Revisions to GIA Certifications

[jpinsly]

I understand that effective Jan 1, 2006 the GIA will be modifying the round brilliant certificates to include more info.

I have a cert dated 5/20/05, and I am hoping to get more information on my stone (crown and pavillion angles, etc).

When I contacted the GIA, they told me to go to their website and use the Facetware software to get a preliminary estimate of the grade of my stone. Well, the problem is the old GIA cert doesn''t have all of the info required as inputs into the Facetware program (such as crown and pavillion angles).

So, the question is, do you think the GIA has the crown and pavillion angles on my stone (given the date above), and will be able send me a revised cert in January with more of the stone''s pertinent information?

 

[Regular Guy]

Jeremy,

Did you get the person''s name at GIA who told you this? It''s hard to believe they said what they did. But, let''s give them a break. If you haven''t already, I''d consider calling them back, reviewing what they told you, tell them you went to facetware, and found you didn''t have the info you needed to populate their software, and so what do you do now? See what they tell you. I''d like to know!

And, in answer, to your question...I think they may, yes, have that info. Though you''d think they might have offered it, if they did, in their response to you, it really is hard to understand their response.

 

[jpinsly]

Here is my request:


Hi,
I have the following GIA certified diamond:
GIA report 14427734, dated 5/20/2005.
I am interested in getting the newer certificate which I read on the GIA site will be available in January 2006.
Please advise me what I must do to obtain the new cert.
Thanks,

Here is the GIA response:


Dear XXX,

Thank you for your inquiry. We are pleased that you received a GIA Laboratory Diamond Grading Report when you purchased your diamond. As you read on our Web site, the reissue service will not begin until January 1, 2006, when the new reports are launched. Therefore, we will contact you in January about reissuing your report.

For your information, you can always calculate a preliminary cut grade using the diamond’s proportions on the GIA Facetware™ software on our Web site. This should provide you a good estimation of the diamond’s cut quality.

If you would like to speak to one of our customer service representatives before January, feel free to call the number below and ask for XXXX.


Not too helpful if you ask me.................

 

[denverappraiser]

That is, of course, a form letter that they use to answer this type of question. I''ll guess they get a lot of this. As I understand it, they will issue a free replacement report for any stone examined between 06/01/05 and 12/31/05 for anyone who asks and sends back the old report. For reports issued between 01/01/05 and 05/31/05, there will be a fee for this but they can do it by mail. for reports issued prior to 12/31/04 they will need to see the stone again and issue a completely new report.

They should really have a better form letter that explains these dates and I may be wrong on the various boundaries. I expect them to be buried in requests of this nature in January.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[jpinsly]

The question that remains unanswered is whether or not the new report will contain the crown and pavillion angles for stones that have previously been graded.

 

[Gonzodogg]

Date: 12/7/2005 10:11:35 AM
Author: denverappraiser
That is, of course, a form letter that they use to answer this type of question. I''ll guess they get a lot of this. As I understand it, they will issue a free replacement report for any stone examined between 06/01/05 and 12/31/05 for anyone who asks and sends back the old report. For reports issued between 01/01/05 and 05/31/05, there will be a fee for this but they can do it by mail. for reports issued prior to 12/31/04 they will need to see the stone again and issue a completely new report.

They should really have a better form letter that explains these dates and I may be wrong on the various boundaries. I expect them to be buried in requests of this nature in January.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Yes, on this new report that you will have to pay a fee for, the angles will be taken into account when grading the stone and (I am pretty sure this is what I was told) they will be printed on the cert.

 

[denverappraiser]

Yes, the new report will contain the necessary information. It will also contain the cut grading conclusion that the facetware program is estimating. It should not be necessary for you to use that program at all. What I'm not sure of it the dates and what the fees will be for the different services (which will be done for free and which can be done without re-examining the stone)

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[oldminer]

Marty Haske had noticed that anyone who downloads the Facetware program from GIA also agrees not to criticize it.......Marty could explain the agreement in better detail, but when he saw that mixed into the user agreement he decided that he preferred not to download it. This sounds like an unusual situation where expert opinion is squashed if you don''t like what you downloaded.

