Gem grading, why can''t we come up with a system?

[Sagebrush]

"Honestly, I just don''t believe that the industry can''t come up with (and agree to use) a good, easy to understand grading chart. Artistry aside, I just can''t believe it''s that hard to do or that the equipment doesn''t exist. For crying out loud, we put a man on the moon.."

This question above was raised by "Politely" in a thread about GRS grading terminology. I answered it, or rather dismissed it adequately I thought but the whole question remained niggling in my mind. Politely''s question is an honest one and expresses the frustration of many casual gem buyers who just want a good rock and not a lot of gobbledygook.

So I attempted in the early morning hours to devise a gradng system for blue sapphire. I visualized in my mind the best sapphires I have ever seen and tried to develop a hierarchy to serve as a basis for a system. Well the best sapphires I have ever seen, the quote in all AnA''s posts by Soren Melikin that experts are the sum total of what they have seen kept playing in the back of my mind like an old favorite song.

Simple system with a 1-10 scale. Well since I haven''t seen all sapphires and given that somewhere there is always one better I left #1 blank. Now the best, absolute best (most beautiful) sapphire I have ever seen unfortunatly there were two, one was a Kashmir sapphire, that is it looked like a Kashmir sapphire. Problem is, it came from Sri Lanka! Ok, so what, let that one be #2. The other best stone I have ever seen was a Burma sapphire. The Kashmir colored Sri Lankan stone was a pure powdery blue, the Burma stone had the classic "peacock" purplish blue. They were two different hues (pure blue vs purplish blue) so which is really #2 and which #3?

Next problem: There are really two schools of sapphire aficianados (jump in here any time Dick Hughes) the lighter-tone-brighter and the darker-tone-richer. Now those of you who have read my book would say that I am a member of the darker-richer school. Blue reaches its optimum saturation at 80% tone, therefore, darker sapphires are better. But wait, the absolute best sapphire (Kashmir/Sri Lankan) I have ever seen was more like 75% tone but wonderful saturation.

Maybe my dilema can be solved with a slightly more complex hierarchy? Instead of 1-10 how about A, AA, AAA, AAAA. Well, due to my limited experience and the possibiliy, always present, of a better stone, nothing would be graded AAA. The Kashmir/Sri Lankan stone could be A with a B for number 2, so AB or maybe AAB. Since you can''t have two very different stones with the same grade, the Burma stone could be maybe ABB. Problem now is that the system is becoming rather complex. From a simple 1-10 we now have a triple category system so I supppose I will have to write a fairly long explantion of what the three categories mean after all whats the difference between an ABA and an ACB or a BBA? And, I have yet to consider the other C''s namely Clarity and crystal I suppose I will have to add a couple of extra categories. So maybe I need a five category system like AAAA, ABAAB, what do you think?

Think I''ll have a cup of coffee and give this a bit more thought.

 

[politely]

Why not just say they''re both in the 2nd group? In your 1-10 scale, they''d both be "2", in the AAA scale, they''d both be "AA". People can have a color preference, and the colors may vary, but you can almost ignore the specifics. From what I see, it''s already being done on a practical basis, ie, price per carat. In my admittedly limited experience, different colored stones can have the same price per carat. Why not have two very different stones in the same category?

-P

 

[Sagebrush]

All,

Just got a private message from one of this forum's most distinguised members suggesting that I'm just the guy to come up with a comprehenisve grading system for colored gemstones. Thanks a lot!

The post contained some thoughtful suggestions and I am not sure why the member did not just post it to the thread (hint).He further suggests that I should follow the method I discuss in my book. Well, ok but thats what the book does it lays out the criteria necessary to grade a gemstone. What the book doesn't do is reduce the whole process to an easily digestable series of letters and numbers. Rather it attempts to arm the aficanado with the critical tools necessary to make an informed reasoned judgement.

I agree with the member that it is possible to create such a system but such a system requires standardization. You have four elements in the grading equasion; the gem, the light, the observer and the referent. Ya gotta have a series of standard samples to use if the grading is going to be consistent.

There have been several attempts made already to create a system of samples the best of which, was COLORSCAN, a system developed by AGL's Cap Beesley. COLORSCAN had a couple of problems. It relied on quilted colored reflecting foils. These worked fine except that the system was static unless updated. For example, grading ruby worked quite well on Thai and Mogok stones until the new Burma production from Mong Hsu heated stones hit the market. The best of Mong Hsu are of a different hue making the ruby grading set obsolete. Yes, upgrading was possible but Beesley found quality control a real problem and he got tired of personally selecting each sheet of foil and that process, in itself, leads to inconsistencies.

Another problem, Beesley forgot about the 4th C Crystal (water or diaphanity if you prefer). Despite the fact that most of the professionals who reviewed Secrets didn't get it, transparency, that is transparency of the body of the gem is a big part of the gem's beauty and price. With COLORSCAN a murky heated Ceylon sapphire of the same hue/saturation/tone would get the same grade as a diaphanous Burma unheated gem.

