New IDC Chair: Harmonization of grading standards

[Richard Sherwood]

So your basing your opinion of "no consistency whatsoever" on the performance of the last couple of months? And you're talking about GIA reports only. What happened to your earlier inclusion of the AGS in your opinion?

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/15/2007 12:23:26 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
So your basing your opinion of ''no consistency whatsoever'' on the performance of the last couple of months? And you''re talking about GIA reports only. What happened to your earlier inclusion of the AGS in your opinion?

Yes Richard..., the last couple of months GIA''s consistency is all over the place.

Some grades are down graded..., but even more surprisingly..., I have witnessed and huge number on Up-grades too.
Both in Color and Clarity!!!
For a while it was getting hard getting GIA to issue a grade "D" for color..., now I am sending Diamonds (hoping to get a E but will live with F''s) graded D''s!!!
On the other hand I am getting H''s on Diamonds I take as easy F''s (and there is no use asking for a re-check!!!)

Lets not mention their description on cutting type/style!!!

You are 100% right..., as I dont have much experience with AGS, my apologies for placing AGS and GIA in the same boat..., it was not my direct intention!!

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Let me ask you something. Are you a gemologist, or have you completed the GIA diamond grading course?

I''m not intending any disrespect, but one thing I run into all the time are dealers who have not been formally trained in GIA methodology not understanding the basis for a particular grade.

There is quite a bit involved in correct grading, which is difficult to replicate without formal training. I find non-gemologists all the time criticizing a grade they don''t understand, while I can usually see what influenced the GIA''s grading decision.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/15/2007 1:16:40 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
Okay, thanks for the clarification.

Let me ask you something. Are you a gemologist, or have you completed the GIA diamond grading course?
No, never even started the course.

I''m not intending any disrespect, but one thing I run into all the time are dealers who have not been formally trained in GIA methodology not understanding the basis for a particular grade.
True..., but I dont consider myself in that category..., sorry...

There is quite a bit involved in correct grading, which is difficult to replicate without formal training. I find non-gemologists all the time criticizing a grade they don''t understand, while I can usually see what influenced the GIA''s grading decision.

True there is quite a bit involved in correct grading..., sometimes even more than what GIA is teaching

I have been involved in numerous meetings set up purposely for trying to close the gaps between professionals in the manufacturing, dealer sector and the Gemological sector...

As both sides try to learn from each other and at the same time come up with agreed points on these subjects...

I said before..., GIA or other Labs must use a system for grading to (try) to keep consistency. And these systems sometimes make certain grades "fall in between the cracks"..., in the last few months..., the range of Diamonds that fell between those cracks became wider!!!

I guess the distance between theoretical education and practical experience has still a ways to go

.

 

[JohnQuixote]

With respect guys, I think GIA is an important tree in the forest, but nowhere near as troubled as other paper providers (some larger) that need the attention this thread is about.

When you're in first place and claiming to set a standard you're everyone's target so it's natural we talk about GIA here...relax DG, I'm not saying GIA is perfect

...but this is not about us and our war stories. Factually, when it comes to what's good for consumers GIA's act is a lot more together than the second, third and fourth-tier labs that churn out soft, bloaty, inconsistent and misleading paper. That's the real issue and what I hope the IDC is on about.

Stepping out of our insulated gemmy world and walking the malls, stateside anyway, you find many consumers never even hear of GIA (much less AGS!) in their shopping process unless Sammy Shylock with the rolex and the toothy smile is assuring them that whatever-lab-he's-selling is "comparable." This is because there is such proliferation of the softer labs. I think change on that level (if even possible - I know Garry is laughing his Oz off) would be more important in the big picture than patrolling what GIA calls D vs E.

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Okay DiaGem, let me see if I've got this straight.

You have no formal training in the system of grading which GIA originated, yet you feel that your grading is correct while theirs is wrong.

Have you considered the possibility that your grading might be incorrect, and what you consider as an "inconsistency" is merely errant grading on your part?

Let's consider clarity grading for a moment. Let's say that you consider a stone to be a VS2 and the GIA grades it as a SI1, and you feel they are wrong and you are right.

On the one hand there is a minimum of two, and possibly three gemologists formally trained in diamond grading by the institution which developed those grades stating this stone to be a SI1. On the other hand, there is yourself, a single non-gemologist with no formal training in diamond grading, stating the stone to be a VS2.

Who do you think the general population, dealer and consumer, is going to think is more likely correct?

Let's consider color grading. You state you have "E-F" stones getting "D's", and "F" stones getting "H's".

Do you own a set of GIA master color grading stones? If not, what are you basing your color grades on? (not taking into account that you haven't been formally trained in color grading). If you're using a colorimeter, what type is it, and are you aware of it's limitations?

Again, with no formal training and no diamond master stones, against GIA diamond graders formally trained and equipped that grade diamonds all day long, every week, for years, who do you think is statistically more likely to be correct?

