The logic of diamond grading

[Modified Brilliant]

Date: 8/28/2009 11:04:35 AM
Author:oldminer
Diamonds at the top of color have three to four grrades of color that are virtually invisible in difference to the casual observer: D-E-F and possibly G At the top of clarity diamonds have FL-IF-VVS1-VVS2 which are all very much identical visually even with a 10x loupe to less than skilled eyes.

With ''Cut'' we have yet to arrive at fixed, permanent, standards. I think the right approach is to have three to four levels of cut grade at the very top range so the logic remains constant across all the metrics of what constitutes the top three to four grades of finest stones.

GIA''s Excellent is faulted for being too broad. Dealers know that there are ranges of performance and beauty within this single ''top'' grade by GIA. The AGS 0 Ideal is a tighter product, but with testing for performance a quite wide and repeatable range of light return exists. This range could well be broken into three or four levels of top end performance. With Gemex, I think I see the top range of grades all scoring at the top end of the scales and not really being defined apart, yet they are not all the same at the Gemex top end of the scale. Rhino may explain this as he understands this device much more.

Do you think the approach in bold above makes sense or why not? Are you for grading diamonds for cut with the same logic that color and clarity grading have been using successfully for so many years or is this the time to change color and clarity grading to become more user friendly in the way GIA has reset and broadened their cut grade range? Or, do you think cut grading should develop on its own and not have a logic dictated by previous grading strategies employed with diamond color and clarity?

I think this might make for an intresesting discussion if there is anyone wishing to throw in some of their thoughts to the stew. I get calls from engineers and math whizzes all the time wanting badly to quantify grading of cut and have it be very specific, even if the differences can''t be see visually. What do you all think? THANKS.

And even with fixed permanent standards of color and clarity grading...these standards are manipulated and become very different from what the "founders"
were trying to accomplish. It seems that the more the industry pushes for standardization, the more creative some folks will become to "stretch" the parameters. And I agree, that there is no watchdog or governing group that really cares enough to enforce grading systems or banish the "overgraders."
Grading misrepresentation has existed for decades and nothing has been done about it. It''s truly become a situation where the consumer must do his/her
own investigation and homework as diligently as if buying a home. It''s caveat emptor always. Buyer beware.
Personally, I''m not in favor of levels of cut grade, only because I fear more abuse of a new "system," but am eager to listen to more discussion.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[outatouch0]

Wow, this is a great thread - maybe not for solving a whole lot but it does make me feel a lot better reading and commenting on it. Thanks to the OP and to Jade for both capturing how I feel as a near future consumer!!

I've learned that there is a relationship between cut quality and light performance.
Ok so I want to go for cut quality... So AGS0 right... "Oh what???" "There are higher ranks than that?" "AGS000???"
What is THAT all about? Or, I will see Ideal cut diamonds with VG symmetry. If it is Ideal cut how can the symmetry be less than Ideal?
So yea it is REALLY REALLY frustrating.

Other stuff:
The example of the guy who walks into a B&M and wraps it up in 20 min. He may very well go home happy with his purchase and never know what exactly he got other than a diamond ring he thought she would like (hopefully, for his sake, she will).

A BIG wake up call for me was a lesson I learned many years ago when I was in marketing: Quality is what the client happens to perceive it to be. This rings true for just about every industry I have worked in. What I know quality to be and what the clientele perceives it to be can greatly differ.

I probably started this venture like most people - maul B&M's. Fortunately I quickly realized that these people were talking to me like I was stupid so I wasn't about to do business with them. Can't blame them I guess. They likely deal w stupid people all day. All that fast talking made me realize I was way too ignorant about what I was trying to buy. So I went home and hit the internet.
My girl and I went to some B&M's last week to make some visual size comparisons. Now it looks like I know more about diamonds than the people trying to sell them

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/28/2009 11:04:35 AM
Author:oldminer
Diamonds at the top of color have three to four grrades of color that are virtually invisible in difference to the casual observer: D-E-F and possibly G At the top of clarity diamonds have FL-IF-VVS1-VVS2 which are all very much identical visually even with a 10x loupe to less than skilled eyes.

With ''Cut'' we have yet to arrive at fixed, permanent, standards. I think the right approach is to have three to four levels of cut grade at the very top range so the logic remains constant across all the metrics of what constitutes the top three to four grades of finest stones.

GIA''s Excellent is faulted for being too broad. Dealers know that there are ranges of performance and beauty within this single ''top'' grade by GIA. The AGS 0 Ideal is a tighter product, but with testing for performance a quite wide and repeatable range of light return exists. This range could well be broken into three or four levels of top end performance. With Gemex, I think I see the top range of grades all scoring at the top end of the scales and not really being defined apart, yet they are not all the same at the Gemex top end of the scale. Rhino may explain this as he understands this device much more.

Do you think the approach in bold above makes sense or why not? Are you for grading diamonds for cut with the same logic that color and clarity grading have been using successfully for so many years or is this the time to change color and clarity grading to become more user friendly in the way GIA has reset and broadened their cut grade range? Or, do you think cut grading should develop on its own and not have a logic dictated by previous grading strategies employed with diamond color and clarity?

I think this might make for an intresesting discussion if there is anyone wishing to throw in some of their thoughts to the stew. I get calls from engineers and math whizzes all the time wanting badly to quantify grading of cut and have it be very specific, even if the differences can''t be see visually. What do you all think? THANKS.