I mentioned the referent. That has a quantative and a qualitative componant. Who or what determines the highest quality say, in ruby, what I call the paradigm? In COLORSCAN the paradigms were Beesley's! Not criticizing, somebody has to make the decision if you are going to have a grading system. Beesley defined the top color in ruby as being an orangy red (oR), that is a 85% red with 15% orange. Traditionally pigeon blood has been defined as a slightly purplish or blue-ish red (red & purple mix to blue). But, if you accepted COLORSCAN the whole system was ordered on the assumption. For many reasons both aesthetic and scientific I disagree with Beesley and so do many others but, once you defined your paradigms everything else follows from them. The more rigid the paradigms the more inflexible the system.

So these are some of the problems as I see them. Can a system be created that overcomes them and makes it possible to create a grading system that could be used on lab grading reports so our friend Politely can get about the business of buying a rock? I believe so. There is a new one on the market invented by sic Smerdevich (my apoligies for butchering his name), introduced by Stuller and adapted by GIA. I don't like it. The system relies upon colors viewed on a computer monitor and to me its grading by cartoon.

So if anyone out there has some capital and wants to initiate a project to develop a grading system for colored gemstones I have a few ideas. If you've got the money, I've got the time. But, be careful what you wish for, standardization brings along with it, its own set of problems.

 

[valeria101]

Not sure what to say, but the topic is way tempting for someone already fascinated by mathematical modeling off all things human.

Of course, I like the surprise and poetry of it all - it just so happens that numbers are just as appealing.

Some random thoughts I''d try to keep in mind. For example, if this grading needs to be used for pricing rather than conveying the specific looks of sapphire or alternative tastes than it should try to model market prefferences. And this exercise usually limts the number of criteria and their complexity (=interdependence) severely. Some requirement for time consístency would just make parcimony more natural... I would expect. Since it is hard to keep things general enough to allow reading into the implicit historic consensus (taking this as some form of revealed prefference structure, nothing more diplomatic than that), it may well be that technical parameters are suitable: so some color theory would come into play, perhaps. If so, than the exercise is reduced at assigning levels of significance, rules of correspondence and value to some descriptiors of visual impression (color, transparence and such). Whether these can possibly be measured for communciation purposes, is yet another thing.

Now, there is one thing about the diamond grading scale that makes me wonder ''what were they thinking'' ? That one describes grades as intervals of values over some metrics rather than points of refference. Of course, using a color grading set one does use such points of refference anyway to assign a ''confidence interval'' of subjective observations. But then, the concept of refference point dissapears from view in favor of the boundaries between grades, even though those now depend on the grader''s subjective discretion. The week point of this is that the boundaries created between grades become points of dispute and an argument for useless fragmentation and technical precission starts to sound appealing well beyond the needs of direct observation. Once the boundaries get defined beyond observable precission the system fails (IMO) its declared informative purpose. Perhaps this is meant to be so, perhaps not. In my opinin, keeping up refference points and leaving the observer to establish his own tollerance around them would make such grading systems more suitable for accomodating a diverse range of items, without the temptation to create an endless variety of grades.

I suspect that the grading exercise simply cannot become a transparent pricing instrument because the stuff under consideration is already valued by rarity (say, via some discriminating monopolist model with matching). But it could be constructed to emphasize a necesarily incomplete list of valuation factors (the fewer the better) for the sake of transparency, while still allowing the traditional ''matching process'' to take place.

I am not sure if I wish this tread to become a long one. It would be fun, but... it is not very pleasant to imagine meeting the perfect sapphire in a database

 

[bar01]

Yes there is the GIA system, then Cap's AGL system.

But to my knowledge there have been other systems that experts have toiled on - with out successful industry acceptance as "the standard"

- How about the World of Color- Munsel based system

by Tom Tashey?

- Or the extensive GemDialogue system by Howard Rubin ?

I think we are putting the cart before the horse. First we need an industry accepted method of classifications/grading ( color, tone, hue, saturation, clarity, cut, crystal?).

Then perhaps the industry could decide if they could accept an overall uniform rank grade (1-10, A-AAA, or whatever). However, I imagine once you have the classifications/grades accepted - the market will flow and assign some sort of rank via prices.

And what about treatment? How will that affect grading or ranking - does the presence of natural silk (or whatever natural internal structures) create a more pleasant appearance? If all things be equal (color, hue, tone, saturation, crystal, etc) will an untreated stone have a higher over all rank than a treated one?

Look at diamonds - the industry has accepted color and clarity - but ranking the cut has been a huge debate. And how to give a diamond an overall total grade/rank based on all these factors (color, clarity, cut)? Which combinations are better?

As Mr. Hughes has said in his book - the high priests of the industry will fight any attempts to standardize color stone gradings - they have refuse to endorse any systems mentioned. Why, because then color stones would be come like diamonds. Of course now that Mr. Hughes is with AGTA he may be able to do something about this.....

