New IDC Chair: Harmonization of grading standards

[JohnQuixote]

http://www.diamonds.net/news/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=18959



Excerpts


..."We share CIBJO's vision, which is a single international standard for polished diamond grading. We appreciate that this cannot be achieved overnight, but that is what we are working toward," he added...

...Fischler said that cooperation among the industry organizations could serve other goals as well. "One of the other things we would like to achieve is a minimum ISO certification standard for procedures at [gemological] laboratories. All of the labs that subscribe to IDC rules already are ISO certified, as are a number of the CIBJO affiliated labs, and we'd like to see more labs that operate internationally going in the same direction. The fact that labs operate according to strict and accepted international standards enhance the consumer’s confidence in their ability of gem labs to render reliable and consistent grading services," he said...

...Asscher conceded that IDC's earlier acceptance of the SI-3 clarity diamond grade would most probably need to be reversed. "I personally believe that the IDC's acceptance of the SI-3 clarity grade was ‘still born.’ But IDC must discuss this issue with its members, and of course with other international bodies, such as CIBJO. I am sure IDC will resolve this issue satisfactorily," he stated...>>


A good sentiment and nice to see it addressed as a primary goal. I have to wonder if the popular soft labs who are firmly entrenched in commercial markets could be influenced though.

 

[oldminer]

The news reads well, but the reception it will get in the industry won't be overwhelmingly positive. In private, labs seek to differentiate themselves and to compete. Dealers use accurate and weaker labs in order to do business successfully at differing levels of the various markets whch exist. While consumers would be be pleased with the concept of a single standard applied in a single, consistent manner, the tools for implementation are just getting into the market. and far from agreed upon. The people who spend their own money on lab reports seem to appreciate the status quo. Seeing as it is their money and their diamonds, it is difficult to move them on this position without a profit incentive. I think such an incentive can be created, but it won't happen in an instant. It will take some time to not only level the playing field but to also gather a good crowd in the stadium.


You can't grade all diamonds for color or clarity virtually the same, at a 90% level, without technology beyond the human eye with the degree of certainty that you'd hope to attain with ISO standards. Human graders are in the 65% to 70% range and can't improve on that level of repeatability. A lab like GCAL can guarantee the grade, but can't prove it is an accurate grade....at least, not yet. We know technology is close to providing this highly repeatable and consistent grading which lab employees cannot actually provide no matter how well trained or how many graders examine a diamond.

The news of primary acceptance of this technology is just waiting around the bend in the road. With a little time and patience we'll all get to see it unfold.

 

[strmrdr]

its a good start and long over due!!
I wish them the best of luck getting it implemented.
I for one will be willing to recommend labs that implement it over those that don''t.
I think it would be great if some of the smaller labs run with it too force the bigger labs hands.
If it goes beyond talk then I gota say. Bravo!

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/14/2007 11:33:06 AM
Author:JohnQuixote
http://www.diamonds.net/news/NewsItem.aspx?ArticleID=18959





Excerpts

<< ...One of his primary goals as IDC chairman, Fischler stated, is achieving general harmonization of diamond grading standards. Toward that end, he intends working in close cooperation with CIBJO, the World Jewellery Confederation...

...'We share CIBJO's vision, which is a single international standard for polished diamond grading. We appreciate that this cannot be achieved overnight, but that is what we are working toward,' he added...

...Fischler said that cooperation among the industry organizations could serve other goals as well. 'One of the other things we would like to achieve is a minimum ISO certification standard for procedures at [gemological] laboratories. All of the labs that subscribe to IDC rules already are ISO certified, as are a number of the CIBJO affiliated labs, and we'd like to see more labs that operate internationally going in the same direction. The fact that labs operate according to strict and accepted international standards enhance the consumer’s confidence in their ability of gem labs to render reliable and consistent grading services,' he said...

...Asscher conceded that IDC's earlier acceptance of the SI-3 clarity diamond grade would most probably need to be reversed. 'I personally believe that the IDC's acceptance of the SI-3 clarity grade was ‘still born.’ But IDC must discuss this issue with its members, and of course with other international bodies, such as CIBJO. I am sure IDC will resolve this issue satisfactorily,' he stated...>>


A good sentiment and nice to see it addressed as a primary goal. I have to wonder if the popular soft labs who are firmly entrenched in commercial markets could be influenced though.