Dave..., are the two highlighted parts above not contradictory?
Are we at the top of cut grading (yet)?
Can we even compare top clarity and color grades vs. top cut grades?

I am not too sure!

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/28/2009 10:36:33 PM
Author: Modified Brilliant

Date: 8/28/2009 11:04:35 AM
Author:oldminer
Diamonds at the top of color have three to four grrades of color that are virtually invisible in difference to the casual observer: D-E-F and possibly G At the top of clarity diamonds have FL-IF-VVS1-VVS2 which are all very much identical visually even with a 10x loupe to less than skilled eyes.

With ''Cut'' we have yet to arrive at fixed, permanent, standards. I think the right approach is to have three to four levels of cut grade at the very top range so the logic remains constant across all the metrics of what constitutes the top three to four grades of finest stones.

GIA''s Excellent is faulted for being too broad. Dealers know that there are ranges of performance and beauty within this single ''top'' grade by GIA. The AGS 0 Ideal is a tighter product, but with testing for performance a quite wide and repeatable range of light return exists. This range could well be broken into three or four levels of top end performance. With Gemex, I think I see the top range of grades all scoring at the top end of the scales and not really being defined apart, yet they are not all the same at the Gemex top end of the scale. Rhino may explain this as he understands this device much more.

Do you think the approach in bold above makes sense or why not? Are you for grading diamonds for cut with the same logic that color and clarity grading have been using successfully for so many years or is this the time to change color and clarity grading to become more user friendly in the way GIA has reset and broadened their cut grade range? Or, do you think cut grading should develop on its own and not have a logic dictated by previous grading strategies employed with diamond color and clarity?

I think this might make for an intresesting discussion if there is anyone wishing to throw in some of their thoughts to the stew. I get calls from engineers and math whizzes all the time wanting badly to quantify grading of cut and have it be very specific, even if the differences can''t be see visually. What do you all think? THANKS.

And even with fixed permanent standards of color and clarity grading...these standards are manipulated and become very different from what the ''founders''
were trying to accomplish. It seems that the more the industry pushes for standardization, the more creative some folks will become to ''stretch'' the parameters. And I agree, that there is no watchdog or governing group that really cares enough to enforce grading systems or banish the ''overgraders.''
Grading misrepresentation has existed for decades and nothing has been done about it. It''s truly become a situation where the consumer must do his/her
own investigation and homework as diligently as if buying a home. It''s caveat emptor always. Buyer beware.
Personally, I''m not in favor of levels of cut grade, only because I fear more abuse of a new ''system,'' but am eager to listen to more discussion.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

....I believe the paths of cut development are in their beginnings...
We only have a serious (but still limited I believe) cut grading system for (symmetrical) RB''s... (and only one Lab who claims a cut grade for Princess cuts)...
Thats only two shapes out of a world of shapes (and hopefully many more to come).

I believe we far from the top....

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/28/2009 10:41:35 PM
Author: outatouch0
Wow, this is a great thread - maybe not for solving a whole lot but it does make me feel a lot better reading and commenting on it. Thanks to the OP and to Jade for both capturing how I feel as a near future consumer!!

I''ve learned that there is a relationship between cut quality and light performance.
Ok so I want to go for cut quality... So AGS0 right... ''Oh what???'' ''There are higher ranks than that?'' ''AGS000???''
What is THAT all about? Or, I will see Ideal cut diamonds with VG symmetry. If it is Ideal cut how can the symmetry be less than Ideal?
So yea it is REALLY REALLY frustrating.

Other stuff:
The example of the guy who walks into a B&M and wraps it up in 20 min. He may very well go home happy with his purchase and never know what exactly he got other than a diamond ring he thought she would like (hopefully, for his sake, she will).

A BIG wake up call for me was a lesson I learned many years ago when I was in marketing: Quality is what the client happens to perceive it to be. This rings true for just about every industry I have worked in. What I know quality to be and what the clientele perceives it to be can greatly differ.

I probably started this venture like most people - maul B&M''s. Fortunately I quickly realized that these people were talking to me like I was stupid so I wasn''t about to do business with them. Can''t blame them I guess. They likely deal w stupid people all day. All that fast talking made me realize I was way too ignorant about what I was trying to buy. So I went home and hit the internet.
My girl and I went to some B&M''s last week to make some visual size comparisons. Now it looks like I know more about diamonds than the people trying to sell them

Thats the problem..., but calling yourself or others ''stupid'' is (I believe) wrong wordings!

Its a lack of education (on the professionals part)...
The only way to partially solve this disparity between more/less knowledgeable professionals is education!
And nature will take it course..., the speed this industry is changing will eliminate the ones who are not willing to keep themselves on par with the information/education!

 

[outatouch0]

Thanks,
My use of "stupid" was more to emphasize a feeling rather than any name calling.

Actually you understood and stated part of the point I was making. Ignorance in the (retail) jewelry business plays a big part in the current situation - both the consumer and the maul salesperson. Driven by the need to eat (make sales) the situation perpetuates itself.
I''m sure there is a gemologist type working there that knows the score but knowledge in of itself doesn''t pay the bills.