Even after all the research and work on grading diamonds (particularly cut debates) - how often do we consumers hear from diamond sellers "forget all the grading/cut stuff" "which diamond speaks to you? and are you willing to pay what I am asking for it?".

As a consumer all this is so frustrating - I say we round up all the “Richards” of the colored stone world (Wise, Hughes, Orbach, Sherwood, and Drucker). Lock them in a room with 20 cases of Mountain Dew, 100 White Castle Hamburgers, and don’t let them out till they slide a grand unified theory of color stone grading/ranking under the door!

 

[katbadness]

I second Bertrand''s sentiment!

And you know, I have never realized that how many "Richards" we have in this colored gem arena/forum. Surely if we lock them up in a room, they''ll come up with a unified theory for color grading!!

 

[pricescope]

Add Richard M. and cut on drinks and food.

 

[Sagebrush]

A very amusing set of posts!

I think that rivalry between the various gemological potentates is more the problem. How do we get AGTA, AGA, IGI, GEM-A, AGL to agree?

The munsell system is based on opaque paint chips and is, by definition, inadequate. Opaque media canno''t reproduce the saturation possible in transparent media. Just look at some of the calls GIA-GTL makes on fancy color diamonds. (they use munsell where they have no grading stone)

Gem dialogue uses transparent plastic and it is difficult to compare transmitted and refracted light.

In diamonds you have really only to tonal variations of a single hue, normally yellow. In colored gems you must deal with hue/saturation/tone,, primary, secondary and sometimes tertiary, the effect of dichroism, bleeding color in various light sources (multi-color effect) and so on. Then various leveels of transparancey, clarity, eye-clean, loupe clean.

I suggest we do like the old Republican Romans, when faced with a crisis they appointed a dictator for a fixed amount of time, normally six months I believe. In all modisty, I believe that I am the best candidate to be gem-dictator, at a suitable salary plus benefits, my own Gulf Stream, perhaps a yacht... Hell, I guess as dictator I could name my own!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 8/17/2005 5:13:43 PM
Author: Richard W. Wise

I suggest we do like the old Republican Romans, when faced with a crisis they appointed a dictator ...

How come there could be a ''dictator'' for diamonds and none for cored stuff ? Too colorful?

 

[Richard M.]

First a question. The term “color grading” seems to be used interchangeably with “color standardization” in this thread. Which one is really meant?

“Color standardization” suggests to me a universal means of communicating color accurately from seller to buyer and relating it to current market value. That is something devoutly to be wished!

But “color grading” implies an imposed esthetic judgment that one color is somehow “superior” to another. I agree with Richard Hughes''s comment on another thread that markets do a very efficient job of setting monetary values on discrete colors at any given moment. In most cases I’d probably agree with the market. But all esthetic judgments are subjective, personal and as complex as the human psyche.

I don’t mind if I’m told my personal color choice might not conform to popular fashion or market taste. I don’t especially mind but might disagree if told that in another’s opinion a different hue might be “better.” But anyone who presumes to flatly tell me my color choice is somehow not “right” or the “best” esthetically is out of line. That’s a non-debatable decision involving visceral feelings and senses, not just intellect. In fact I have no problem equally enjoying several hues, saturations, tones, transparencies, etc. of the same color. I don’t give a damn if someone else disagrees or calls me a Philistine. I like a whole range of colors in spinel, ruby, emerald, sapphire and other gems. I don’t have to justify my personal preferences to anyone.

Think of how contemporary art critics savaged Van Gogh’s use of heavy palette-knife textures and bold out-of-fashion colors in “Sunflowers,” “Harvest” and “Wheat Field with Crows,” etc. The unbelievably beautiful black opals from Australia, today among the world’s most desired gems, were a complete flop when introduced to the London gem market in the 1890s. They were too “brash.” Only when Queen Victoria began wearing them did they become “fashionable.” As late as 1876 people in India were told: “Like men, diamonds are divided into Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas, and Sudras.” The divisions into caste were made on the basis of color – an exercise that reminds me a lot of any colored gem “grading” scheme. Price ranges certainly, but castes never.

I have no doubt many gem consumers yearn for the “security” of a colored stone standardization system because they lack confidence in their own color preferences or fear straying from fashion/market opinion. With the historical connection of gems to high status and elitism, beautiful stones almost always bring to mind monetary value and I see no problem if such a system can be devised. But a gemstone esthetic exists apart from, and sometimes in opposition to, values conferred by the marketplace. Determining what that esthetic is comes down to individual choice. In my opinion it would be a terrible thing if monetary value or digitized numerical mumbo-jumbo are ever allowed to intimidate freedom of color choice. I agree with Ana’s statement: “it is not very pleasant to imagine meeting the perfect sapphire in a database.”

Maybe as Richard Wise suggests a “Color Dictator” or “Commissar” may be someday appointed, along with a “Praetorian Guard” to enforce esthetic dictates from on high. When and if that happens (I don’t think it ever will) I’ll be busily plotting the dictator’s demise by any means necessary. Nothing personal, Richard W.
<B

Richard M.