John, Dave..., storm,

Do we know who is and who is not ISO certified?

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 9/14/2007 12:14:21 PM
Author: strmrdr
I think it would be great if some of the smaller labs run with it too force the bigger labs hands.

This may be difficult for at least the smallest labs like mine and Richard's. ISO paperwork is VERY difficult and costs big money in the form of lawyers and filing fees. I'm all for this sort of thing and anything that leads to more standardized grading will be a help but this is a game for the big boys.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Jewelry Appraisals in Denver

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/14/2007 12:23:39 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 9/14/2007 12:14:21 PM
Author: strmrdr
I think it would be great if some of the smaller labs run with it too force the bigger labs hands.

This may be difficult for at least the smallest labs like mine and Richard''s. ISO paperwork is VERY difficult and costs big money in the form of lawyers and filing fees. I''m all for this sort of thing and anything that leads to more standardized grading will be a help but this is a game for the big boys.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Jewelry Appraisals in Denver

true but a coalition might be able too do it or some of the midsized labs.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/14/2007 12:47:38 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/14/2007 12:23:39 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 9/14/2007 12:14:21 PM
Author: strmrdr
I think it would be great if some of the smaller labs run with it too force the bigger labs hands.

This may be difficult for at least the smallest labs like mine and Richard''s. ISO paperwork is VERY difficult and costs big money in the form of lawyers and filing fees. I''m all for this sort of thing and anything that leads to more standardized grading will be a help but this is a game for the big boys.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Jewelry Appraisals in Denver

true but a coalition might be able too do it or some of the midsized labs.

A coalition??? Between the big boys and the mid(little)size???

Storm..., i never thought you were such an optimist

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/14/2007 12:56:24 PM
Author: DiaGem
A coalition??? Between the big boys and the mid(little)size???

Storm..., i never thought you were such an optimist

little and mid banding together too kick some big lab fanny is what I was thinking.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/14/2007 12:59:42 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/14/2007 12:56:24 PM
Author: DiaGem
A coalition??? Between the big boys and the mid(little)size???

Storm..., i never thought you were such an optimist

little and mid banding together too kick some big lab fanny is what I was thinking.

I am totally with you on that one!!!

I just wish it was possible!!!
Unfortunatly the "big" boys love to play by themselves...

 

[oldminer]

When it comes to gem and diamond grading, the small labs follow the large lab which currently has developed and set the "standard", the GIA. Occasionally you get a lab setting a new standard, such as the EGL which adopted SI3 more or less on its own. Smaller labs attempt to copy the semi-"standardization" of GIA but it is a case of the fox guarding the hen house. You can''t be expected to truly understand a system which is not fully discoverable or taught. GIA students learn how to grade rather small diamonds in class, but have little actual real world experience with larger diamonds. The GIA Gem Trade Lab uses the GIA system with its own interpretation and rules which they do not teach or advertise. Its their business to make their lab unique, not to flatten the playing field.

One thing necessary is to create an outside agency as the keeper and disseminator of the standards so that all involved parties can use the system equally as well. Right now, GIA is the keeper of the "diamond "yardstick" and everyone else is guessing exactly how long a yard actually is. AGS has done a good job creating their own yardstick, too. The rest of us all know it is somewhere near 36 inches long. Close enough will do most of the time, but once in a while we really would like to know exactly and we don''t. A separation of the system from the exclusive keeping of the major user will be what is needed.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/14/2007 12:59:42 PM
Author: strmrdr

little and mid banding together too kick some big lab fanny is what I was thinking.

Now that sounds more like Strm.

Date: 9/14/2007 12:17:09 PM
Author: DiaGem

John, Dave..., storm,

Do we know who is and who is not ISO certified?

I wonder too DG.Further, will it matter across international borders and differing markets?Trying to get some of the hugely popular labs that are now the most ‘successful’ commercially (ironically because they're the ones who need this the most) to play ball might be like the European or Asian pro basketball leagues trying to get the NBA to implement rules changes…NBA: “Really?You go on ahead - we’re doing fine, thanks."

