What will the new GIA report look like?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Will table and depth % still be given?
Or will the report simply state the cut grade?

OR

Will they go down the AGS route of providing table, crown and pavilion data (averages)?

I think there is a chance they will only issue 2 comments on cut:

1. Cut grade
2. Finish

Finish would incorporate symmetry and polish.

However the pressure from trade traditionalists in the Diamondsman Diamonds by Lauren camp would put a lot of pressure to maintain depth and table %.

But from a retial sales point of view having just the cut grade in simple words excellent, VG, G, F, poor etc would make life easier for all.

Any opinions?

(BTW they have already used the term "finish" in a public forum - I doubt they will maintain symmetry and polish on the new certs)

 

[niceice]

Regardless of what the GIA decides to do, intelligent people will still want to know the actual measurements of a diamond before they buy it. It seems to us that the GIA has been trying to play catch up ever since they let go of Peter Yantzer and he was picked up by the AGS where his cut grade system fluorished... The GIA has lost an immense amount of business because of their failure to provide a cut grade, or at least the basic crown and pavilion angle measurments... Now they're going to try and catch up almost a decade later... We're glad to see them finally coming around

 

[strmrdr]

I hope they make it usefull and provide the numbers but they probably wont.
It will also likely favor the trade and the highest rating would not be considered a top of the line line cut diamond here.

Im willing to be convinced but im not holding my breath on them not selling out to the trade.

Also it is sad that likely top cut will grow to be considered like d/if and instead of improving cut it will just provide incentive to cut to just slightly above good for the average diamond.
Which if gia sells out will be exackly what the average is today.
That leaves the cut nuts paying an even bigger premium for what they want and makes it less available and everyone else buying crap.

 

[valeria101]

Garry, you were saying that the share of rounds cut close to ideal' proposrions has increased. If this is true to GIA too, they must realize that the demand for certifying 'ideals' will grow. How often do they change the content of their cert? So with a 'just cut grade' approach the GIA cert may end up associated with 'average quality' or sub-par merchandise. Also, it would leave less room for sellers to play with their own marketing of cut quality ranges. How desirable can this be to them

Also, even if GIA has the largest market share for these services, it cannot ignore competition. Just stating a 'name' for cut garde would probably not make the new GIA cert compare favorably with AGS's. EGL also states some numbers... And the market for information is not known for stability. This is just a hunch, but the 'others' do not appear just niche players, by now.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

----------------
On 3/26/2004 12:19:29 AM niceice wrote:

Regardless of what the GIA decides to do, intelligent people will still want to know the actual measurements of a diamond before they buy it. It seems to us that the GIA has been trying to play catch up ever since they let go of Peter Yantzer and he was picked up by the AGS where his cut grade system fluorished... The GIA has lost an immense amount of business because of their failure to provide a cut grade, or at least the basic crown and pavilion angle measurments... Now they're going to try and catch up almost a decade later... We're glad to see them finally coming around

----------------

R&T I think GIA are loosing most business to the independant labs who are having diamonds sold in mall stores etc.
AGS type independants and high end retailers sell fewer diamonds of higher value and they have the staff to explain the #'s and hard stuff. But the largest grading volume is the cheap end of town - and the staff have not got a clue for the most part.
And who buys more diamonds?
Intelligent people?
Or smart people?

Smart people like realestate agents have more money and like to show it than engineers and uni Prof's.

 

[valeria101]

Surely right about the profs.! One would better DIG for dimamonds in the University yard than look inside...

Given this market picture... why bother with a cut grade?
Oh well.

 

[DiamondExpert]

It would seem to me to be financial suicide for GIA to provide less info or cloak cut grades in obscure/meaningless names, which are not explicitly defined by parameters and their numbered ranges.

Now, they may not do this for all sizes (e.g., 0.5ct. and up), but if they turn to "softening" the amount or detail of the data on the certs, I think a portion of the trade will turn away from them and seek alternatives (e.g., Sarin/OGI data, other labs which will give more details)...the genie is out of the bottle and you can't put him back in now.

Just my opinion.

 

[strmrdr]

----------------
On 3/26/2004 3:08:48 PM DiamondExpert wrote:

It would seem to me to be financial suicide for GIA to provide less info or cloak cut grades in obscure/meaningless names, which are not explicitly defined by parameters and their numbered ranges.