 

[strmrdr]

Hey can I be the "Color Dictator" for a month?
Ill rate all my favorites as being the worst of the worst and buy them all up cheap!

 

[Sagebrush]

All,

There is no where near as much disagreement as Richard M''s post might suggest. As members of the same species, we do tend to perceive color the same way. As I said before, I have often shown clients groups of stones and had them pick their favorite and found that generally agree with me on which was the best gem. Its simply the prettiest pebble in the stream. The market is fairly straight forward otherwise organizations like The Guide would be unable to provide price grids. Uniform price structure suggests that there is general agreement and I suggest that those grids have not changed much in 3,000 years.

 

[rubydick]

I should throw a few logs on the fire. While I once did advocate a colored stone grading system, as I''ve grown older and theoretically wiser (no pun, Richard), I''ve pulled back from that furnace.

Richard M. makes some excellent points, particularly with regard to "color standardization" vs. "color grading."

I see many parallels between a choice of a colored gemstone and the choice of a fine work of art. Experts might be able to identify trends, but they cannot and should not dictate what you like as an individual.

An even greater problem with colored stone grading than that of personal preference is the notion that a colored stone has a "color." In reality, it is an extremely complex object which presents the viewer with a mosaic of colors and color sensations, each of which changes with the light source, angle of view and the viewer.

Just a few of the phenomena presented to the eye include:

- First surface reflection: How much light is reflected from the surface, a factor influenced by RI and quality of polish, as well as surface dirt and grease. This takes place at every surface in different amounts, both for light from above and that coming from below (as pointed out by my friend Marty Haske, the much-vaunted GIA diamond cut project was immediately invalidated because they failed to account for light entering the gem from below the girdle plane).

- Pleochroism: In many colored gemstones, light is split into two directions, each of which may be absorbed differently. This further scrambles the picture.

- Color zoning: Many colored gems possess colored zoning, yet another complication. From one direction they give one appearance, from another, the view is entirely different.

- Dispersion: While not a major factor in most colored gems, it is there and cannot be discounted.

- Cutting: Now factor in dozens of facets, each receiving different amounts of light from different directions and angles. Then you mount the gem and the entire equation needs to be completely recalculated.

This is one tough nut. Science is a wonderful thing. In theory, colored stone grading makes all kinds of sense, for precisely the reasons that Richard Wise and I have previously stated. But as any scientist will tell you, when it comes to theories, exceptions are deal breakers. And all it takes is one person to say: "I prefer the light blue one" to explode the theory that higher saturation is "better." More valuable, yes. Better? No, that''s an individual choice.

I don''t expect we will be seeing diamond-like systems anytime soon in the colored stone business. And I hope we don''t. I didn''t always think like this, but that''s the rock I sit on right now.

 

[elmo]

Date: 8/18/2005 9:58:47 PM
Author: Richard Hughes
While I once did advocate a colored stone grading system, as I've grown older and theoretically wiser (no pun, Richard), I've pulled back from that furnace.

I agree with what you all are saying. However, if any of you as trusted experts were evaluating a group of stones for me and told me which ones you personally liked the most by indicating your preference on a scale of say 1 to 5, and could even offer some additional descriptive details about what went into the call, I consider that useful information in making my decision.

Furthermore, let's say that I'm not the only person who trusts your expertise. If you were to write down your preference (add a date and a fancy looking seal?

), the document saying that that Richard Hughes or Richard Wise or some other very-well-known trusted expert thinks this is a kickass stone is also useful and adds value in the current marketplace I think.

You guys however and even my own experience have helped me see the limitations of standardizing and institutionalizing what is "good" and what is "great". It's not what I'm suggesting.

Something similar occurs with wine. Robert Parker is arguably the most influential wine critic on the planet. If I'm looking for a good bottle, I can usually buy by his recommendation. But if I'm looking for a particularly special bottle, special to me at least, I can almost ignore a Robert Parker review because his very top preferences often enough are simply not my own very top preferences, or even my cup of tea. I choose to pay more attention to a reviewer whose tastes for a particular region agree more closely with my own.

But is it still a valid exercise for experts (in either Burgundy or sapphire) to quantify and document their preferences and guidance? I believe so.

 

[Richard M.]

Date: 8/19/2005 10:28:04 AM
Author: elmo
Robert Parker is arguably the most influential wine critic on the planet. If I''m looking for a good bottle, I can usually buy by his recommendation. But if I''m looking for a particularly special bottle, special to me at least, I can almost ignore a Robert Parker review because his very top preferences often enough are simply not my own very top preferences, or even my cup of tea. I choose to pay more attention to a reviewer whose tastes for a particular region agree more closely with my own.

Bravo Elmo!!

That''s the exact analogy I had in mind when writing my comments. Expert, experienced opinions are invaluable whether about wine, gems or the theater. It''s up to the consumer to learn to use those seasoned insights in conjunction with his/her own tastes and preferences.