Appraiser labs are quite different than the big boys and I think a healthy (global) moniker to which small labs could rally might be something we could endorse on PS.There are already standards enforced by parent/trade organizations.I believe AGS requires anyone who has a CG lab to be qualified.ASA and some of the other appraisal outfits require it too. Despite this, a huge problem - that goes largely unaddressed

- is the disparity in standards and quality among people who call themselves appraisers. That disparity is as vast as the differences between sellers but nowhere near as obvious without education and research.I can’t help but think Neil, Dave, Rich, Jeff and reputable contemporaries shake their heads at the practices of some of their ‘peers.’

And, while musing, I’m reminded of something a good appraiser in TX said when we discussed standardization.She said... “We already have standards.The problem is that you can’t legislate morality.”

 

[denverappraiser]

Years ago, long before I became involved with AGS, they developed their own scale for clarity and color using the same 0-10 nomenclature that is used with the cut grading scale. It’s easily and directly translatable to GIA grades and the language is far more intuitive for people to understand without the cryptic acronyms involved. Among other advantages of it is that the whole thing was and is proprietary to AGS as opposed to the GIA scale which was put into the public domain. The idea was to restrict it’s use to people who were at least minimally trained to understand what it meant and could hopefully explain it because the GIA equivalents were being so badly abused. It provided some token recourse for the standard holder to enforce the standards. It was (and is) a sound idea but it was a commercial failure. Few people other than AGS insiders even know it exists, few AGS appraisers or retailers use it and even AGS lab includes the GIA equivalents on their lab reports and it’s these grades, not the AGS ones are what gets quoted when people talk about the stones. In the case of most standards in common usage, like inches, meters, carats or seconds, the standard is kept by a 3rd party with no interest in the transaction. These are almost always government agencies that exist purely for this purpose. They go through great pains to publicize exactly their criteria and to preserve the standards so they don’t change. These then become written into law so that if someone buys or sells 1000 gallons of something it is well understood exactly what that is. I don’t think it’s possible for a private organization to be the keeper of the standard and certainly not if they aren’t 100% forthcoming about the details.

For those who like this sort of thing, here’s a discussion in the NY Times from a few years ago about defining the kilogram. This entire issue is over a difference of less than the weight of a fingerprint. It’s still going on.

NY Times article

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Jewelry Appraisals in Denver

 

[oldminer]

And, while musing, I’m reminded of something a good appraiser in TX said when we discussed standardization. She said... “We already have standards. The problem is that you can’t legislate morality.”


A similar thing is the porous borders we have from CA through TX. You have laws on the books and can pass even more laws and still choose how or not to enforce regulations. Build a wall and folks walk to the end of the wall to go around it. Business owners hire illegal entrants because it is more or less and economic necessity. You can legislate all you want, but the will to comply with the law must be inherent in the general public. When the general public really has a different mindset, the laws are doomed. Look at the vast current drug trade, or the historic perspective from the failure of alcohol prohibition in the 1920''s. How many millions of illegal entrants are living peacefully and productively among citizens in the USA? If we can''t fix big issues like these, it is sort of humorous that we worry about color and clarity grading being a bit subjective. You won''t find any viable means to enforce standards without unwanted government licensing and intervention. This means taxes, fees, and licenses, all of which will be opposed by nearly every business organization I can think of.

Instead, we need to investigate, examine and then support the best technology. When it is obviously good people will simply rush to adopt it. It will be self enforcing because it is good, repeatable and low cost. It won''t bring government further into our affairs. We sure don''t need more Patriot Act type legislation when it comes to diamond grading reports, do we? Technology can cheaply provide the third party assurance that comes with an outside entity housing the "golden standard" of the business. I believe this is a better choice than government doing it.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 9/14/2007 4:03:39 PM
Author: oldminer

A similar thing is the porous borders we have from CA through TX. You have laws on the books and can pass even more laws and still choose how or not to enforce regulations. Build a wall and folks walk to the end of the wall to go around it. Business owners hire illegal entrants because it is more or less and economic necessity. You can legislate all you want, but the will to comply with the law must be inherent in the general public. When the general public really has a different mindset, the laws are doomed. Look at the vast current drug trade, or the historic perspective from the failure of alcohol prohibition in the 1920's. How many millions of illegal entrants are living peacefully and productively among citizens in the USA? If we can't fix big issues like these, it is sort of humorous that we worry about color and clarity grading being a bit subjective. You won't find any viable means to enforce standards without unwanted government licensing and intervention. This means taxes, fees, and licenses, all of which will be opposed by nearly every business organization I can think of.