How would you know in advance if you liked the outcome or wished to question it?

 

[Serg]

Yes,
GIA license agreement Facetware is ugly. I am criticizing agreement, but not program.
BTW Is this GIA license is correspond to USA laws?

Other question.
If One expert downloaded Facetware and other expert work with Facetware had been downloaded by first expert.
Can second expert criticize Facetware?
Sorry I did not read carefully all agreement, it is too big for me.

GIA should change such GIA policy. Without criticism and open external control any monopoly will degrade fast. New and new level internal control is not right way.

 

[sylvesterii]

Date: 12/7/2005 12:46:47 PM
Author: oldminer
Marty Haske had noticed that anyone who downloads the Facetware program from GIA also agrees not to criticize it.......Marty could explain the agreement in better detail, but when he saw that mixed into the user agreement he decided that he preferred not to download it. This sounds like an unusual situation where expert opinion is squashed if you don''t like what you downloaded.

How would you know in advance if you liked the outcome or wished to question it?

Wow. The "click-wrap" agreements are getting worse and worse. I am no expert in contract law (yet, in law school still) but I would find it highly unlikely that an agreement like that would hold up in court considering the nature of the agreement, and the strong 1st amendment issues. This would be really good law school essay question for a contract exam...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I agree that the GIA ''agreement'' is most disagreeable.

The date given was out by a month or two - the correct cut off''s are:

GIA GTL has proportions for all and cut grade info for most RBC’s since 1/1/2005
Reports updated by request
“nominal fee” 1/1/2005 & 31/7/2005
Some stones must be returned
1 August > no fee, no need to return

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 12/7/2005 12:46:47 PM
Author: oldminer
Marty Haske had noticed that anyone who downloads the Facetware program from GIA also agrees not to criticize it.......Marty could explain the agreement in better detail, but when he saw that mixed into the user agreement he decided that he preferred not to download it. This sounds like an unusual situation where expert opinion is squashed if you don''t like what you downloaded.

How would you know in advance if you liked the outcome or wished to question it?

I just reread the agreement and I don''t see this clause. Perhaps it''s been changed since it was originally posted?

Here''s the entire text of the agreement:
http://www.gia.edu/_WebApps/GemTradeLaboratory/diamond_cut/TermsOfUse.htm


Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It may have been watered dow a little Neil.
It is a huge ask though to read such a heap of leagalease gibberish

 

[Quandoflu]

Date: 12/7/2005 2:51:39 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
It may have been watered dow a little Neil.
It is a huge ask though to read such a heap of leagalease gibberish

It does not seem to be included anymore. It is actually an easy read compared to some of the other data licenses I have seen

Contract Law wise, yes this would hold up. I doubt it would have held up if they had left the clause about "talking bad about it" because it then turns into hearsay.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/7/2005 2:47:02 PM
Author: denverappraiser

I just reread the agreement and I don't see this clause. Perhaps it's been changed since it was originally posted?

Here's the entire text of the agreement:
http://www.gia.edu/_WebApps/GemTradeLaboratory/diamond_cut/TermsOfUse.htm


Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

You're right Neil. This was previously included in Facetware's “Terms Of Use:”



PUBLICITY. Licensee will not issue any press release or make any statement or announcement to the press, the public or any third party (including, without limitation, Licensee’s customers) which (i) reflects unfavorably on the Software or the performance of the Software, (ii) is false or misleading about GIA or the Software or (iii) is damaging to the reputation of GIA or the Software. This paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement.




Gone now, I assume for good? I think that's prudent. I don't know how realistic a "No Nanny-Boo-Boo" clause is.

Good move by GIA.

 

[jpinsly]

So how do I use the GIA software without the info that the GIA is supposed to provide

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Take an ideal-scope photo yourself.
Post it here
We will assess the proportions very accurately for you.

