Latest Trend: 0 Ideals cut for weight, not beauty

[niceice]

----------------
On 10/26/2004 7:13:15 PM JohnQuixote wrote:

Coincidentally, Brian Gavin and I have been discussing problematic issues caused by imprecision and 'cheating' of a facet occuring when the facet face is polished in a direction from off-center. Sarin/Ogi do not pick up on the resultant 'real world' problems. ----------------

A concept that we've discussed in the past with some of our cutters in theory because we felt that it might be the only reasonable explanation for why one diamond would visually outperform another when all other factors were equal in terms of "apparent" proportions, color, clarity and carat weight. The possible explanation for why we occasionally pull a "super ideal" cut diamond out of the parcel paper and it just sort of "sits there" when it should be "Popping!" by the numbers...

Regarding Marty's research on fluorescence, it is fascinating and in our opinion quite accurate. We implimented his Lexan trick on our light box and it does result in more accurate grading of fluorescence, we see all too many GIA graded diamonds that aren't supposed to have any fluorescence that exhibit levels of fluorescence which should qualify for a definite rating in our opinion. If we like the stone enough, we'll represent it along with a statement that says "we know that the GIA says 'none' for fluorescence, but we feel that it would more accurately be described as medium blue" or whatever the rating might be and go from there. But we have to wonder how many people buy a diamond graded as having no fluorescence who later discover that it has fluorescence - it's one thing to buy a diamond knowing that it fluoresces and another to think that it doesn't and discover that it does.

We've always had an issue with GIA's use of the term "none" to describe a range which includes "some". We think that the word "none" is interpreted as most people as, well, NONE and not some, or a little, or just a bit... None is none and negligible as used by the AGS is not enough to measure, but even that can be what we and people like Marty would consider to be "faint"... Semantics, it will get you into trouble every time

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Robin and Todd did you read my post on the previous page and follow the links?

I would very much like to know if those issues are the ones you are raising on the stones you did not like?

If so, then you will benefit from the read, and i would really like to know - I too am seeing changes - and some might actually be because GIA and AGS are talking to manufacturers about their new requirements for next year, but the message is getting confused.

So please, comments? (Call it your homework for tonight)

 

[adamasgem]

----------------
On 10/26/2004 6:21:47 PM perry wrote:

This concept of misreprenting color grading in Fluoresence stones is probably worthy of its own thread on this board. I suspect that some of the Pricescope regulars may be willing to participate in a class action lawsuit on misgraded diamonds (this affects dealers and customers).

I guess that I need to do more research on which labs use what process to grade color; are they using the one in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) or not?

If you wish to continue this discussion I propose that you start a new message thread on misgrading of color by inciting the fluoresence of diamonds.

Perry

----------------

Perry.. I'll know better next month how we intend to proceed. Help from any legal begals out there will probbaly be welcomed. As you know class action suits can cost a lot of monies. We'll probably be looking for those who bought GIA graded stones with fluorescence to enter as memebers of the class.
I have a few of my own that I bought just for just this purpose.

Discovery should be interesting because it opens up the whole laboratory books to find agrieved parties. Wait till you see the squirming out of GIA and GIA/GTL

 

[perry]

Marty:

Do you know how the other labs are grading Fluoresence and color? Are they "OK"

This is an issue that I did not see in the recent Pricescope lab grading review (I admit I only skimmed it). If this issue truely exist, then I think the Pricescope lab grading review shoud be updated with a comment about the practice by GIA.

The other thing that bothers me is that I understand that GIA is the "Preferred" lab for certain cut companies (eighternity, etc).

I have to wonder if the reason for that is that the cut companies know that GIA will 1) give them a better color rating by exciting the fluoresence, and 2) not reporting existance of fluoresence at all (NiceIce comment above).

Both of these inflate the "value" of the stone, such that the Cutting House can now sell the stone for more money than if the stone was "honestly" graded.

It makes me wonder if the GIA cert is actualy worth anything at all to the consumers (the cutting houses through diamond sellers would all seem to have increased profit from this).

Is it just me wondering, or is this a case of coulusion between cutting house, lab, dealers, etc to get more money for lessor quality stones.

Can I trust an AGSL cert and a EGL cert on color and fluoresence (and yes I know that EGL-Europe seems to grade "light" on color)?