Instead, we need to investigate, examine and then support the best technology. When it is obviously good people will simply rush to adopt it. It will be self enforcing because it is good, repeatable and low cost. It won't bring government further into our affairs. We sure don't need more Patriot Act type legislation when it comes to diamond grading reports, do we? Technology can cheaply provide the third party assurance that comes with an outside entity housing the 'golden standard' of the business. I believe this is a better choice than government doing it.

The problem with technological solutions to standards is that it establishes the equipment manufacturer as the keeper, which puts us right back where we started only with a different gatekeeper. Even a machine that works fantastically still is subject to calibration type issues but, more importantly, what happens when someone else produces a machine that’s arguably better? How are they to be compared and, if machine A is the standard, how do you avoid the inherent conflict of interest represented by the manufacturer who would just as soon that this new competitor stay out of the market?

High tech gadgetry struggles with this problem quite a bit because various components need to work with one another relatively seamlessly and it’s impossible to remain backwardly compatible with everything that’s existed before. ‘Standards’ of how things interface with one another change quickly and without government involvement but the REAL standards, things like the definition of a volt and a millimeter remain constant and this consistency has served everyone extremely well.

There’s not many things that I think are best done by a government agency but this is one of them.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Jewelry Appraisals in Denver

 

[whatmeworry]

Any consistent standard would best serve the public. Of the 4 Cs only carat weight is the only one not subject to interpretation.

On the other hand, did anyone else see the news that the international prototype for the kilogram has lost mass over the years?

And it was made from a platinum/iridium alloy. Wonder if my ring is going to vanish one day?

Anyone heard of a diamond color master set changing colors?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/14/2007 6:02:03 PM
Author: whatmeworry

Anyone heard of a diamond color master set changing colors?

1. When you don''t keep the bruted girdles clean.
2. When they aren''t actually diamonds (as long as we''re talking standardization, a real diamond color master set should be required for appraisers).

 

[DiamondExpert]

Ahhh, the kilo - just isn''t what it used to be!

Sometimes diamond masters need to be returned to a lab for boiling in acid and a re-check/re-calibration.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

what a great joke

standardised standards, cough, splutter

There was an attempt to do this thru the ISO .org in the early 1990''s.

GIA abstained.
But HRD actually developed a numerical and shade based clarity grading methodology which they still use. (on an aside it is this system that makes it possible for OctoNus to pre grade the inclusions in rough using its advanced helium, Oxygen and MBox scanners, microscope and software).

However I read quite recently that GIA would like to be involved in standardising as long as everyone standardised to their system (standardiZed that is). Anyone remeber where I read that?

It is a great humurous topic. I am sure we will be able to enjoy it for the rest of our lives because it will never be put to rest.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 9/14/2007 7:25:57 PM
Author: DiamondExpert

Ahhh, the kilo - just isn't what it used to be!

What? You mean a kilo isn't forty lids anymore?

 

[diagem]

Standardize grading...?

Even GIA cant keep consistency in their grading..., these days (July, August 2007) they are all over the place with their "accuracy"

I keep hearing complaints from a rather large number of manufacturers.

 

[oldminer]

Grading is presently not standardized. It is a subjective blend of human perception, master stone inconsistency and lighting environment. Obviously, we can do better. How much better is on the table and being worked on. Technology is initially introduced and then is improved upon. Remember a "cell" phone with the battery box on your hip? Human perception is at its limit, but technology can be incrementally improved once it has entered the arena. Even digital scales today don''t float like the original ones. Three decimal points are expected now by many users. It wasn''t so long ago I used a Chain-O-Matic which now sits on a pretty windowsill in my home.

