur evaluations are still an opinion.

 

[strmrdr]

I still think were not comunicating :{

What im saying is ignore the current grading and just have a scale with each numder the exact same increase in color.
Then just as a reference create a chart where the gia sytem falls on the new scale.
That way from colorless to yellow 1 number means the exact same amount of color difference.
imho the current gia system with the wider range in color between some letter grades is flawed.
Splitting up a flawed system is still flawed.

 

[oldminer]

GIA grades do have their basis in fact. It is not just opinion without a basis. Grading is opinion sometimes, but there are real standards that our recent study of the various labs has found to be true.

The answer is found in STATISTICS, not gemology. If you have correct equipment and know the field of statistics, you can know how to create a technology that follows human rules and gives accurate results...... The main inventor of this coming technology is a statistics expert, not a gemologist. Obviously, there is more to this than just statistics, but the question of how a machine can do what people can''t do, is found within the world of statisical analysis.

 

[oldminer]

Strmrdr: I hear you and don't quit know how to respond, but I have much brighter people than myself reading the thread and they will work on what you are asking. Constructive criticism or constructive advice is absolutely welcome and refreshing..... THANK YOU. I will read and re-read what you have asked and see if I can adequately address it.

 

[oldminer]

Interesting.... More steps as one goes toward lower colors. It could foster better matching, indeed.
I don'';t have an anwer at hand as that is the first time I have been offered that suggestion. Strmrdr also has sort of offered a similar approach..... Funny how other folks break apart a question in new ways. This is what makes Pricescope a great place.

 

[laney]

I voted for a more scientific approach - only because I appreciate more accuracy in *anything*

BUT>>>> as a consumer, there are "enough" choices in color. Yes, I do understand there may be a High G or low I and that color sensitive consumers can detect that. But I will say an average consumer presented with D - K today... 8 levels to say 5 times more than that 40 levels... well I think that would be a bit overwhelming for a NON pricescoper.

In addition - although additional grades would help "matching" of stones for multi stone jewelery - I''m sure we''d still end up in the same place saying "will a G1 look ok with a G3 stone next to it?"...

 

[oldminer]

The concept of a finer, more precise system, is to foster more confidence in buying a diamond. It should make buying at a distance easier possibly. There is no question that any G goes okay with any other G, but as the diamond business evolves and margins tighten, we need creative ways of further describing and differntiating products. Consumers will always have some degree of doubt about the honesty of a seller''s pitch or stone description, but we can take a good deal of the fear out of certain components and that is what is taking place.

As consumers, more grades won''t make a real difference. If you want a G color, any G will probably be fine. What you don''t want is an H or I masquerading as a G because the system is supposedly full of loopholes or subjective to a fault. If you can get a valid, repeatable and correct color grade that fits the G standard range, then you will have a good deal of confidence and comfort....That''s what is hoped for. If you have a budget constraint and want a G, but not lower than an G/H borderline diamond, this further refinement of the system would prove potentially beneficial. No more wishfull G''s that are really H''s....In fact, you might well find an H that suited your needs perfectly because it was being fairly represented....

 

[Rhino]

Hi Dave,

Interesting thread becuase this is something we''ve been considering implementing as well and have the technology to do it. As I dwell on this however, I think this would present greater headaches for those of us on the front lines providing this data. It''s not that I''m not for anal retentive gemological analysis ( but the thing is all of us who do purchase diamonds for inventory who would provide this type of analysis/information would find themselves sitting on inventory whose G''s or F''s (or whatever color) were on the lower side of the color range only to have these same clients go out and purchase a standard "G" (which may indeed be a low G) from another vendor who will not provide that information.

In the trade when we purchase for stock I don''t get a greater discount for a low G or pay more for a high G. The general public while wanting the high and mid G''s will generally shy away from the lower G''s (even though the difference is not noticeable to the naked eye to most people). If we do implement this feature and find that it''s causing us nothing but headaches or is driving clients to those not providing this data we''d nix it.

The real question that lies at the heart of this discussion is do we feel the ranges of colors are too broad already?

Perhaps if people were more educated regarding the "ranges of color" that each letter represents on the color scale this would help if such a system was implemented?

 

[oldminer]

Rhino: You get the prize of the day.... A great and thoughtful reply. What will any vendor do with the lowly low F color? Who will opt for that unless it is priced better than a miod F or high F? It is the SI2 SI3 I1 syndrome situation, but converted to color. What consumer would want an I1 if they could get an SI3, eventhough the real clarity is the same? What dealer would try to get an EGL SI3 grade on a stone that would command a true GIA SI2? Yes, a great question and no easy answer other than my suggestion that price would become crucial.

Of course, one would hope that a low F would consistently cost you less than a mid or high F. The reality at this time would dictate otherwise. It is a little messy. Good food for thought. THANKS.