Back to stupid statements: Within the first few min of walking into the store, "We have financing available." Read: we know you are a bum and couldn''t possibly pay for any of this yourself. You surely forgot that the last 5 maul SA''s also told you you can finance not to mention that practically every chain store in America has its own finance/fleecing operation for those who would rather pay for it twice to get it now rather than save and pay cash...
At least have the decency to interest me in something first and use financing as an means to close the deal on your up-sell.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/29/2009 7:25:20 AM
Author: outatouch0
Thanks,
My use of ''stupid'' was more to emphasize a feeling rather than any name calling.

Actually you understood and stated part of the point I was making. Ignorance in the (retail) jewelry business plays a big part in the current situation - both the consumer and the maul salesperson. Driven by the need to eat (make sales) the situation perpetuates itself.
I''m sure there is a gemologist type working there that knows the score but knowledge in of itself doesn''t pay the bills.

Back to stupid statements: Within the first few min of walking into the store, ''We have financing available.'' Read: we know you are a bum and couldn''t possibly pay for any of this yourself. You surely forgot that the last 5 maul SA''s also told you you can finance not to mention that practically every chain store in America has its own finance/fleecing operation for those who would rather pay for it twice to get it now rather than save and pay cash...
At least have the decency to interest me in something first and use financing as an means to close the deal on your up-sell.

could very well be the SA is more knowledgeable in finance vs jewelry....

Unfortunately not many in the jewelry field are as informed as the PS regulars...

 

[Black Jade]

I don''t think that I expressed myself well--I have a bad habit of telling stories and losing my point.
I do think that a consumer who bothers to research a bit will know that if the cert is not GIA or AGS the color and clarity grading is not reliable. The store owners may tell them differently, but they will know that.

However, I think that they can research a LOT and still not be sure how to know if the stone is decently cut. That is, they can decide they will only go with AGS 000 (or perhaps GIA Ex/Ex, which is not reliable in quite the same way) or they can go with a branded diamond (this may be why so many swear by Tiffany--or if they are web-savvy, with the various brands that have ''consistency'' online). But they can''t be sure how much they are losing if they don''t go with those ''sure'' things--its not like with GIA grading where you know that E is really white, but that a GIA I color won''t be as white--but still is acceptable, for a lower price. If you know what I mean. They can tell a certain amount by seeing the diamond in the store--but the store lights tend to be deceiving and issues get hidden, like with my friend who got a smaller diamond than she should have for a one carater with the GIA ''very good'' and didn''t know until too late. And, as we have been learning, with colored diamonds, the standards are completely different. So, going back to the OP, I do think that some kind of revision would be in order, although I have no idea if it could possibly be done (and what it would leave out, if it was).

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI All!
There''s no doubt that a lot of sales associates have little knowledge about diamonds.
It''s also a great thing that consumers are more educated, no question about that.

Getting back to the subject of this thread- what if the grading system used for cut grades is biased in favor of the creators tastes?
That is not to say that badly cut stones would be included- but what if the top three grades ( for example) were close enough in parameters that it became a matter of taste?

I''ve read criticism of HCA for this very reason.
IMO the "Cut grading Charts" have exactly the same consideration.
If there''s a system designed to increase consumer confidence, but it''s based on personal preference, it might give some a false sense of security.

This may lead to consumers spending more to get a "Class one" cut grade, when in fact they may have chosen a "class two" if they were using their own eyes to select.
If many consumers using visual methods would choose a "class two" ( for example) doesn''t that call the entire grading system into question?


I''ve seen plenty of PS threads where people had gone straight for the AGS0 perfect ASET stone only to be non-plussed when they laid eyes upon it.



Please come back David Atlas!!

 

[beaujolais]

---- I would like to see a cut grade with modifiers telling what can be seen rather than what can not be seen.

ie:
Level0 - Large VF, tuned for low light performance (oec, 8*)
Level0 - small VF, tuned for direct lighting performance (star129)
Level0 - mixed VF, directional light return. (BIC, 60/60, steeper pavilions)
Level0 - mixed VF, dispersive light return.(FIC)
Level0 - mixed VF, mixed light return.(TIC)
So on and so forth......

-----

Brilliant ! Genius !

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

On colour-grading: it is a shame that colour is graded from the side, since it does not consistently convey what can be observed from the top.

On clarity-grading: it is a shame that many in the industry mix up the word ''clarity'' with ''quality''.

On cut-grading, most important, I think: there has been huge process in understanding cut-quality in the past decade, but it is a shame that too many people do not realise that the puzzle is far from solved. Please remember to remain humble.

Live long,

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/29/2009 9:17:21 AM
Author: DiaGem



could very well be the SA is more knowledgeable in finance vs jewelry....

Unfortunately not many in the jewelry field are as informed as the PS regulars...

Almost all regulars know that DiaGem and I thuuroughly enjoy disagreeing with each other about most things. Sadly, the two comments above are one huge exception. It is one of the tragedies of my chosen hobby/profession that so many involved not only do not know what they are talking about, but most often do not even care.

They were selling ladies shoes not to long ago and will be selling something else in the near future, but while they are here they will do untold damage to the image of what a professional jeweler is.

Sigh.

Wink

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 8/30/2009 4:37:55 PM
Author: Wink
They were selling ladies shoes not to long ago and will be selling something else in the near future, but while they are here they will do untold damage to the image of what a professional jeweler is.