The industry will have people who don''t want change and those who look forward. I respect the past but want to go to the future and see what is around the next bend. We''ll see how it goes in the next few years no matter what.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/15/2007 7:40:33 AM
Author: oldminer
Grading is presently not standardized. It is a subjective blend of human perception, master stone inconsistency and lighting environment. Obviously, we can do better. How much better is on the table and being worked on. Technology is initially introduced and then is improved upon. Remember a ''cell'' phone with the battery box on your hip? Human perception is at its limit, but technology can be incrementally improved once it has entered the arena. Even digital scales today don''t float like the original ones. Three decimal points are expected now by many users. It wasn''t so long ago I used a Chain-O-Matic which now sits on a pretty windowsill in my home.

The industry will have people who don''t want change and those who look forward. I respect the past but want to go to the future and see what is around the next bend. We''ll see how it goes in the next few years no matter what.

True..., BUT!!

The only ''solid'' representation of a Lab to have started grading Color via "Tech" only just mentioned that it can''T grade fluorescence Diamonds and (I understood) have a problem with "brownish" shades.

And as far a clarity goes..., I have not heard anyone claiming to start clarity grading diamonds without human intervention!

I guess we are still far-far away from standardizing Diamond grading....

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Standardization of any grading system won''t mean a thing if MISREPRESENTATION continues to exist...
mainly "paper mill labs" churning out inflated grades and valuatons that really hurt and mislead the consumer.
You can''t force or enforce anyone to grade a diamond accurately.
I''m still waiting for JVC or a watchdog group to put these "paper mills" out of business.

Jeff Averbook, G.G.

Graduate Gemologist/Appraiser
www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/15/2007 8:49:49 AM
Author: Modified Brilliant
Standardization of any grading system won't mean a thing if MISREPRESENTATION continues to exist...
mainly 'paper mill labs' churning out inflated grades and valuatons that really hurt and mislead the consumer.
You can't force or enforce anyone to grade a diamond accurately.
I'm still waiting for JVC or a watchdog group to put these 'paper mills' out of business.

Jeff Averbook, G.G.

Graduate Gemologist/Appraiser
www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

But can you (or any other Lab) claim to be able to guarantee an 'accurate' Diamonds clarity or color grade????

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Date: 9/15/2007 8:55:37 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 9/15/2007 8:49:49 AM
Author: Modified Brilliant
Standardization of any grading system won''t mean a thing if MISREPRESENTATION continues to exist...
mainly ''paper mill labs'' churning out inflated grades and valuatons that really hurt and mislead the consumer.
You can''t force or enforce anyone to grade a diamond accurately.
I''m still waiting for JVC or a watchdog group to put these ''paper mills'' out of business.

Jeff Averbook, G.G.

Graduate Gemologist/Appraiser
www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

But can you (or any other Lab) claim to be able to guarantee an ''accurate'' Diamonds clarity or color grade????

DiaGem,

To clarify...I am not a lab. In answer to your question...no, I don''t believe that any lab can guarantee accuracy.
However, realistically, a lab might be able to guarantee actual diamond weight and grading within the "normal"
standards of GIA or AGS parameters. There will always be some subjectivity involved. We all know that the major labs
have terms and limitations that will never guarantee anything.

Jeff Averbook, G.G.

Graduate Gemologist/Appraiser
www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[oldminer]

Labs cannot guarantee their accuracy today. However, labs exist which guarantee their grade and the repeatable nature of that grade. A lab can make certain guarantees, but not a total promise on all fronts.

Once a true objective grading standard is developed then a lab could choose to guarantee it kept its output to those standards. There are always cross over points in any set of categorizations, but we will have pure statistical information to make certainty assertions. You will know, within the stated margin of error, what a grade truly is. This is how the rest of the world works. It is not something special just made for us as the current old system is today.

When a real system is in place with true standardization, then, and only then, we will see the ability of people to make the dishonest labs either change or be targets of litigation, civil and criminal. Without standardization, we will continue to have the weak labs being highly successful in their niche at the expense of the ethical practitioner and at a huge cost to the naive consumer.

