Thoughts on 3X...

[Starfacet]

With regard to the GIA system, let’s put the issue as to whether their parameters are too broad aside... Let’s remember that there is a human grader that makes a determination with his/her eyes.
Now let’s bring back in their questionable parameters... and think about all the reports that come across our computer screens that look horrible by the #s, and then by the HCAs, and then by the images... yet someone at GIA still gave them top scores based on what they SAW???
I would expect my lack of understanding and inexperience to make a poor choice, but what’s their excuse???

One of the great things about visiting HPD in July was getting education by John Pollard on some of the areas of diamond grading. I remember one thing he said is that symmetry, for example, just means how the points of the pavilion come together, which really has nothing to do with cut quality and light return. I can understand your frustration with the situation, but the reality is that GIA parameters are broader than those of super-ideal diamond producers. Companies like CBI, WF ACA, and BGD are ini a niche market that focuses on a particular product with higher standards. Their goals and purposes are completely different from GIA whose business is to grade diamonds for identification and yes, quality, for consumers. But quality is defined differently by the GIA than by the super-ideal producers who by necessity are going to have tighter parameters.

 

[Starfacet]

You are all so awesome here! And the photos posted are absolutely amazing. If I do a recut, I’d be below 2 ct. and I don’t want that so I need to give this some thought as to the CBI option, etc.

I saw another post where you had the option to take a G color but you chose an E. When considering a CBI upgrade, you might do better size-wise if you're willing to go lower than an E. Just a thought.

 

[headlight]

One of the great things about visiting HPD in July was getting education by John Pollard on some of the areas of diamond grading. I remember one thing he said is that symmetry, for example, just means how the points of the pavilion come together, which really has nothing to do with cut quality and light return. I can understand your frustration with the situation, but the reality is that GIA parameters are broader than those of super-ideal diamond producers. Companies like CBI, WF ACA, and BGD are ini a niche market that focuses on a particular product with higher standards. Their goals and purposes are completely different from GIA whose business is to grade diamonds for identification and yes, quality, for consumers. But quality is defined differently by the GIA than by the super-ideal producers who by necessity are going to have tighter parameters.

Totally get all you are saying.
It then goes back to my original post that I think GIA is making a call as to quality on stones that probably shouldn't get that designation and I think that is irresponsible and misleading. A post earlier in the day made the inference that I saw the diamond and I made the choice. Yes, that is true. However, we all know that this is a very overwhelming thing to select a diamond, hence the reason for PS! Consumers "know" that GIA is a trusted source. It makes perfect sense that a consumer would put their faith in GIA's judgement of a stone. Even now, on another thread that began a couple hours ago, a new poster inquired about 2 GIA 3x stones... both of which were cut too deep and, even worse than mine, had CAs and PAs that are not within target parameters. But this unsuspecting consumer would have no idea because they thought those were good stones because they are GIA 3x (fortunately for them they came here FIRST!).
I know I'm just preaching to the choir here and I really feel fortunate to have so many people participate in this conversation today.
It really isn't even about my stone, in particular, versus a super ideal. Let's keep those in their own category because they are in a class by themselves. But you should still be able to get a beautiful diamond short of those... my issue is with diamonds that are not attractive being called Excellent. I think most people have a similar definition of the word excellent. That doesn't mean okay, or nice, or average, or acceptable... it means excellent, and when GIA uses that term there is an expectation of excellence, and the quality of the diamond in reference should be congruent with its cut grade. I suppose one could look at this and say that the issue with their cut grading is no different than that of their color and clarity grading... that these can be 1 grade off. So I guess in the case of the 3x stones that really seem to fall short (light leakage, poor visual optics, etc.), they are only "1 grade off". So in my case, for example, I suppose maybe it really should be a GIA VG, but someone bumped it up to an Ex. This could be plausible when looking at it in that context.

 

[Starfacet]

My last two diamonds have AGS reports, so I haven't looked at a GIA report recently. Does your GIA report actually give a "cut quality" grade of excellent?

 

[headlight]

I saw another post where you had the option to take a G color but you chose an E. When considering a CBI upgrade, you might do better size-wise if you're willing to go lower than an E. Just a thought.

You are on it... I'm impressed!
It's a curse: I want colorless.
The CBI is a whole other conversation. It's not even about the money. My husband and I were led to believe that a 3x was a great stone.
My point here is that Excellent in GIAs world seems to mean something other than my definition and I know I'm not the only one. It's nice to get the support.
I did look at photos this evening of my previous stone and I've definitely made an upgrade in quality so that is something to be happy about!

 

[headlight]

My last two diamonds have AGS reports, so I haven't looked at a GIA report recently. Does your GIA report actually give a "cut quality" grade of excellent?

Yes, see attachment!