Sigh.


Wink

This is a problem for shoes and nearly everything else as well. The honorable professional cobbler has gone the way of the wheelwright and the blacksmith. I fear that jeweler may not be far behind. Already there’s little distinction in most people’s minds between a master craftssman (or woman) and a salesman and the acceptable level of service from sales people leaves them better described as clerks, both by customers and management.


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

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/30/2009 4:33:28 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
On colour-grading: it is a shame that colour is graded from the side, since it does not consistently convey what can be observed from the top.

On clarity-grading: it is a shame that many in the industry mix up the word ''clarity'' with ''quality''.

On cut-grading, most important, I think: there has been huge process in understanding cut-quality in the past decade, but it is a shame that too many people do not realise that the puzzle is far from solved. Please remember to remain humble.

Live long,

Along the lines of this comment I have been trying to think for a couple of days how to express my disagreement with the comment made earlier that we need three to four grades within each of the top grades.

I can think of nothing that would be more destructive to the industry at this time. On the Internet it is almost impossible for me to sell a stone that is an AGS 1 for some such thing as excellent polish or symmetry, even when the light performance grade is AGS 0. Now you would take AGS 0 cut grade diamonds and make them difficult to sell if they were for example, AGS 0 catagory 4 rather than AGS 0 catagory 1. (I still remember a few clients asking me for an F1 as F2 and F3 were not acceptable color grades, thanks to what ever (expletive deleted) started that foolishness.)

You would have internet buyers refusing to look at incredible diamonds due to something that they do not understand and often can not see, all to say you are further differentiating. I feel like the lady on the informercial that used to scream "Stop The Madness" at every one.

The rest of the market would still be buying garbage at the chain stores and the few people producing quality would go broke selling stones that were incredible by comparrison because some one told them to buy nothing less than an AGS 0 Cat 1.

Those that actually preferred Cat 2, 3, or 4 would be made to feel like they were somehow mentally deficient or just could not see well enough to understand what they were missing.

I can point to the advice that was given here not too many years ago to never look at a stone below G or H and VS2 as they just would not be good enough to give or wear. Now we have threads for people with "lower" color diamonds and "lower clarities" so that new people are being constantly informed that the "lower" colors and clarities can be incredible when well cut.

What I do not think is being properly imparted is that there are several degrees of well cut, starting from the top with the "super ideals" and going down, way down unfortunately, to the average gunk shown at the mall.

There are along the way however, many degrees of well cut, and all of the top cuts are incredible. If we wanted to set an arbitrary limit, and I do not, it is much too complicated to do so easily, we could for example tell you fairly honestly that most people will not see easily the difference between an AGS 0 and an AGS 2 cut grade. At least not until they have looked at a LOT of diamonds.

Is it fun, and wonderful for us to do so and to teach others to see the difference too? At least for those of us who love diamonds and cutting qualities? Yes, of course. It is the niche I have chosen, along with several others of the vendors here. We love it, appreciate it, and wish to share our appreciation with like minded people. These diamonds already represent less than 1% of the market, why would we wish to further segment it?

Is it necessary for the average, "I wanna buy a diamond for my fiance," guy? No.

What I would much rather see than further bifarcating the top grades, would be to educate the average jeweler enough so that he/she could understand the grading that is out there already. This would make MUCH more sense to me, be easier to accomplish, and serve the end user much better.

Thus sayeth Wink who must now go get ready for his daughter''s second engagement party, this one thrown by my mon, at which I am the bartender. Six more days until the wedding, sigh, I shall miss all the excitement...

Wink

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/29/2009 2:28:26 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/28/2009 10:36:33 PM
Author: Modified Brilliant

Date: 8/28/2009 11:04:35 AM
Author:oldminer
Diamonds at the top of color have three to four grrades of color that are virtually invisible in difference to the casual observer: D-E-F and possibly G At the top of clarity diamonds have FL-IF-VVS1-VVS2 which are all very much identical visually even with a 10x loupe to less than skilled eyes.

With ''Cut'' we have yet to arrive at fixed, permanent, standards. I think the right approach is to have three to four levels of cut grade at the very top range so the logic remains constant across all the metrics of what constitutes the top three to four grades of finest stones.

GIA''s Excellent is faulted for being too broad. Dealers know that there are ranges of performance and beauty within this single ''top'' grade by GIA. The AGS 0 Ideal is a tighter product, but with testing for performance a quite wide and repeatable range of light return exists. This range could well be broken into three or four levels of top end performance. With Gemex, I think I see the top range of grades all scoring at the top end of the scales and not really being defined apart, yet they are not all the same at the Gemex top end of the scale. Rhino may explain this as he understands this device much more.

Do you think the approach in bold above makes sense or why not? Are you for grading diamonds for cut with the same logic that color and clarity grading have been using successfully for so many years or is this the time to change color and clarity grading to become more user friendly in the way GIA has reset and broadened their cut grade range? Or, do you think cut grading should develop on its own and not have a logic dictated by previous grading strategies employed with diamond color and clarity?

I think this might make for an intresesting discussion if there is anyone wishing to throw in some of their thoughts to the stew. I get calls from engineers and math whizzes all the time wanting badly to quantify grading of cut and have it be very specific, even if the differences can''t be see visually. What do you all think? THANKS.