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Date: 9/15/2007 2:40:29 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
With respect guys, I think GIA is an important tree in the forest, but nowhere near as troubled as other paper providers (some larger) that need the attention this thread is about.

When you''re in first place and claiming to set a standard you''re everyone''s target so it''s natural we talk about GIA here...relax DG, I''m not saying GIA is perfect

...but this is not about us and our war stories. Factually, when it comes to what''s good for consumers GIA''s act is a lot more together than the second, third and fourth-tier labs that churn out soft, bloaty, inconsistent and misleading paper. That''s the real issue and what I hope the IDC is on about.

Stepping out of our insulated gemmy world and walking the malls, stateside anyway, you find many consumers never even hear of GIA (much less AGS!) in their shopping process unless Sammy Shylock with the rolex and the toothy smile is assuring them that whatever-lab-he''s-selling is ''comparable.'' This is because there is such proliferation of the softer labs. I think change on that level (if even possible - I know Garry is laughing his Oz off) would be more important in the big picture than patrolling what GIA calls D vs E.

My feelings, exactly, John.
Our industry needs to rid itself of misleading paper.
Okay, so I''ve noticed a little difference in a few of the most recent GIA reports that I''ve seen recently.
A few lenient "H" grades that I felt should have been "I."
But don''t we usually disagree once in a while? This is not a new issue.
Consumers can feel comfortable with the information on a GIA or AGS report overall.

Jeff Averbook,G.G.

Graduate Gemologist/ Appraiser

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/15/2007 2:57:35 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
Okay DiaGem, let me see if I''ve got this straight.

You have no formal training in the system of grading which GIA originated, yet you feel that your grading is correct while theirs is wrong.
GIA maybe originated the alphabet color scale..., but it was tuned through the years by the reality of the market.
If i am not mistaken, the clarity chart is not credited to GIA.

Have you considered the possibility that your grading might be incorrect, and what you consider as an ''inconsistency'' is merely errant grading on your part?
If it was my (personal) grading..., i might agree with you. But please give me a bit more credit.
I am talking about comparisons made between Lab reports and gemologists that only grade Diamonds as a profession and most with GIA diplomas (if it matters to you that much).

Let''s consider clarity grading for a moment. Let''s say that you consider a stone to be a VS2 and the GIA grades it as a SI1, and you feel they are wrong and you are right.

On the one hand there is a minimum of two, and possibly three gemologists formally trained in diamond grading by the institution which developed those grades stating this stone to be a SI1. On the other hand, there is yourself, a single non-gemologist with no formal training in diamond grading, stating the stone to be a VS2.

Who do you think the general population, dealer and consumer, is going to think is more likely correct?

Let''s consider color grading. You state you have ''E-F'' stones getting ''D''s'', and ''F'' stones getting ''H''s''.

Do you own a set of GIA master color grading stones? If not, what are you basing your color grades on? (not taking into account that you haven''t been formally trained in color grading). If you''re using a colorimeter, what type is it, and are you aware of it''s limitations?

Again, with no formal training and no diamond master stones, against GIA diamond graders formally trained and equipped that grade diamonds all day long, every week, for years, who do you think is statistically more likely to be correct?

RS..., try not to make it personal...

I am stating a fact that there are major movements in the GIA reports in the last months..., based on my opinion and those around me!

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/15/2007 2:40:29 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
With respect guys, I think GIA is an important tree in the forest, but nowhere near as troubled as other paper providers (some larger) that need the attention this thread is about.

When you''re in first place and claiming to set a standard you''re everyone''s target so it''s natural we talk about GIA here...relax DG, I''m not saying GIA is perfect

...but this is not about us and our war stories. Factually, when it comes to what''s good for consumers GIA''s act is a lot more together than the second, third and fourth-tier labs that churn out soft, bloaty, inconsistent and misleading paper. That''s the real issue and what I hope the IDC is on about.

Stepping out of our insulated gemmy world and walking the malls, stateside anyway, you find many consumers never even hear of GIA (much less AGS!) in their shopping process unless Sammy Shylock with the rolex and the toothy smile is assuring them that whatever-lab-he''s-selling is ''comparable.'' This is because there is such proliferation of the softer labs. I think change on that level (if even possible - I know Garry is laughing his Oz off) would be more important in the big picture than patrolling what GIA calls D vs E.

In a perfect world it would work..., but unfortunately when crowning the GIA as THE lab to trust...., and bringing other smaller labs to grade based on GIA''s standards is in my opinion not the right path...

 

[Richard Sherwood]

My apologies DiaGem, no disrespect intended. Just trying to get a feel for how you base your decisions.

My intent was to temper your original statement that there was "no consistency whatsoever" with GIA and AGS grading. It seemed a radical statement, which you have qualified somewhat. Thanks for that, and I will keep an eye open for instances that would support your observation of the last few months.