During a very interesting period of my life I wrote theater reviews for a fairly large newspaper, along with a weekly theater column since I had some background in that specialty. I quickly realized when reading my "fan" mail that my opinions didn''t always suit everyone! (If you substitute "hate" for "fan" you''ll have a sense of some of the letters I received).

Undeterred, I was quick to point out to my own critics that my reviews served a public function for everyone. Those who usually agreed with me could take my reviews at face value. Those who hated me could benefit by attending any show I panned or avoiding any I praised. Despite my attempts at sweet reason there were a few disgruntled readers who threatened to catch me in the parking lot and punch my lights out.

Such are the dangers of expressing strong opinions about debatable esthetic topics in public.

 

[Sagebrush]

Excellent opinions and much more interesting to me than the typical "show me your eye candy" posts.

Guess there is no quick and dirty AAA, BBB system (at least not yet) that will aleviate Politely's frustration. Don't you hate it when everyone agrees? Either our consumer is going to have to educate himself or rely on some Robert Parker type jeweler.

All in all I'd give this thread 94 points.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 8/18/2005 1:18:14 PM
Author: Richard W. Wise

Uniform price structure suggests that there is general agreement and I suggest that those grids have not changed much in 3,000 years.

... So, why not system then ?

Would it prevent the expression of personal preferences, as Richard Hughes' posts imply ?

The original question of the thread ('why not' rtaher than 'how' as it turned out later) sounds even more interesting in the end.

 

[maxspinel]

I always have difficulty understanding the A, AA, AAA, AAAA stones. Some of the finest rich dark sapphire that people claim 80% saturation, I found them too mundane and old-fashioned to my taste. I am not saying that it is not beautiful to the eyes of some others, just not to me. It seemed that a lot of the people that I know nowadays are drawn to lighter, more vibrant and exotic colors.

The diamond grading is standardized ; anyone can easily order a simialr stone using the internet. It seems like it is more risk free as long as someone ensures that the stone matches the certificate. It is simple, easy and well, boring.

. To the layman''s eyes, one white round brilliant cut diamonds looks the same from one to the another. But the colored stones have so much possibilities, each is special and personal.

I am hoping that the industry would never try to standardize/govern the value of colored stones, just a correct description of the facts/properties (cut, color, weight, luster, clarity) is sufficient. Once value is associated with a certification, data can be manipolated to market stones with plentiful supply and those promoted by a few manufacturers.

 

[Sagebrush]

Date: 8/19/2005 8:06:24 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 8/18/2005 1:18:14 PM

Author: Richard W. Wise


Uniform price structure suggests that there is general agreement and I suggest that those grids have not changed much in 3,000 years.

... So, why not system then ?

Would it prevent the expression of personal preferences, as Richard Hughes' posts imply ?


The original question of the thread ('why not' rtaher than 'how' as it turned out later) sounds even more interesting in the end.

The major premise of my book is that there are principles and standards and that an implicite grading system is already in place so an explicite system is more than possible, it is much more difficult than a diamond grading system but it can be done. It sounds to me like a majority of our forum would not like to see such a thing. AS I think Richard M observed it would lead to standardization.

People would still be free to like what they like but once you start with an officially standardized system of AA, AAA, etc most consumers would follow the system like a passel of lemmings so demand would soon dictate that the the price of gems would also follow the system.

The trade and the labs would also resist mightily.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 8/20/2005 8:21:49 AM
Author: Richard W. Wise

As I think Richard M observed it would lead to standardization. People would still be free to like what they like but most consumers would follow the system so supply and demand would dictate that the the price of gems would also follow the system.

I can''t say anything about resistance: that there isn''t a system yet proves how large it could be... perhaps.

That having one leads to standardization is an open question for me - one of those ''what if'' questions to go with afternoon tea

 

[rubydick]

Richard,

There is a battle in this world between "standardization" and protection of the wonderful diversity of our planet, both human and in nature.

From a pure business model, standardization obviously has many advantages. It enables corporate organisims to consume their smaller competitors and grow ever bigger. The WalMart model, if you will (in our business, it is the Home Shopping Network). Everything is subsumed upon the alter of growth, as if growth will somehow make all of us richer (trickle down, I believe, is how it described in Reaganomics).

When I was growing up, I remember my French teacher (an American) telling me how silly those French were to be resisting the Anglicization of their language by banning certain words. And I got right in line and agreed with her. The folly of youth.

But now, having spent close to half a century on this whirling orb (and having actually spent some time in France), I understand the French attitude. There is something to be said for cottege industries, there is something to be said for taking the time to do something well (as opposed to simply doing it fast, as in food and everything else). There is something to be said for taking your time in eating and in life. If efficiency was the metric of worth, my book Ruby & Sapphire never would have been published, nor do I believe, would yours.

I don''t believe in "trickle down." I don''t believe a multinational corporation cares about the individual.