And even with fixed permanent standards of color and clarity grading...these standards are manipulated and become very different from what the ''founders''
were trying to accomplish. It seems that the more the industry pushes for standardization, the more creative some folks will become to ''stretch'' the parameters. And I agree, that there is no watchdog or governing group that really cares enough to enforce grading systems or banish the ''overgraders.''
Grading misrepresentation has existed for decades and nothing has been done about it. It''s truly become a situation where the consumer must do his/her
own investigation and homework as diligently as if buying a home. It''s caveat emptor always. Buyer beware.
Personally, I''m not in favor of levels of cut grade, only because I fear more abuse of a new ''system,'' but am eager to listen to more discussion.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

....I believe the paths of cut development are in their beginnings...
We only have a serious (but still limited I believe) cut grading system for (symmetrical) RB''s... (and only one Lab who claims a cut grade for Princess cuts)...
Thats only two shapes out of a world of shapes (and hopefully many more to come).

I believe we far from the top....

I just reread this and it doesnt sound just right...
The highlighted meant "and hopefully many more [shapes/cuts] to come"..., not necessarily cut grading systems....

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/30/2009 4:58:58 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 8/30/2009 4:37:55 PM
Author: Wink
They were selling ladies shoes not to long ago and will be selling something else in the near future, but while they are here they will do untold damage to the image of what a professional jeweler is.


Sigh.


Wink

This is a problem for shoes and nearly everything else as well. The honorable professional cobbler has gone the way of the wheelwright and the blacksmith. I fear that jeweler may not be far behind. Already there’s little distinction in most people’s minds between a master craftssman (or woman) and a salesman and the acceptable level of service from sales people leaves them better described as clerks, both by customers and management.


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

Yes, and I see I need to proof read better. I know that too was the correct way to say two in the sentence above... Also that thuurough is not a word, but it is too late to edit now. Darn...

Wink

 

[oldminer]

Wink, I thinkyou have made an excellent set of points and I must now say I agree with you. Dividing the upper cut grades into ever fiiner grades before the trade even has ahandle on what currently exists in an imperfect format would be counterproductive. I like the idea of being able to grade with high accuracy yet the idea that many fine looking AGS 1 diamonds go unsold for nearly no good reason is maddeningand dumb. We live with the imperfect systems we currently have and it just may be that making it mo complex now would be totally over the top.

I do encourage people to buy what they like once they understand the quality of their selection. I am not a strong "ideal only" person, but realize compromises work very well for most consumers. I believe your very well expressed sentiments have had a real impact on my approach. This is exactly why I started the thread. I felt that I might have gone down a path that was not working properly.... You have a wider view which is very effectively expressed. THANKS....

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/30/2009 5:05:01 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/30/2009 4:33:28 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
On colour-grading: it is a shame that colour is graded from the side, since it does not consistently convey what can be observed from the top.

On clarity-grading: it is a shame that many in the industry mix up the word ''clarity'' with ''quality''.

On cut-grading, most important, I think: there has been huge process in understanding cut-quality in the past decade, but it is a shame that too many people do not realise that the puzzle is far from solved. Please remember to remain humble.

Live long,

Along the lines of this comment I have been trying to think for a couple of days how to express my disagreement with the comment made earlier that we need three to four grades within each of the top grades.

I can think of nothing that would be more destructive to the industry at this time. On the Internet it is almost impossible for me to sell a stone that is an AGS 1 for some such thing as excellent polish or symmetry, even when the light performance grade is AGS 0. Now you would take AGS 0 cut grade diamonds and make them difficult to sell if they were for example, AGS 0 catagory 4 rather than AGS 0 catagory 1. (I still remember a few clients asking me for an F1 as F2 and F3 were not acceptable color grades, thanks to what ever (expletive deleted) started that foolishness.)

You would have internet buyers refusing to look at incredible diamonds due to something that they do not understand and often can not see, all to say you are further differentiating. I feel like the lady on the informercial that used to scream ''Stop The Madness'' at every one.

The rest of the market would still be buying garbage at the chain stores and the few people producing quality would go broke selling stones that were incredible by comparrison because some one told them to buy nothing less than an AGS 0 Cat 1.

Those that actually preferred Cat 2, 3, or 4 would be made to feel like they were somehow mentally deficient or just could not see well enough to understand what they were missing.

I can point to the advice that was given here not too many years ago to never look at a stone below G or H and VS2 as they just would not be good enough to give or wear. Now we have threads for people with ''lower'' color diamonds and ''lower clarities'' so that new people are being constantly informed that the ''lower'' colors and clarities can be incredible when well cut.

What I do not think is being properly imparted is that there are several degrees of well cut, starting from the top with the ''super ideals'' and going down, way down unfortunately, to the average gunk shown at the mall.

There are along the way however, many degrees of well cut, and all of the top cuts are incredible. If we wanted to set an arbitrary limit, and I do not, it is much too complicated to do so easily, we could for example tell you fairly honestly that most people will not see easily the difference between an AGS 0 and an AGS 2 cut grade. At least not until they have looked at a LOT of diamonds.

Is it fun, and wonderful for us to do so and to teach others to see the difference too? At least for those of us who love diamonds and cutting qualities? Yes, of course. It is the niche I have chosen, along with several others of the vendors here. We love it, appreciate it, and wish to share our appreciation with like minded people. These diamonds already represent less than 1% of the market, why would we wish to further segment it?