 

[denverappraiser]

John,

This paragraph shall survive the termination of this Agreement.

Apparently not.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA)ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[valeria101]

Date: 12/7/2005 3:29:30 PM
Author: jpinsly
So how do I use the GIA software without the info that the GIA is supposed to provide

You are a few months fast for the new format that will include the detail.


''MDX'' mentioned on another thread that he has received some sample reports already, although the customer copies of the reports will not include the extra details until the new format of consumer reports are launched in Jan ''06.

The new format includes: Total Depth, Table Size, Crown Angle, Crown Height, Pavilion angle, Pavilion Depth, Star Length and Lower Half Length aside the usual. The dates of the certs will the additional data are from 20th Oct 2005

I have not tried this out, but you could pic that same information from a diamond scan (GIA will do the same - measure diamonds after all and they do not have a monopoly on doing so) and put the numbers into Facet Ware.


That is fact (as much as I know), the following is fiction...

I am a bit confused about what terrific improvement does adding the extra detail to the good old table, depth , crown and pavilion angles. Of course diamonds with very different minor facet treatment look somewhat different, but FacetWare is not meant to tell you how exactly a diamond looks like - it gives an abstract score of ''quality''. And sometimes I wonder if the extra detail wasn''t more about their authority and product differentiation after all.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Jeremy, your situation is probably going to be common, so I asked GIA for their input on this.

Here is what I gathered:

1. If your report was issued recently (Aug 1 – Dec 31 2005) GIA will replace it with an updated reported if you send in the original document. This will be offered for a limited time beginning in January, courtesy of GIA.

2. If your report was issued prior to Aug 1, 2005 GIA offers an update option, for a fee: The owner can send the diamond and the report to GIA for reassessment and update. That update will cost 75% of the normal grading free, which varies by weight (for instance, if a 1.68 ct diamond costs $127 to grade the update would cost $95 plus shipping).

GIA does not have all additional information for diamonds prior to Aug 1. That is why the diamond and the grading report both must go back for the update.

Jeremy, it looks like you missed the free update by a couple of months

… On the bright side, at least your report wasn’t issued July 31.

Garry’s suggestion is good if you can take a decent IS photo. Check this thread (bottom of page 1) and see how accurate some of the wizards around here can get.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

here is a link to the how to use diamCalc and Ideal-scope for proportion calculations for the appraisers and prosumers with Diamcalc.
http://www.ideal-scope.com/Using%20DC_files/frame.htm

I pulled it off the website because of a small paralax error that comes from the camera closeness and table size over estimation.

Not sure how to solve this - but it is a small error.

 

[Serg]

John,

Thanks for check old agreement

I reread current agreement, it looks different.

Could you inform:

"The diamond has been manufactured using non-standard brillianteering such that the diamond is significantly “painted” or “dug-out” (i.e., the diamond has its upper- and/or lower-half facets fashioned at tilt angles different than those traditionally used for standard round brilliant diamonds).
"

Was in old agreement?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/8/2005 2:32:04 AM
Author: Serg
John,

Thanks for check old agreement

I reread current agreement, it looks different.

Could you inform:

'The diamond has been manufactured using non-standard brillianteering such that the diamond is significantly “painted” or “dug-out” (i.e., the diamond has its upper- and/or lower-half facets fashioned at tilt angles different than those traditionally used for standard round brilliant diamonds).
'
Was in old agreement?

You're welcome Sergey.

I had the "Publicity" clause in an email someone sent me, but I don't have the complete old agreement. Perhaps someone else does?

There was a mention about brillianteering in the old version, but I don't know if it was those precise words. We have been told the cut grade will be altered only if such digging out / painting is deleterious to the diamond's appearance. It will be helpful to know what 'significantly' means, precisely.