 

[nicknomo]

I agree, the standard method of grading is archaic. This is more obvious when you go to an appraiser who grades color as say a G, and another grades it as an H. I had this happen to me.. Although I was happy about this, since it was officially graded an H on the certificate, I realized how innacurate the grading was. Even though the color difference may be percievably small, the difference in price isn''t for what would essentially be the same diamond.

Also, diamonds one grade apart could be closer to two grades apart.. say a "weak/high H" and a "superior/low G". This is far too inprecise for the premium we pay for color.

A standardized machine grading system would be great. The only thing I don''t know is how they would standardize it for different size diamonds. If two diamonds have the same ratio of impurities, the thicker diamond will look more yellow. How would that be handled?

 

[I wanna rock!]

I answered yes, but after reading the responses realized that I misread the question. What I want is a process that results in the same color each time the same diamond is evaluated. It''s crazy that GIA, AGS, EGL, and an independent appraiser can assign the same diamond 2 different colors. I''m sure there is some machine that, when programmed with the correct information, can assign the same diamond the same color everytime.

 

[Greentree]

Wow! Look at the poll results. People really do want an even finer gradation than what already exists. Gotta be that the consumer is more interested in measurement and specification. You know, "My car has more cubic inches than your car". Never mind how it looks or how it drives.

That''s kind of unfortunate. A diamond should be bought because you really like how it looks and how it handles light. Its specifications should be of mostly academic interest.

 

[nicknomo]

I think you are missing the big picture. People usually buy a stone based on it''s beauty... Of course it still matters whether it''s an F or a G or an H. Why? Price. Really, that is the most important thing second to finding a diamond they like. Are they paying too much for it? That''s the thing with EGL foreign diamonds... Yes there are some that look nice, for an incredible price. However, a lot of people find out after the fact that they didn''t get what they paid for. Who cares if they don''t notice a difference, it still means they got ripped off.

Bottom line, being more precise never hurts. No one gets hurt from there being an exact form of measurement, and it eliminates human error. It also takes a good deal of uncertainty out of the mind of the buyer, which is always good for business.

 

[Nicrez]

Just bringing in a different viewpoint:

I just want to point out that this group being polled, is entirely NOT indicative of the market that buys stones in general. This is an internet market, which accounts for about 5% of diamond sales, and happens to be the cutting edge of technology, as well as sophistication in diamond discussion.

I would venture to say that people on this forum would vote to have it mechanized and more "segmentation" for stones. Consider that the AVERAGE diamond buyer knows barely the 4 C''s. Shopping around 47th Street, you start to realize those who don''t know about Diamond online forums LITERALLY ask the slimy salesguys there to explain what a "good stone" is. You DO NOT have the sophistication of most people here, AT ALL. So to add something like this to the mix, would literally be total overload.

Believe it or not there ARE people out there who don''t care to know EVERYTHING about diamonds. As such, the technicality of a grading system, although impressive and desirable to us, would impact the actual diamond market in such a drastic (and in my opinion very negative) way, that it would simply not be worth such elaboration.

Sometimes too much information can be just that.

Also consider that diamonds are seen by the eyes, and graders who grade each stone use their EYES. The same medium for reasearch and analysis is used as is needed to see the graded item. You LOOk at diamonds, you don''t walk around with your 126 color scale with you saying "I have a D5!!!!"

Personally, if any resources are used for such a venture, I would honestly prefer that they put all that intellect and effort into CUT evaluation for FANCY stones...

We have a color system, it works just fine. I paid for an E, and it''s fine with me that it could be a "bad" or "low" E, but that''s just the characteristic of the stone, and the personality, not just a purely technical part of a commodity.

It''s a great idea but I don''t see a need for change, simply because we can.

 

[valeria101]

How can a grading system that cannot be controlled with anything but the one proprietary technology that produces it (because of high precision) increase confidence ? It does create exclusivity for the producers of the system... at least for a while. Could be a long while, if done properly.

Splitting even finer hairs exactly where technically needed lest (top of GIA scale) would only position this new system on top of the market.

Would it work ? Why not

It would not be the first time. Every new quality scale tempts with the question "hey, those guys must know better, since their grades are more accurate" Sounds as good as ever.

DO I like the idea? No way.... But again, that's just me. I am still keeping a printout of this article on a poster

and the main idea is by no means in line with a finer diamond color scale.



Most likely this sounds bad. It shouldn't though. I can understand why any new system must be in some blatant way "more" than the old to stand any chance: more precission, steeper "quality" scale, more lip service to "rarity" for an already large audience who has already internalized the concept.

 

[nicknomo]

I don''t think that it would necessarily be too much information. I think it would be the same as it is now... The letter system would just have to be replaced by a number system, and it would just be quantitative like it was before. 0-20 white, 20-40 slightly off white, 40-60 slightly yellow, etc etc.