Is it necessary for the average, ''I wanna buy a diamond for my fiance,'' guy? No.

What I would much rather see than further bifarcating the top grades, would be to educate the average jeweler enough so that he/she could understand the grading that is out there already. This would make MUCH more sense to me, be easier to accomplish, and serve the end user much better.

Thus sayeth Wink who must now go get ready for his daughter''s second engagement party, this one thrown by my mon, at which I am the bartender. Six more days until the wedding, sigh, I shall miss all the excitement...

Wink

Well..., surprise..., I guess we are in agreement on his one too..., the XXX/000 issue is complicated enough..., most jewelers and Diamond dealers are not knowledgeable to this level..., let them first understand the simple version...

Now..., let me congratulate you and your family...

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/30/2009 5:35:59 PM
Author: oldminer
Wink, I thinkyou have made an excellent set of points and I must now say I agree with you. Dividing the upper cut grades into ever fiiner grades before the trade even has ahandle on what currently exists in an imperfect format would be counterproductive. I like the idea of being able to grade with high accuracy yet the idea that many fine looking AGS 1 diamonds go unsold for nearly no good reason is maddeningand dumb. We live with the imperfect systems we currently have and it just may be that making it mo complex now would be totally over the top.

I do encourage people to buy what they like once they understand the quality of their selection. I am not a strong ''ideal only'' person, but realize compromises work very well for most consumers. I believe your very well expressed sentiments have had a real impact on my approach. This is exactly why I started the thread. I felt that I might have gone down a path that was not working properly.... You have a wider view which is very effectively expressed. THANKS....

You are very welcome, and since I believe you have the standing in the community to make a good run at such a system, I am very happy that you listened to my point of view from the retailer''s side of the pond.

I really appreciate it that you listened, thank YOU!

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/30/2009 6:09:37 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/30/2009 5:05:01 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 8/30/2009 4:33:28 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
On colour-grading: it is a shame that colour is graded from the side, since it does not consistently convey what can be observed from the top.

On clarity-grading: it is a shame that many in the industry mix up the word ''clarity'' with ''quality''.

On cut-grading, most important, I think: there has been huge process in understanding cut-quality in the past decade, but it is a shame that too many people do not realise that the puzzle is far from solved. Please remember to remain humble.

Live long,

Along the lines of this comment I have been trying to think for a couple of days how to express my disagreement with the comment made earlier that we need three to four grades within each of the top grades.

I can think of nothing that would be more destructive to the industry at this time. On the Internet it is almost impossible for me to sell a stone that is an AGS 1 for some such thing as excellent polish or symmetry, even when the light performance grade is AGS 0. Now you would take AGS 0 cut grade diamonds and make them difficult to sell if they were for example, AGS 0 catagory 4 rather than AGS 0 catagory 1. (I still remember a few clients asking me for an F1 as F2 and F3 were not acceptable color grades, thanks to what ever (expletive deleted) started that foolishness.)

You would have internet buyers refusing to look at incredible diamonds due to something that they do not understand and often can not see, all to say you are further differentiating. I feel like the lady on the informercial that used to scream ''Stop The Madness'' at every one.

The rest of the market would still be buying garbage at the chain stores and the few people producing quality would go broke selling stones that were incredible by comparrison because some one told them to buy nothing less than an AGS 0 Cat 1.

Those that actually preferred Cat 2, 3, or 4 would be made to feel like they were somehow mentally deficient or just could not see well enough to understand what they were missing.

I can point to the advice that was given here not too many years ago to never look at a stone below G or H and VS2 as they just would not be good enough to give or wear. Now we have threads for people with ''lower'' color diamonds and ''lower clarities'' so that new people are being constantly informed that the ''lower'' colors and clarities can be incredible when well cut.

What I do not think is being properly imparted is that there are several degrees of well cut, starting from the top with the ''super ideals'' and going down, way down unfortunately, to the average gunk shown at the mall.

There are along the way however, many degrees of well cut, and all of the top cuts are incredible. If we wanted to set an arbitrary limit, and I do not, it is much too complicated to do so easily, we could for example tell you fairly honestly that most people will not see easily the difference between an AGS 0 and an AGS 2 cut grade. At least not until they have looked at a LOT of diamonds.

Is it fun, and wonderful for us to do so and to teach others to see the difference too? At least for those of us who love diamonds and cutting qualities? Yes, of course. It is the niche I have chosen, along with several others of the vendors here. We love it, appreciate it, and wish to share our appreciation with like minded people. These diamonds already represent less than 1% of the market, why would we wish to further segment it?

Is it necessary for the average, ''I wanna buy a diamond for my fiance,'' guy? No.

What I would much rather see than further bifarcating the top grades, would be to educate the average jeweler enough so that he/she could understand the grading that is out there already. This would make MUCH more sense to me, be easier to accomplish, and serve the end user much better.

Thus sayeth Wink who must now go get ready for his daughter''s second engagement party, this one thrown by my mon, at which I am the bartender. Six more days until the wedding, sigh, I shall miss all the excitement...

Wink

Well..., surprise..., I guess we are in agreement on his one too..., the XXX/000 issue is complicated enough..., most jewelers and Diamond dealers are not knowledgeable to this level..., let them first understand the simple version...