Perry

 

[perry]

NiceIce:

I am troubled by your comment that GIA grades stones with obvious fluoresence as having "none." None should be none (and I think there are legal rulings on this).

I am less concerned with your comment about the differece between "Negligable" and "Faint." Both identify that some fluoresence exist; however, it is not expected to have a major affect on the stone.

I understand the grading issues of where you determine how much fluoresence is "negligable" or "faint" and when it becomes "mild" or "Moderate"

See my other post to Marty on this issue.

Sounds to me like GIA is committing rather obvious fraud, and that certain cut houses and dealers are in the know and taking advantage of it in order to get better prices for their stones. In the end it is the consumer who suffers.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hmmmm
Most light has a little UV in it.
It seems GIA's policy is to grade in light that reflects common environemts.
It is a reasonable arguement.
We considered this issue in the lab grading report, but considered it too far away from the central purpose. We conducted a specific survey, for a specific purpose, not a political witch hunt.

And in any case I remember that most of the stones were non (whatever that means).

I think it is a non issue.
I hope R&T will answer my questions though.

 

[oldminer]

Marty and I agree on the true meaning of the word "none", however, it seems that the GIA Lab has used a Bill Clinton-like, loose defintion of "none" as meaning "not a whole lot and maybe a little more on occasion, but definitely not as much as possible." Of course, this sort of "reasonable" liberalism in defining short words such as NO or SEX can be stretched for defining longer words, too....ie: Fluorescence.




Now, please, this is supposed to be a little humorous, not political or cynical. Don't take offense. I am trying to put a little humor in your day.




I think the use of "negligible" for stones which show very little UV fluorescence in visible wavelengths as correct. None means: not at all, nada, nil....nothing else. PS: ALL DIAMOND FLUORESCE TO UV, but some do not show any visible emission....So what we should be grading is "visible UV fluorescence color and strength".

 

[niceice]

----------------
On 10/26/2004 10:06:59 PM Garry H (Cut Nut) wrote:

Robin and Todd did you read my post on the previous page and follow the links?----------------

Sorry for the delay Garry, we've been absolutely slammed and haven't had a chance to get back to this thread. We scanned back through the thread and although we read your post, we didn't make the connection that you had provided links to the examples and just read the text as underlined text... That's what we get for reading this stuff late at night. A quick scan of the links led us to believe that you're on the right track in terms of displaying an excellent example of what we are referring to, the girdle example is a little bit more extreme than what we're seeing, but it's definitely similar, just not as pronounced. We'll print out the other stuff when we get back to the office and give it a read (probably over the weekend) but it looks like the right stuff to us.

By the way, we asked awhile back about the possibility of getting a Helium here in the U.S. and were told at the time that they weren't being distributed here yet because of a lack of support. However we understand that the AGS just got two of them for evaluation (?) are we going to see those puppies here soon? You "know" we're toy freaks

Perry, the observation regarding fluorescence is not an isolated incident... We've had many, many conversations about this with Marty in the past as this is a valid crusade of his that we are following with great interest. Marty has quite the case against the GIA on this issue and has done a lot to help other laboratories identify levels of fluorescence more accurately, we can only hope that one of these days the GIA will heed his advice and update their methods because mis-grading fluorescence results in inaccurate color grades and that results in an inaccurate representation of the diamond and an incorrect market value is assigned to the diamond based upon price guides such as the Rapaport. Of course, dealers who actually take the time to check the diamonds that they sell for fluorescence rather than taking the word of the labs on it have nothing to worry about, nor do their clients because the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed during the evaluation process conducted by the seller... We rely on the labs to provide a common basis of reference for consumers, not to grade diamonds for us.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Robin & Todd - good bed time reading

Sergey will not sell Helium until he has an agent who can provide service.
I trier to broker a deal with Sarin, but they could not understand why they would want to do it. I think they will be sorry.
A very reputable American organization that many of you respect is considering taking it on as the agent. that would make everyone happy.

The accuracy is a new level - and one that will become very important as we move to the requirements of the GIA and AGS type grading systems that will rely on 3D models.

BTW dear friends - I am on vacation for a week and have a slow connection - so no 5MB files please