Several years ago, my family was preparing to visit France. I regaled them with my experiences in that country, I explained that they would have their minds blown.

My daughter was somewhat skeptical (dunno where she got that from). But visit France we did. We landed in Paris in the afternoon, and following a shower, went out for dinner in a small restaurant on the West Bank. The name escapes me, but it doesn''t matter, because there are thousands just like it in that city.

At approximately 9 PM we entered the restaurant and descended into a tiny basement to enjoy our meal. My parents were even more skeptical (who eats at 9 PM?). My Parisian soul buddy, Olivier, was waiting.

The tables were tiny, the space was miniscule, but when the food came, what we each experienced was a vision of the end of a rainbow, a view of the kingdom. Each of us experienced the reasons why corporatism = McDonalds. Each dish was prepared with loving care, each dish was served as if the individual diner was the first and last ever partake in these taste sensations.

I''ll never forget what my daughter Billie said to me that night. She said: Daddy, when you were telling me about France and the wonderful food and the wonderful scenery and the wonderful appreciation of art, I thought you were exaggerating. Now I understand.

At that moment, I thought back to the lessons of my French teacher in school, specifically how she ridiculed Jean-Claude Killy''s criticism of "American culture."

Perhaps there was a bit of chauvanism (a French word) in Killy''s criticism. But perhaps also a bit of truth.

Do we really want a WalMart world? Do we really want a planet where the bottom line becomes the baseline of good taste?

All I can say about colored stone grading is that, yes, it is a nice idea. But perhaps we should just all pull a Nancy Reagan and, for the sake of our ourselves and our children and the planet, just say "no."

 

[Sagebrush]

Dick,

Absolutely right! I couldn''t agree more. Originally I had a New York agent. He sent out lots of manuscripts. I remember particularly one rejection. They loved the book but were confused. I didn''t seem to fit a niche. Well, I said it doesn''t fit a niche because no one has written a book like it before. Oh, they said and sent a rejection letter.

Seems like in publishing no one wants to be the first to publish a book. They are perfectly happy to publish the second or third book on a particular topic. Now, it seems to me that if I were in their shoes, it would be the first book on a subject that I would want to publish, I mean if you have the only one but no they want to play follow the leader so long as someone else steps up to be leader.

Immagine if Columbus, Magellan or Tavernier waited for someone else to discover the world, we would still be waiting.

 

[politely]

I think the idea of a uniform grading system has been conflated with the standardization of stones. I think there are legitimate concerns about the difficulty of creating a standard and then having the industry agree to it. However, because a standard exists does not mean that stones will become uniform or that the individual beauty / characteristics of a stone will become eclipsed, ignored or that you won''t be able to buy stones that are not within the ideal.

The fact that a system exists for grading diamond color(lessness) has not meant that non-D-colored stones no longer get sold. Does coming closer to the top of the scale reflect desireability and price? Yes, of course it does; however it does not prevent a consumer from buying non-D stones. On the other hand, the scale allow a consumer to know generally what they''re buying and it allows a consumer to "compare" a stone on its own without having to carry around many other reference stones.

I think it''s sad that where there is so much possibility for fraud (anyone remember the 20/20 report on diamonds?) that the industry should resist a uniform system. This inefficiency is passed directly to consumers. If a diamond dealer can pass off a H as a E with little difficulty, how much easier is it for a colored-stone dealer to pass off a mediocre stone as a superb stone? In the former case a consumer can demand proof, in the latter, there''s nothing, there''s not even any recourse for the consumer when they find out that most experts think it''s a mediocre stone, because there is no reference system - it was just the seller''s opinion.

Hopefully without sounding bitter, I think it''s easy for people in the industry to say "don''t judge a stone by a grading system because every stone has to be valued on its own merits"; however, the result of that view is that the ordinary consumer then bears the costs. In other words, what I''ve read here can be boiled down to "buyer beware". If people get scammed or cheated, well it''s their own fault for not having the expertise, time, skill, or connections to judge colored stones. Either pay a premium for reputation (say, Tiffany''s or Harry Winston), find a dealer that''ll let you get the stone appraised from an appraiser (one that you trust - but one who you can''t be sure has the same grading stick as the industry) before purchase, or take your chances.

-P

 

[politely]

As I''ve been thinking about this topic, it occurred to me that elmo''s wine analogy, when extended to colored stones, would prove an interesting contrast.

What if wine makers did not sell the way they do now but insisted that every bottle of wine was different and indeed, refused to label individual bottles except to identify the grape variety and region? What good would a reviewer''s review be if you couldn''t also get the same bottle to check the reviewer''s tastes? And how much of a connoisseur could you become if each bottle cost thousands of dollars and you only bought once a year (or once every 10 years)?

True, not a fair or particularly accurate comparison, but interesting

.
-P

 

[Edward Bristol]

We can’t come up with a simple grading system because people (not the gems) are so different.