Now..., let me congratulate you and your family...

Thank you! I think we are often not as far apart as we seem, and sometimes not as close either. But on these two issues we seem to be pretty synchronized!

The party was wonderful, a few of the die hards are still there drinking and having a ball, but I have to put my tired self to bed now and get ready for a couple of busy days at the office before I take off for getting every thing ready.

I will be BBQing the rehersal dinner for thirty people and basically doing what ever I am told by which ever woman tells me to do it for three days starting on Thursday. There will be three strong women there, my mom, my wife and my daughter and it will not do me any good to argue, so I am just planning on doing it the first time I am asked for these three days.

The young man she is marrying is wonderful. He is kind, loving, and most especially incredibly supporting of my daughter and her dreams. I deem him totally worthy of the treasure that is my daughter. I always worried about that as a dad and my prayers have been well answered.

Wink

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/30/2009 3:59:57 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI All!
There''s no doubt that a lot of sales associates have little knowledge about diamonds.
It''s also a great thing that consumers are more educated, no question about that.

Getting back to the subject of this thread- what if the grading system used for cut grades is biased in favor of the creators tastes?
That is not to say that badly cut stones would be included- but what if the top three grades ( for example) were close enough in parameters that it became a matter of taste?

I''ve read criticism of HCA for this very reason.
IMO the ''Cut grading Charts'' have exactly the same consideration.
If there''s a system designed to increase consumer confidence, but it''s based on personal preference, it might give some a false sense of security.

This may lead to consumers spending more to get a ''Class one'' cut grade, when in fact they may have chosen a ''class two'' if they were using their own eyes to select.
If many consumers using visual methods would choose a ''class two'' ( for example) doesn''t that call the entire grading system into question?


I''ve seen plenty of PS threads where people had gone straight for the AGS0 perfect ASET stone only to be non-plussed when they laid eyes upon it.



Please come back David Atlas!!

I''m curious to see these threads David, maybe you could start a new thread to show them?

 

[coda72]

I''m curious about all those threads also. I know when I personally received my first AGS0 stone, I was absolutely bowled over by how much it sparkled, and now having received my second larger one, even more astounded. Compared to the mall jewelry store junk I bought 10 or so years ago, there is just no comparison.

 

[oldminer]

I have yet to see a single AGS 0 round or princess that I would consider the slightest problem or mistake on the part of the consumer. If one values their time and wishes to simplify and speed up the buying process without making a mistake by agreeing to buy a less than beautiful damond, an AGS 0, such as many dealers offer here, unbranded or along with a Brand name, is a wonderful way to get a great looking and finely crafted diamond.

For someone who needs to constrain their budget, wants a bit larger size than they can afford in a premium cut, and for a hundred other valid reasons such as wanting to buy the unusual or something a bit "off the grid", then it can be more time consuming, potentially more exciting and more risky. One might get pleasure out of the hunt, too. Taken to the extreme, one will simply get "burned".

The battle over how to buy a diamond safely and efficiently is not what this thread is about although how to buy the right diamond is much of what the entire Pricescope site covers. This topic was about the logic of the grade setting organizations and members of the trade who influence grading. The question was "Will we use the exisitng logic of color and clarity grading in the development of cut grading?" The consenus answer appears to be generally "No." Dealers and graders feel the existing grading for color and clarity need vast improvment and that we should do the whole works right rather than pursue a system which is minimally successful though generally used by all with great innaccuracy.

People can twist comments and threads around to make limited points, but to what end? Admittedly, a consumer can choose to buy a less well cut diamond if it suits their particular needs. Many fancy cut diamonds are purposely cut to strange or odd proportions to enhance their color and they fall out of any traditional attempt to cut grade them becuase color rules in thsese limited cases. This is understandable for truly rare color types. Current colorless cut grading basically does not apply to fancy color diamonds becuase of the value factors.

I do believe that there are certain cutting faults of craftsmanship which need to be reported to consumers and to dealers which pertain to durability, relative visible size to carat weight, and polish/symmetry. You can argue that the word "craftsmanship" should be another word, but diamonds have inherent characteristics dictated by physics and chemistry which make reporting certain aspects a part of necessary laboratory results. We will never grade "beauty", but we certainly can report facts such as light return, sparkle, intensity, fire, etc. Let the consumer be the judge of what they think is prettiest or best forever. Factual data is what we need to have with diamond grading.

Factual color grading and objective clarity grading would be great goals, too. It is being worked on and we will see it all happen in the coming years.

 

[oldminer]

Many fancy cut diamonds are purposely cut to strange or odd proportions to enhance their color and they fall out of any traditional attempt to cut grade them becuase color rules in thsese limited cases.

Quoting myself above, I believe this needs clarification.

I meant to say: Many fancy color diamonds are purposely cut to strange or odd proportions to enhance their color and they fall out of any traditional attempt to cut grade them because color rules in these limited cases.