 

[Starfacet]

You are on it... I'm impressed!
It's a curse: I want colorless.
The CBI is a whole other conversation. It's not even about the money. My husband and I were led to believe that a 3x was a great stone.
My point here is that Excellent in GIAs world seems to mean something other than my definition and I know I'm not the only one. It's nice to get the support.
I did look at photos this evening of my previous stone and I've definitely made an upgrade in quality so that is something to be happy about!

I'm not stalking you! Just trying to get your whole story! I get your frustration with GIA, but what is to be done about that at this point? Your current diamond is better cut than 99.9% of diamonds out there.

 

[headlight]

I'm not stalking you! Just trying to get your whole story! I get your frustration with GIA, but what is to be done about that at this point? Your current diamond is better cut than 99.9% of diamonds out there.

I did not think you were stalking lol!
Yes, it’s a good question (what is to be done at this point)!
As for the 99.9%... wow, had no idea!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Now let’s bring back in their questionable parameters... and think about all the reports that come across our computer screens that look horrible by the #s, and then by the HCAs, and then by the images... yet someone at GIA still gave them top scores based on what they SAW???
I would expect my lack of understanding and inexperience to make a poor choice, but what’s their excuse???

The graders are just following GIA's Ex cut grade specs. I'm pretty sure all super ideal cut stones will fall into GIA's Ex cut grade box, but not all GIA's Ex cut will fall into AGS 0 cut box.

 

[MissGotRocks]

GIA grades many more stones than does AGS and they have name recognition hands down all over the globe. I understand your angst about their cut grading but I am guessing their parameters are so large so that many, many more stones get the triple X rating. That parlays into money for all the vendors selling these stones. When it seems dirty or crooked, follow the money trail!

 

[sledge]

I know you don't want to focus on broad parameters but that is exactly the problem, at least IMO. This is an article by GIA that you may find useful.

https://4cs.gia.edu/en-us/blog/gia-diamond-cut-grade-six-things-to-know

In particular, there research concludes that certain proportions produce "desired" results. This is based on both analytical and human research according to them. Also, they aren't as direct in their writing, but essentially they are saying there are different personalities of diamonds within the excellence rating system -- hence the broad spectrum.

GIA’s research included the use of advanced computer modeling to analyze tens of thousands of possible proportion combinations. GIA then validated its research with human subjects, conducting more than 70,000 observations on actual diamonds, to determine which diamonds people found appealing and why.

The result was the GIA Cut Grading System, which evaluates the cut quality of a round brilliant diamond along a five-point scale ranging from Excellent to Poor.

A diamond’s proportions can help predict how well a diamond will deliver brightness, fire and scintillation. However, an important outcome of GIA’s cut research was the finding that there is no single set of proportions that defines a well-cut round brilliant diamond. In fact, diamonds with different proportions can receive the same cut grade. The diamonds may look and perform differently but they will still have a similar impact on the observer. So, as a diamond shopper, you need to look beyond the measurements on a grading report. Be sure to view a diamond in person to see if it’s the right choice for you.

In addition to have a broad perception of "excellent", there are rounding & averaging issues as well. With round diamonds you have 8 actual crown and 8 actual pavilion values. Yet on a GIA report this is condensed to a single numeric output. This is done by averaging the values and then rounding them to the nearest 0.5 degree for crown, or 0.2 degrees for pavilion. This process of rounding & averaging by itself can cause a GIA graded stone to slip from excellent to very good.

https://www.gia.edu/doc/booklet_cut_estimation_tables_lowres.pdf

For our example stone, the rounded pavilion angle is 41.2°. If 41.2° is derived from an unrounded value of 41.26°, it is within measuring tolerance of a value like 41.31°. However 41.31° would round to 41.4° and be reported as such. As shown on the table, a 36.5° crown angle and 41.4° pavilion angle yields an estimated cut grade of Very Good. Although the estimated grade for this combination of crown angle, pavilion angle, and table size may seem to be Excellent, differences in measurements can push a grade over rounding borders and consequently over cut grade borders.

Using the Facetware software allows us to anticipate how a diamond will get graded based on all these proportions. It then takes some of the human factor out of saying "is it pretty" or not, and makes it more scientific. Also, knowing how the various parameters affects the grading system, then suppliers can cut stones within a reasonable degree of certainty how the stone will get graded (the caveat being the precision of the cut and how the rounding/averaging of the ACTUAL values plays out).

Like most things in life, knowledge is power and in the right hands this is very good info as it can help improve cut accuracy and ensure good diamonds are produced and available. However, it also means there is a way to exploit the data to get an excellent rating while keeping the diamond fat; therefore, maximizing diamond rough so there is as close to zero waste as possible, increasing larger diamonds (as they are more valuable), increasing overall carat weights in general and sometimes pushing into magic carat weight territory as well -- all for the sake of maximizing sales price & profits.