 

[Serg]

Re:There was a mention about brillianteering in the old version, but I don't know if it was those precise words. We have been told the cut grade will be altered only if such digging out / painting is deleterious to the diamond's appearance. It will be helpful to know what 'significantly' means, precisely.

+
Where is boundary between "significantly “painted” or “dug-out”" and "standard round brilliant diamonds"?

"'The diamond has been manufactured using non-standard brillianteering such that the diamond is significantly “painted” or “dug-out” (i.e., the diamond has its upper- and/or lower-half facets fashioned at tilt angles different than those traditionally used for standard round brilliant diamonds)."

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/8/2005 3:21:37 AM
Author: Serg
Re:There was a mention about brillianteering in the old version, but I don''t know if it was those precise words. We have been told the cut grade will be altered only if such digging out / painting is deleterious to the diamond''s appearance. It will be helpful to know what ''significantly'' means, precisely.

+
Where is boundary between ''significantly “painted” or “dug-out”'' and ''standard round brilliant diamonds''?

''''The diamond has been manufactured using non-standard brillianteering such that the diamond is significantly “painted” or “dug-out” (i.e., the diamond has its upper- and/or lower-half facets fashioned at tilt angles different than those traditionally used for standard round brilliant diamonds).''

It is a good way to ensure that the only diamond with a GIA cut grade is one that has a paid report and not one from a Sarin sticker like thold AGS system.

 

[jpinsly]

Date: 12/7/2005 4:35:05 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Jeremy, your situation is probably going to be common, so I asked GIA for their input on this.

Here is what I gathered:

1. If your report was issued recently (Aug 1 – Dec 31 2005) GIA will replace it with an updated reported if you send in the original document. This will be offered for a limited time beginning in January, courtesy of GIA.

2. If your report was issued prior to Aug 1, 2005 GIA offers an update option, for a fee: The owner can send the diamond and the report to GIA for reassessment and update. That update will cost 75% of the normal grading free, which varies by weight (for instance, if a 1.68 ct diamond costs $127 to grade the update would cost $95 plus shipping).

GIA does not have all additional information for diamonds prior to Aug 1. That is why the diamond and the grading report both must go back for the update.

Jeremy, it looks like you missed the free update by a couple of months

… On the bright side, at least your report wasn’t issued July 31.

Garry’s suggestion is good if you can take a decent IS photo. Check this thread (bottom of page 1) and see how accurate some of the wizards around here can get.

Sounds like a great idea........except does the GIA think everyone buys diamonds and doesn''t set them in a ring????
My stone is already set.....so the issue of sending it back to the GIA doesn''t sound like the best plan.

Regarding the IS image, is it possible to do this with the stone already set?

 

[belle]

Date: 12/8/2005 7:59:56 AM
Author: jpinsly

Regarding the IS image, is it possible to do this with the stone already set?

yes you can

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 12/8/2005 7:59:56 AM
Author: jpinsly

Sounds like a great idea........except does the GIA think everyone buys diamonds and doesn''t set them in a ring????
My stone is already set.....so the issue of sending it back to the GIA doesn''t sound like the best plan.

I fear that GIA is truly not aware that diamonds are sold to consumers.

Sorry, that was exaggerated. But I fear that they are not organized or prepared for stones returning from consumers. I think that they expect re-submittals from professionals only, who will only return stones if they have a suspicion about the correctness of the report.

Live long,

 

[jpinsly]

Here is the latest email I received from GIA:

"The Crown and Pavillion angle information is not provided on GIA reports, however, This information is available on the tab that comes along with the report as of October 20, 2005."

and in a followup email:

"Yes, this information [my edit, crown and pav angles] is in our database and was made available on the tab that comes with the GIA report to the Jeweler."

What is the tab that is being referred to? I have everything that came with the diamond (cert, case, etc) and nowhere can I find these dimensions.

 

[Chinchy]

This only affects round stones right? So if I have a cushion cut, it won''t matter right?

Also, for diamonds which have already been set into a ring, are they expecting us to unmount the stone and then send it in?