I would further add: Many fancy shape diamonds are cut to strange or odd proportions because that is what the economics of the rough dictated or the cutter had a particular cutting model in mind and wanted a specific outcome. People have much more freedom to choose a wide range of cut models with fancy shaped diamonds, but the inherent light return characteristics of diamond dicate the greatest amount of light return will fall within certain range of proportions. Those diamonds which greatly vary from these inherent characteristics will potentially suffer from less measured performance and their beauty may also be altered. You might like one, but other might not appreciate your individual sense of "beauty" with diamonds cut to very deep, very shallow or unusual outlines of shape. This is not a black & white issue, but one of gradual changes as parameters are altered by cutting choices.

 

[Ellen]

I knew what you meant Dave, I imagine others did too. But no harm in clarifying!

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI All,
David, the question is not whether an AGS0 is a "problem" or badly cut.
The question is if an AGS0 is "better" for all consumers than an AGS1- even those not interested in sacrificing quality.
If they would have preferred the AGS1, or a GIA VG based on visual cues, yet spent more ( in some cases a lot more) based on a perception that might not match what their eyes saw, isn''t that a case of getting burned?

As opposed to color/clarity issues, where there is a broad consensus among tradespeople, the grading of cut is not a subject broadly agreed upon.

I don''t know how we could introduce logic into an area where human perception plays such an important role- or if we could, would it actually be "logical"

Congrats to Wink!!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/31/2009 4:09:37 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI All,
David, the question is not whether an AGS0 is a ''problem'' or badly cut.
The question is if an AGS0 is ''better'' for all consumers than an AGS1- even those not interested in sacrificing quality.
If they would have preferred the AGS1, or a GIA VG based on visual cues, yet spent more ( in some cases a lot more) based on a perception that might not match what their eyes saw, isn''t that a case of getting burned?

As opposed to color/clarity issues, where there is a broad consensus among tradespeople, the grading of cut is not a subject broadly agreed upon.

I don''t know how we could introduce logic into an area where human perception plays such an important role- or if we could, would it actually be ''logical''

Congrats to Wink!!

Not in my opinion. To me, that would simply be a matter of finding out they didn''t like that "flavor". A bit different from getting something truly "rotten".

Though I''m still waiting on all these people that didn''t like the AGS0 perfect ASET diamonds.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI all,
Ellen, I'm not all that great at searching PS. I do remember ( for example) a thread where a person mentioned that after buying an AGS0 they saw other stones that were "lesser" cuts, that looked better to her.
She was advised that her stone was dirty, and all other kinds of reasons why she preferred the other stones. Eventually she agreed. I did not participate, but thought to myself - how do we know the other stones were so clean?
In fact, PS is not an easy place to speak a viewpoint different from the prevailing one- it's not really "safe" or easy to say you don't like what everyone else seems to think is so great.
With regards to "getting burned"- Wink mentioned how it used to be common for people who wanted a J color to be told J was a "bad" color, here on PS.
Personally, I feel this is very similar.


Back to the original point- many people in the trade question the logic of the current GIA and AGS systems.
It happens here on PS frequently when posters are advised that not all GIA EX stones are desirable.
I agree with that aspect. Not everyone will prefer every GIA "EX" cut grade over every GIA "VG" cut grade.

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 9/1/2009 5:09:37 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
HI all,
Ellen, I''m not all that great at searching PS. I do remember ( for example) a thread where a person mentioned that after buying an AGS0 they saw other stones that were ''lesser'' cuts, that looked better to her.
She was advised that her stone was dirty, and all other kinds of reasons why she preferred the other stones. Eventually she agreed. I did not participate, but thought to myself - how do we know the other stones were so clean?
In fact, PS is not an easy place to speak a viewpoint different from the prevailing one- it''s not really ''safe'' or easy to say you don''t like what everyone else seems to think is so great.
With regards to ''getting burned''- Wink mentioned how it used to be common for people who wanted a J color to be told J was a ''bad'' color, here on PS.
Personally, I feel this is very similar.


Back to the original point- many people in the trade question the logic of the current GIA and AGS systems.
It happens here on PS frequently when posters are advised that not all GIA EX stones are desirable.
I agree with that aspect. Not everyone will prefer every GIA ''EX'' cut grade over every GIA ''VG'' cut grade.

David, I know why i love my ideal cut stones. The fire and sparkle they produce is gorgeous, and that''s all i ultimately want in my diamonds.
I know that you love 60/60''s, but I don''t believe you''ve ever said why other than you like the spread?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi elle,
That's a great question- and it pertains to the subject at hand.
What I see, best I can describe it, is that the Ideal Cut focuses the light more. There's more "fire"- especially at the table, and radiating out from the table.
The larger 60% table- and resulting angles of the top corners focus the light less.
But the larger tabled, well cut 60% stone allows the light out more easily, if that makes any sense. So ultimately, there's more light, to my eye.
There's less of a focus on the table, which puts the top corners in a different perspective- they become more pronounced with the angles needed for the smaller table of an ideal cut.
The result is that , to my eye, the light, or sparkle coming off the larger table stone is more consistent, from one end to the other. The ideal cut is more focused, the 60/60 more scattered, but for me, more visually pleasing.

I have always felt that words were at best, barely adequate to describe exactly what I perceive when I look at a diamond.
Today there are some very in depth discussions about Fire, brilliance, and sparkle.
In the desire to categorize things to such a great degree, something may get lost.
Which is what relates to logic in the grading of cut.


Any cut grade is going to either have to be quite wide- like GIA- or it will exclude some stones that are going to be preferable to a fair number of observers.