All scientific analyzing will help as little as that international study about the beauty of humans:
We know now the worldwide appreciated perfect eye-size and the ideal length of legs, but did that help any body to marry?

For one buyer a perfect cut is all, for the next color is all, ones wants luster or only untreated stones and the next primary needs to save money. Though all these criteria are connected, people have personal set of values and thus judge differently.

Instead of complicated grading, we should tell people what are they trading off: e.g.
"If you primary want color, have a tight budget but don''t care so much about a perfect cut, then take this garnet." or
"This stone is far from perfect in color but you get a very good cut."

Then people can decide what they pay for.

The (on the web) so dominant "Super perfect beauty of perfect color" does help as little as a scientific grading that no one understands. On the other hand, a buyer will also have to accept when a seller is honest and says: "This stone has a window."

Nobody is perfect.

Edward Bristol
www.wildfishgems.com

 

[Sagebrush]

Politely,

I think if you carefully read all the replies to your question you will see that there are a great many factors involved in the grading of a colored gemstone. As Richard Liddicoat, one of the 20th century''s most estemed gemologists, once observed: "I can teach you to grade (colorless) diamonds in an afternoon, opals might take 20 years".

Diamond grading has been reduced to the ubiquitous four C''s but for the consumer, the GIA grading system gives a false sense of security. The consumer assumes that all four C''s are equal but they are not. In diamond there is CUT and then everything else. Diamonds have no color, they are all about sparkle and proper proportions CUT delivers the sparkle. Up until very recently GIA and other labs refused to grade cut - so the consumer was forced to use the two legged stool approach to grading. He knew the color, he knew the clarity but he did not know the quality of the CUT. Armed with three of the four C''s he was a chicken ready to be plucked. Why, because can be as much as a 70% spread in the price of a GVS1 that is perfectly cut and a GVS1 that is poorly cut. Go to three jewelers and press the issue and you will get the best deal alright, the poorest quality cut (the least sparkle) for your money.

Don''t push the wine analogy to far. Remember that Parker''s grading system is just that, Parker''s grading system. There are other experts and other opinions. In this case you either like Parker''s palate or you do not. With gems, everyone has a different eye. When people buy from me they buy my eye.

Now, as I have said all along a uniform grading system is possible but there are consequences and not everyone who is against such a system interested in screwing the consumer. All the grading parametersthat have been mentioned in this thread are part of the quality equation. The creation of any system means that these characteristics must be given relative weight and that will result in standardization. Once that is done the market will line up behind that system. It there were a uniform grading system in the fine arts, Picasso would have ended up a begger in the street.

Life is full of risks. I presume that the stone you are buying is for some lucky lady. Talk about "buyer beware". Uniform grading systems (for gemstones) should be the least of your concerns.

I wonder how many jewelers 20/20 had to see before the found what they were looking for?

 

[bar01]

In my way of thinking - nearly every colored gem has been grade and ranked - consumers just do not realize it.

Instead of some piece certificate from a lab with "AAA" or "GIA 8" it was given a rank of $$$$/ct by a network of experts - starting from the miner to the final seller. Now these experts may not be using a system such as GIA, AGL – more likely just their many years of experience and some instruments - but they did determine its rank -its grade - and overall value - in dollars.

Abstract ideas and personal preference for beauty are nice – but these are businessmen who ultimately must assign a value to what they sell. We can argue if a higher value is "better" or "more desirable" to any one individual.

Unfortunately, that’s really my issue. Not whether someone decides for me what is “better” – I can decide what I like – but what is a fair price for it? This web site is named Pricescope - not Beautyscope - and in order to scope price - you have to have a system by which price is established.

The market says a D, VVS-1 diamond is more expensive (better?), but like many people here on PS - I decided to focus on cut, and decided that a G, SI-1 was "better". However, knowing it’s grading G, SI-1, super ideal cut, helped me in making sure I was paying a fair price. I followed this same approach in getting GIA grades on my sapphire.

In my case as a consumer, I will require an independent GIA or AGL grading and appraisal report for any expensive colored stone I buy. This is not primarily for me to determine if it has some “market preferred” color - but to let me know what the “market preferred” price is.

You also need to consider insurance purposes. However flawed (according to the experts) GIA or AGL reports are –they will help in the case of loss. Simply saying “a nice blue” sapphire is not going to cut it for insurance replacement.

We as consumers have an ability to affect things in the industry. While I realize the limitations of the current GIA and AGL colored systems – I will use them, pay for them, request and recommend them for expensive colored stones – until a better system comes along. Perhaps if enough of us were doing this – demanding these “flawed grading systems” - the experts would try to come up with something better.

An analogy might be the way many of us were using HCA and AGA systems for diamonds –to the frustration of many industry experts - and now it appears that there are new cut grading systems coming out.

Just my thoughts….

 

[Richard M.]

Richard Wise, Politely and All:

Liddicoat (another Richard!) was an optimist. I’ve been trying to devise an opal valuation system for far more than 20 years but in the end there’s always a good bit of intuition involved.

