When GIA does not state the finish of the girdle...

[Swirl68]

When GIA does not state the finish of the girdle what are we to assume about the finish?

I didn’t want to hijack another poster’s thread, so thought maybe it would be best to start my own for this question.

I was reading the following post that included a picture of a GIA certificate.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...on-the-dimensions-of-this-round-stone.250043/

I usually don’t pay much attention to the finish of a girdle as it almost always says “faceted”. But this particular certificate had no description of its finish. The OP was advised by another poster that this girdle was unfinished. Is that the same as “bruted”? A quick Google search led me to the basic three girdle types (faceted, polished, and bruted) but GIA says they will note the type on the certificate. Why would there be no note and what are we to assume about its finish then? This is all so interesting, as I had not paid a lick of attention to this before.

 

[yssie]

One of the most interesting questions RT has seen in several weeks Thank you for sharing your attention to detail!

Are GIA and AGS' three girdle conditions "bruted", "polished", and "faceted", or do they consider in-betweens? Documentation explicitly explains that girdle size is evaluated in the same ways regardless of finish.
Are all stones with rounded outlines (rounds, ovals, hearts, pears, cushions) denoted the same way? Emeralds, for example, don't have girdle condition noted on the report.
Are certain girdle treatments preferred in different shapes?

I searched all the public documentation I could think of and couldn't find straight answers - waffling and sidestepping aplenty, though - so I wrote in to GIA (and requested reference documentation). I'd also be curious what AGSL does.

@John Pollard @Wink @Texas Leaguer @Diamond_Hawk @diagem @Rockdiamond @Rhino @Victor Canera @Karl_K @Paul-Antwerp

 

[John P]

I’ve seen this before. Most girdles these days are decisively “faceted.” But the subject diamond may have been an older stone, resubmitted for a new report, that has a fine-grained finish. It’s quite different than the (very rare) bruted girdle. But not clearly faceted. The graders may have been young talent who aren’t familiar with fine-finish, or they were indecisive and the detail was overlooked.

More info about finely-finished girdles from this handsome young guy in an old thread here.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/girdles.66614/#post-1021917

 

[Swirl68]

I’ve seen this before. Most girdles these days are decisively “faceted.” But the subject diamond may have been an older stone, resubmitted for a new report, that has a fine-grained finish. It’s quite different than the (very rare) bruted girdle. But not clearly faceted. The graders may have been young talent who aren’t familiar with fine-finish, or they were indecisive and the detail was overlooked.

More info about finely-finished girdles from this handsome young guy in an old thread here.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/girdles.66614/#post-1021917

Interesting! Thanks so much!

 

[yssie]

I’ve seen this before. Most girdles these days are decisively “faceted.” But the subject diamond may have been an older stone, resubmitted for a new report, that has a fine-grained finish. It’s quite different than the (very rare) bruted girdle. But not clearly faceted. The graders may have been young talent who aren’t familiar with fine-finish, or they were indecisive and the detail was overlooked.

More info about finely-finished girdles from this handsome young guy in an old thread here.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/girdles.66614/#post-1021917

So if GIA does not note “faceted” for a stone with curved sides (round/oval/pear/marquise) then the girdle could be anything other than “faceted”?

Specifically, presence of notation is at GIA discretion, and lack of girdle condition notation is not an error?

This does not agree with my understanding from GIA documentation.

 

[John P]

Specifically, presence of notation is at GIA discretion, and lack of girdle condition notation is not an error? This does not agree with my understanding from GIA documentation.

Nor mine. At minimum it needs explanation. At maximum it was an oversight.

From my prior post: The graders may have been young talent who aren’t familiar with fine-finish, or they were indecisive and the detail was overlooked.

The simplest explanation is that a box didn't get ticked and no-one caught it. A more elaborate explanation is that GIA amended their documentation practices. Either way, one would need to examine the diamond in person and/or contact GIA to tease out what happened here.

 

[Karl_K]

A more elaborate explanation is that GIA amended their documentation practices.

That would not surprise me.
It would not be the first nor the last time that GIA does not do what they say they do with undocumented changes in procedure.