New GIA/AGS Grading Reports

[MissGotRocks]

Seeing some of these new reports and realizing of course that the crown/pavilion numbers are rounded as has been the case with GIA. Seems like a big loss to consumers not to get the actual numbers as we know they can make a difference! I realize some of the vendors provide images which are very helpful but can they provide more accurate numbers too? Obviously all of them can’t have 34.5/40.8 numbers. Guess if you are in the ideal cut zenith many of them will have these numbers when rounded, but I personally find this very disappointing! Backed up of course with AGS grades but still. . . thoughts?

 

[DejaWiz]

I'm with you: GIA partially dropped the ball and gave up a huge pile of golden opportunity when they acquired AGSL. They absolutely could (and should) have immediately redefined their grading standards to align with the much stricter and superior AGSL 0-10 scale system.

 

[Kim N]

I agree, MissGotRocks. I'd like to see vendors like WF provide Sarine reports on all stones with the new GIA/AGS reports. I noticed that the 1.71 discussed in another thread does not have a Sarine report like many of their older stones do.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I'm with you: GIA partially dropped the ball and gave up a huge pile of golden opportunity when they acquired AGSL. They absolutely could (and should) have immediately redefined their grading standards to align with the much stricter and superior AGSL 0-10 scale system.

I was hopeful that the best of both labs would be combined in this merger. Frustrating to see that it didn’t quite turn out that way.

 

[MissGotRocks]

I agree, MissGotRocks. I'd like to see vendors like WF provide Sarine reports on all stones with the new GIA/AGS reports. I noticed that the 1.71 discussed in another thread does not have a Sarine report like many of their older stones do.

Yes, at least offer it - even at the buyer’s expense - if they wanted it.

 

[sledge]

I also see this is huge miss, frustration and downgrade for the consumer.

I just made a comment on a different thread about asking for a detailed SARINE report. WF has the basic version available on many of their stones and the detailed version has been available by request for the picky buyers like me and you. I presume/hope WF will keep making these available. Maybe @Texas Leaguer can confirm for us.

I know IDJ also has the abilities to offer this. Hopefully the other super ideal vendors will do the same. It seems logical given they push cut quality & precision.

Edited my original response for brevity and specific reference to this thread.

Also I wanted to talk about the SARINE report a little more -- be sure to ask for the detailed version. Some of their stones already have the basic report available for download, but the detailed report will provide more info. One example below.

Diamond | 2.141 ct I VS2 A CUT ABOVE® Hearts and Arrows Super Ideal Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4558469

This Whiteflash A CUT ABOVE® super ideal cut hearts and arrows 2.141 carat I color VS2 clarity loose diamond is graded by the American Gem Society (AGS) Laboratories. | 4558469

www.whiteflash.com

This is the BASIC version of the SARINE report that is downloadable with some of their stones. To get the detailed version, you have to request WF provide it for you.

 

[sledge]

I'm with you: GIA partially dropped the ball and gave up a huge pile of golden opportunity when they acquired AGSL. They absolutely could (and should) have immediately redefined their grading standards to align with the much stricter and superior AGSL 0-10 scale system.

I agree it would have been nice, but it was never going to happen. Think about all the egg they'd have on their face by abandoning all the previous reports issued from years past and the ones currently in play at dealers around the globe.

There would likely be major financial upset and lots of pissed of jewelers.

This is a major fallacy in letting labs define their own standards instead of having a centralized grading system that ALL labs adhere to. Other industries use standardized methods (ASTM, etc). Think about the chaos that would ensue if you went to the hospital and wanted a blood test but each lab tested differently to their own defined system of what they think is best.

In these other industries, standards are established and labs are just that -- labs that perform testing functions and get paid to do so. But they don't get a vote on defining their own special method. Again, it comes down to money -- GIA has the majority market share, so don't think they will be in favor of devaluing their services.

 

[Kim N]

I also see this is huge miss, frustration and downgrade for the consumer.

I just made a comment on a different thread about asking for a detailed SARINE report. WF has the basic version available on many of their stones and the detailed version has been available by request for the picky buyers like me and you. I presume/hope WF will keep making these available. Maybe @Texas Leaguer can confirm for us.

I know IDJ also has the abilities to offer this. Hopefully the other super ideal vendors will do the same. It seems logical given they push cut quality & precision.

Edited my original response for brevity and specific reference to this thread.

I never knew the detailed version was available by request! Now I wish I had one for my older ACAs.

 

[kenny]

I agree.
I'd rather have as much accurate, non-rounded, cut numbers as possible.

But once again, follow the money.
This is not an art or charity thing; it's business.

GIA may be non-profit, but the businesses giving them business are most certainly not.
Less cut info means higher profits for them.
Nothing wrong with that, I like when my business makes a good profit.

The vast majority of diamond buyers are not cut-educated and more vague cut info allows worse-cut diamonds seem better.
Think of all of the steep-deep GIA Excellents we steer noobs away from.

 

[alene]

This is not directly related to the cut, but does anyone know whether GIA rounds up or down the carat weight? I've been collecting small stones for a band, all AGS up to now, which provided the weight to 3 decimal places. I know I should be looking at the dimensions. but I'm finding the missing weight information on the GIA reports really frustrating when trying to match the stones exactly.

 

[musicloveranthony]

GCAL definitely seems to be ahead in my eyes

 

[MissGotRocks]

This is not directly related to the cut, but does anyone know whether GIA rounds up or down the carat weight? I've been collecting small stones for a band, all AGS up to now, which provided the weight to 3 decimal places. I know I should be looking at the dimensions. but I'm finding the missing weight information on the GIA reports really frustrating when trying to match the stones exactly.

I just looked at a new diamond on the WF page. It was listed by three numbers but if you open the info page, it is listed by four numbers. Not sure all vendors give that added number because the GIA and AGS grading reports don’t show four.

 

[alene]

I just looked at a new diamond on the WF page. It was listed by three numbers but if you open the info page, it is listed by four numbers. Not sure all vendors give that added number because the GIA and AGS grading reports don’t show four.

Thanks, MissGotRocks! I just tried searching the GIA stones only on their site and every single one of them has a 0 as the third decimal, doesn't look like they actually have that information on the GIA stones.

 

[0-0-0]

This is not directly related to the cut, but does anyone know whether GIA rounds up or down the carat weight? I've been collecting small stones for a band, all AGS up to now, which provided the weight to 3 decimal places. I know I should be looking at the dimensions. but I'm finding the missing weight information on the GIA reports really frustrating when trying to match the stones exactly.

From what I have seem from diamonds with dual reports, the third decimal is simply dropped off on the GIA report.