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/15/2007 4:02:15 PM
Author: Richard Sherwood
My apologies DiaGem, no disrespect intended. Just trying to get a feel for how you base your decisions.

My intent was to temper your original statement that there was ''no consistency whatsoever'' with GIA and AGS grading. It seemed a radical statement, which you have qualified somewhat. Thanks for that, and I will keep an eye open for instances that would support your observation of the last few months.
OK..., here is one: one of our Companies accounts is a constant supply of matching straight edged step-cut Diamonds..., (for eternity rings and bracelets)..., we have been submiting these Diamonds to GIA for at least three years..., our requirments are D-F colors, VS2 and better clarity..., we had a 2-3 % mistakes compared to the GIA reports and maybe re-submited 1% for re-checks...

In the past few months..., mistakes shot up to a double digit %''s and we found ourselves re-checking a high double digit %.
All the Diamonds have been regularly graded by the same professional gemologists. This clearly shows us something changed..., but we cant point out a system yet!

No apologies necessary..., one of the things the Internet has done is; making relationships possible between people who never met or know each other in the past...
Could be wonderful and bad

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2007 3:59:55 PM
Author: DiaGem
In a perfect world it would work..., but unfortunately when crowning the GIA as THE lab to trust...., and bringing other smaller labs to grade based on GIA''s standards is in my opinion not the right path...

sounds like your saying it is time to trash can the current grading system.
What would you replace it with?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2007 3:41:30 PM
Author: Modified Brilliant
My feelings, exactly, John.
Our industry needs to rid itself of misleading paper.
Okay, so I've noticed a little difference in a few of the most recent GIA reports that I've seen recently.
A few lenient 'H' grades that I felt should have been 'I.'
But don't we usually disagree once in a while? This is not a new issue.
Consumers can feel comfortable with the information on a GIA or AGS report overall.

Jeff Averbook,G.G.

Graduate Gemologist/ Appraiser

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

Just a while back AGS was caught right here on PS with a gift to the vendor color grade.
What is your answer to the problem because both AGS and GIA are involved?

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Date: 9/15/2007 7:02:50 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/15/2007 3:41:30 PM
Author: Modified Brilliant
My feelings, exactly, John.
Our industry needs to rid itself of misleading paper.
Okay, so I''ve noticed a little difference in a few of the most recent GIA reports that I''ve seen recently.
A few lenient ''H'' grades that I felt should have been ''I.''
But don''t we usually disagree once in a while? This is not a new issue.
Consumers can feel comfortable with the information on a GIA or AGS report overall.

Jeff Averbook,G.G.

Graduate Gemologist/ Appraiser

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

Just a while back AGS was caught right here on PS with a gift to the vendor color grade.
What is your answer to the problem because both AGS and GIA are involved?

Storm,

I have no answers but I do have confidence in the leadership of the AGS lab and with more time to evaluate... GIA.
Frank Dallahan is the new President and CEO of AGS labs. You can read about him here http://www.agslab.com/news/content/press_06_07_03.html
He is a very smart and trustworthy
gentleman whom I''ve met and spoken to since his arrival at AGS. Peter Yantzer of the AGS lab is also well respected
and a true gentleman. I''ll always remember how Peter spent 1 hour with me during a busy show in NY explaining the new cut grade system a few years back. I can''t say how individuals below these executives will perform, but I feel
very confident with these two guys at the helm. They are no nonsense professionals.

I still need a little more time to evaluate the management at GIA labs.
I haven''t spoken to anyone there personally recently.

You just can''t expect perfection from everyone everyday. One day you will be shocked. Just look at my beloved New England Patriots football team..3 time Super Bowl Winners.
A winning consistent team that just got caught cheating. They certainly didn''t need to cheat...they are talented on their own merits.
Why do companies and sports teams do stupid things when they''re already at the top of their game???

Now, that''s a question to ponder... Greed... Stupidity...Bad Management..or ALLTHREE???

Jeff Averbook, G.G.

Graduate Gemologist/ Appraiser

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[diagem]

Date: 9/15/2007 6:58:45 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/15/2007 3:59:55 PM
Author: DiaGem
In a perfect world it would work..., but unfortunately when crowning the GIA as THE lab to trust...., and bringing other smaller labs to grade based on GIA''s standards is in my opinion not the right path...

sounds like your saying it is time to trash can the current grading system.
What would you replace it with?

No storm..., thats not what I am "saying"...
And I dont think it needs to be replaced..., in my humble opinion it should not be steered into an exclusive "GIA standard" giving GIA a type of monopoly on grading...

We have finally gotten rid of one (very old) monopoly in the rough Diamond distributing sectors..., I really dont think we should create another monopoly in the Laboratory/Gemological sector..., thats all I am saying...

There are some Labs that do a good job grading Diamonds which stand on their own standards..., dont you agree we should strengthen them?