I could not agree more with Richard Wise’s comments about diamond grading. Cut is the least understood and most important aspect of diamond beauty – and something GIA has sidestepped all these years. Nearly any gem cutter could have told them there’s no single “best solution” for a bright round brilliant in any material. While acknowledging “there are many combinations of proportions that yield equally bright round-brilliant-cut diamonds…” GIA’s new system ignores all other diamond shapes. As for color and clarity, the other two legs of the GIA “stool,” both are subjective and pure opinion – very well-informed opinion, granted, but opinion nonetheless.

A high-profile lawsuit making headlines today illustrates that point. Two large diamonds totaling around 140 carats, purchased by Saudi Arabians, have been returned to the American seller with claims of being “misrepresented” in their GIA grades. I won’t get into the specifics or merits of the suit but merely GIA’s defense.

GIA "vigorously denies the allegations." It has filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which argues that statements regarding the color and clarity grades are ''statements of opinion.''

Any consumer who relies on GIA paper should read the fine legal print on the back which has been underscored by GIA’s lawyers in this case. Calling the legal disclaimers “important limitations,” counsel says GIA “has made no representation or warranty regarding the Report…the results of any other examination performed on the diamond may differ…this report may not be referred to as a guarantee, valuation or an appraisal.” Those holes are big enough to drive a huge DeBeers’ mining truck through.

Potential problems with grading colored gems are many times greater.

 

[Sagebrush]

Richard,

Like to hear more about the Saudi Arabian law suit. Any articles on line?

I was told by one of the people involved in developing the GIA diamond grading system that the system was presumed to be plus or minus one full color/cut grade. That is, given the fact that the observer could not be standardized, the system was never meant to be perfect. GIA-GTL will use three graders on stones that the first two disagree on and make a call based on the majority opinion.

During the hard asset investment craze of the late 70''s, early 80''s really big money rested on the call between D and E. Stones were sometimes resubmitted and got a different grade resulting, in one case, in a lawsuit against the jeweler. A D downgraded to an E meant the loss of tens of thousands of dollars. Consumers put too much faith in these grades and expect that they are set in stone.

 

[politely]

I read the following caveat on a gem website that had some pricing guides: "The only true price is what a knowledgeable buyer and seller agree to as a transaction price." The problem, of course, is that in a retail transaction, the likelihood of that being true is very small.

I freely admit that grading is not a simple process, and I only wish the end result could be conveyed simply. I also freely admit that not everyone that''s against a system is "interested in screwing the customer"; however, I point out that the result of not having a system vastly increases the likelihood of that happpening. If a diamond purchaser is a "chicken ready to be plucked" with knowledge of 3 out of 4 characteristics that most affect pricing, how much more so is a colored stone purchaser who has no benchmarks? Given my experience with the Diamond District in NYC and in mall stores throughout the country, my guess is that 20/20 did not have to look very hard for their story.

I''d like remind our industry veterans how very difficult it is for a regular consumer to buy colored stones. There''s a lot at stake, both emotionally and dollar-wise. The "price" of getting scammed or ripped off is: (i) getting much less than what you bargained for, (ii) the nasty burning feeling in the pit of your stomach of how stupid you were for getting ripped off and (iii) the terrible feeling that you''ve somehow failed your loved one (regardless of whether they feel that way or not). Those feelings never go away. "Trust us", "use my eye" you say... well, sure, if there weren''t so much at stake and there weren''t so much evidence to the foolishness of doing so. As for getting educated, it just doesn''t translate into practice when you''re looking at real stones as opposed to pictures in a book or on a website. Without some kind of ruler to judge by, nothing seems to help other than comparing two actual stones, and finding a decent selection at one place is nigh impossible.

As for the GIA suit, I can''t say I''m surprised. These days, it seems like every successful business gets sued eventually. That''s an unfortunate consequence of modern life, especially in America, and it''s not fair. But it''s also not fair that the GIA and the industry want to have it both ways. Yes, make lots of money touting the GIA (and other labs) reports & grading, but then turn around and say that the report and the grading shouldn''t be relied upon and that no representations or warranties are being made? That''s a bunch of nonsense. It''d be more honest and better for the industry to say something like, "We understand that you may have a different opinion, but the report accurately reflects our opinion." However, at the end of the day, even with its imperfections, I''d take the GIA over a non-GIA world every time.

As difficult as it may be to produce a uniform grading system, such a system would go a long way toward leveling the playing field, increasing the overall comfort of buyers and smoothing the negotiating process for both buyers and sellers. True, it may mean lower margins (as stones become more fungible), but it may mean also mean more buyers. I note that Pricescope was built on a similar rationale, and is the reason we are all here. This is clearly one of the most amazing sites on the web for that reason. I''ve been lurking here since it started up and I only wish it had existed earlier when I bought my engagement ring, it would have spared me a lot of angst. Now, if only there were something similar for colored stones....

-P