Now, they may not do this for all sizes (e.g., 0.5ct. and up), but if they turn to 'softening' the amount or detail of the data on the certs, I think a portion of the trade will turn away from them and seek alternatives (e.g., Sarin/OGI data, other labs which will give more details)...the genie is out of the bottle and you can't put him back in now.


Just my opinion.

----------------

I hope you are right and im willing to be convinced but as a consumer who has studied the diamond industry a lot in the past few months I will be suprised if it doesnt come out favoring the trade over the consumers.
It will be telling on the future of the entire industry how it plays out.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The GIA like many not for profits sees itself as the protector of the public, yet its masters are the industry leaders. This is an inherent conflict for many organisations.

If you read the 'mission statemet' which is not with me at present - you will see that it is public focused.

But back to the reports.
GIA ssees itself as the market leader.
Everyone knows cut is too confusing.
I think Bill would want to make it simple. As Rapaport says: "A guy wants to buy a diamond ring for his girl so he can go and ......"
"He has romantic (lust?) intentions and the last thing he needs is some sales person trying to teach him about %'s and #'s"
That is not word for word - but the gist is there. And he is right. When you buy a mobile phone you want the benefits and the cost - not confusion - sometimes you will pay more to the person who gives you the simplest explanation of benefits and the clearest guide to costs.

Also what the trade wants may not be what the consumers should be given - that would mean that the trade should not drive this thing. Certainly when our group get to the point of providing cut services to (we hope) many of GIA's major cometitors, I will be arguing for the KISS principle
Keep
It
Simple
Stoopid

After all it would be great to know how many people come to this website and look around - decide 'Hell this is all too hard" and buy her a car or bottle of perfume (or nice nickers and bra = same result he ha).

 

[valeria101]

Actually

There already is a KISS aproack to cut stones' optics: the infamous briliance given as % for colored stones.

So... say a mix of that with some broad limits on cut (perhaps the good ol' depth and table , not anything else) comes to mind. [*theory below]

Would I like that? I guess so... The detailed truth would still be with the HCA system, the split of 'sparkle' in white light return, brilliance and fire, the notion of contrast, etc. would still be valid and 'burried' in that one %, I supose.

PS: (the theory) Would this work? Yes.Combining three uncorelated criteria in an index is already a can of analytical worms: two is too little (by some decision theory result).Four does not admit a graphical representation - not great. The briliance % would be correlated with a non-linear combination of the two others (table and pavilion %) so the index of the three would not be readily transformable in a prediction for each of the three measures = a hard to contest 'number'.

 

[robbe]

PS: (the theory) Would this work? Yes.Combining three uncorelated criteria in an index is already a can of analytical worms: two is too little (by some decision theory result).Four does not admit a graphical representation - not great. The briliance % would be correlated with a non-linear combination of the two others (table and pavilion %) so the index of the three would not be readily transformable in a prediction for each of the three measures = a hard to contest 'number'.


------------------------------------------------------


valeria101, have a glass of wine & relax...


regards, robbe

 

[oldminer]

A couple of errors are posted above.

1. Peter Yantzer did not create the AGS grading systme for cut. This was in existence, but for AGS members only, well before the AGS Lab was even thought of. The AGSL modified the system to be more, much more, commerically viable, but the system is not "his" system.

2. The GIA is non-profit, but the Gem Trade Lab, the GTL, is under the wing of the GIA and is FOR PROFIT. Make no mistake, they have done very, very well.

The GIA could surprise all of us and give full cut details and grading if they wanted to. I think they will opt for limited information and a grade. Their best clients prefer limited disclosure, or so it would seem.

The GIA does not grade the vast majority of diamonds which are graded. Those diamonds are not very good ones, but people want outside grading and the major chains are providing grading reports from less costly and less well known labs. Eventually much of these grades will be done in India and other low labor cost countries, so even appraisers are not exempt from outsourcing to reduce overhead.

It will be very interesting to watch all of this take place over the coming months. Nothing but time will tell the outcome.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You make a very good point Dave - about the exporting of graders jobs - a popular but somewhat silly political debate in USA at present.
I have seen a number of Indian graded IGI stones and been impressed.

And of course we should mention here that your lab AGA - was of course the first lab to introduce cut proportion based grading in USA (The world?).

Finally - it is worth noting that most diamonds that were graded were very high color / clarity. Now it is an expectation that K I2 comes certified.