Computerized clarity grading may prove more difficult to swallow for traditionalists than digital color grading, but it is also nearly a commercial reality. Just because you don''t see it being done on the Internet or in labs, does not mean no one is hard at work on it. It is nearly ready, not a pipe dream.

Scientific standardization is the natural progression from where we currently are to where we are going to go over time. When you get an opportunity to be on the cutting edge it is good to become informed rather than becoming an ostrich. Burying your head won''t protect the rest of your anatomy.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/15/2007 9:38:39 AM
Author: Modified Brilliant

Date: 9/15/2007 8:55:37 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 9/15/2007 8:49:49 AM
Author: Modified Brilliant
Standardization of any grading system won't mean a thing if MISREPRESENTATION continues to exist...
mainly 'paper mill labs' churning out inflated grades and valuatons that really hurt and mislead the consumer.
You can't force or enforce anyone to grade a diamond accurately.
I'm still waiting for JVC or a watchdog group to put these 'paper mills' out of business.

Jeff Averbook, G.G.

Graduate Gemologist/Appraiser
www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

But can you (or any other Lab) claim to be able to guarantee an 'accurate' Diamonds clarity or color grade????

DiaGem,

To clarify...I am not a lab. In answer to your question...no, I don't believe that any lab can guarantee accuracy.
However, realistically, a lab might be able to guarantee actual diamond weight and grading within the 'normal'
standards of GIA or AGS parameters. There will always be some subjectivity involved. We all know that the major labs
have terms and limitations that will never guarantee anything.

Jeff Averbook, G.G.

Graduate Gemologist/Appraiser
www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

Sorry MB..., I didnt mean to say you were..., but as an appraiser you need to fit within the range of the "so called norm"!

GIA or AGS parameters??? Normal? They cant even keep it together..., They have no consistency whatsoever. (except weight

)

 

[denverappraiser]

Several labs do guarantee their grading but it’s important to notice what is being guaranteed. They are guaranteeing to match (or sometimes just to come close) to what GIA will say in a subsequent grading and will pay a certain amount of damages if it’s GIA says it’s worse. This defines a particular grade as being whatever GIA says it is and if GIA is ‘wrong’ on their grading, too bad for the first lab. Obviously the fine print on such guarantees is important and they are taking a calculated risk involving both their own consistency and GIA’s. There are some smart and talented people with such offers and I’m sure they’ve done the math to figure out their exposure but it’s worth understanding that ‘guarantee’ doesn’t mean it can never happen. I could guarantee the outcome of a coin flip and make a profit at it depending on the fee charged to flip the coin, the terms and conditions under which you could make a claim, and the amount of damages paid when the wrong results come up. The same sort of oddsmaking happens with auto manufacturers who guarantee no repairs will be needed for 100,000 miles on a new car. They are agreeing to pay for it if a repair is required, which is decidedly not the same as saying that it never occurs.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Date: 9/15/2007 10:15:57 AM
Author: DiaGem

GIA or AGS parameters??? Normal? They cant even keep it together..., They have no consistency whatsoever. (except weight

)

In the vast majority of grading situations GIA and AGS are both accurate and consistent. To say they have "no consistency whatsoever" is a gross exaggeration. With the training and systems they have in place they are operating at a very high level of human repeatability.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/15/2007 12:01:30 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood

Date: 9/15/2007 10:15:57 AM
Author: DiaGem

GIA or AGS parameters??? Normal? They cant even keep it together..., They have no consistency whatsoever. (except weight

)

In the vast majority of grading situations GIA and AGS are both accurate and consistent. To say they have ''no consistency whatsoever'' is a gross exaggeration. With the training and systems they have in place they are operating at a very high level of human repeatability.

Richard..., I dont know how many (July-August) GIA graded Diamonds you have seen lately..., but I have seen a lot.
Plus the fact that quite a few (Big) manufacturers are pointing out at their "re-check" statistics going ballistic compared to previous statistics..., shows something is unsettled at the GIA.

During the last few months..., GIA reports on Diamonds are far from "operating at a very high level of human repeatability.".