adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
GIA EX: Let the buyer beware...
- Thread starter BrianTheCutter
- Start date
- Status
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Kenny, I can answer on Brian’s behalf.
Just because something goes wrong in a marriage it doesn’t mean the marriage ends. We are not in sync with what they believe here but we won’t slam the door. No, we do not support this system for rounds and that will influence some of our decisions, but GIA is in the business of more than rounds. Brian and others at WF have a long history with them. We will exercise options B and C and keep an open mind, but as consumer advocates we don’t support this system in its present form.
Here is some history: Many in our shoes are GGs. Bob, our senior gemologist, is a former GIA diamond grader and colored stone instructor. Brian used the GIA as he was designing. His own ‘ideal’ proportions were developed before AGS introduced a 0 grade in 1996. When ‘A Cut Above’ was launched Brian began using both labs. The AGS cut grade and detailed reports appealed to clients, and their document gained strength with us over the years. Brian shifted his entire ACA production to AGS seven years ago.
Some things transcend the ‘boycott’ concept. Brian Gavin, Paul Slegers, Richard VS and Maarten de Witte will not change their game plan. They are committed too passionately to their own art, and have ‘slipped the surly bonds of labs.’ Kenny, as an artist I am sure you can appreciate that. For example: Brian was cutting his particular proportions before AGS graded them ‘Ideal.’ His minor facets were tuned for visual balance before GIA included stars/lower halves on reports. His brillianteering and contrast brilliance approach were in place before ‘contrast’ and ‘pattern’ entered lab vocabularies in 05. His attention to symmetry, yaw, etc. is not even graded by labs. What I am saying is that these guys are stubborn!
This cut grade changes nothing in our approach.
What’s regrettable is there will be sellers who will change their concept of beauty to accommodate GIA paper. But beauty is a constant. The earth did not suddenly slip into some parallel universe where 41.6/35 is suddenly a great performer and premium painted/digged diamonds dropped in appeal.
This system should change nothing for top sellers who see beyond the paper. Our production has remained constant since the late 1990s. It will be interesting to see who straddles the fence and who jumps to the side of evolution.
Shay37
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 3,343
Okay, ya''ll feel free to correct me if I''m wrong, and I know I''m swimming with the big boys here. The GIA instituted a cut-grading system to more directly compete with AGS paper. While AGS was busy narrowing their parameters based on light performance, the GIA was rounding and widening the criteria for Excellent cut grade, which had already been rejected by the AGS as not the best performers.
It seems as if the AGS is saying that, "yes, there are beautiful diamonds outside of these cut specifics, but certain numbers are more conducive to that beauty." This is (in a round cut) quantifiable and repeatable within "X" set of parameters.
GIA seems to be saying, "Don''t worry, be happy. You now have a cut grade from us."
Just my .02.
shay
It seems as if the AGS is saying that, "yes, there are beautiful diamonds outside of these cut specifics, but certain numbers are more conducive to that beauty." This is (in a round cut) quantifiable and repeatable within "X" set of parameters.
GIA seems to be saying, "Don''t worry, be happy. You now have a cut grade from us."
Just my .02.
shay
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
I am not a tax attorney or an accountant. What I do know is that there are certain requirements to being a non profit and that not making a profit is not one of them. It only meants as I understand it that the profits must be plowed back into research, education or other purposes rather than being taken home as profits to the investors.
Many non-profits make HUGE "profits" with which to continue doing the research and developement that they are doing. One of the complaints against the GIA at this time is that they are getting huge donations from the companies whose stones they are grading. It can lead to the appearance of impropriety.
For example. I once had a stone and sold it as a VVS1, all without ever having seen the diamond as my client in Seattle was in a huge hurry to do an insurance replacement and one of my suppliers had a stone that filled the bill. (This was LONG prior to the Internet was even a gleam in Al Gores mind.) I had my supplier send the stone directly to my client, along with the diamond report in order to be there in time for the anniversary.
Several years later my original client had died and his widow called me to get a copy of the diamond report. I ended up going through years worth of books and receipts until I found who I had bought the diamond from as GIA will reissue the diamond report only if I could tell them who the original owner was. They reissued the diamond report as a VS1 and when I called to exclaim said, "clearly you should have known that the diamond report was a typo as the stone was clearly a VS1 not a VVS1". It was at the time the only diamond over half a carat I had ever sent without seeing and is in fact the reason that I just don''t do drop shipping. Needless to say my client''s widow was NOT amused. I called the supplier to see what he would do about it. He was stand up and replaced the diamond, BUT the first words out of his mouth were, "Why in the heck didn''t you call ME? They would NEVER have dared to do that to ME!
That may or may not be true, but if true, it certainly creates MORE than the appearance of impropriety. I personally prefer to believe that it is not, but the very fact that HE believed it to be true creates an extreme appearance of impropriety.
As for how they benefit, GIA gets most of its donations from the major diamond manufacturers and large vendors such as Zales etc. They have recently taken on the "don''t bite the hand that feeds you" stance that has some of us hopping crazy. We WANT to admire GIA, they gave us our education when we were whippersnappers and we don''t want them to let us down. We want the GIA of Shippley, Crowningshield, and Liddicoat back.
I guarantee you when Robert Shippley started the GIA in 1931 and the AGS in 1934 he could never have envisioned such sloppy work being put out under the name of GIA. There will soon be a day when enough of us have GIA excellent steep/deep stones in hand and time to take some ASET and Idealscope pictures. Then we will let YOU the consumer decide which one you want to spend your money on. Non profit or for profit is not the issue, sloppy inaccurate work and scientifically flawed research being presented as the real deal, that is the issue!
Wink
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Absolutely. Expect pictures soon. I do not currently have any of the new GIA excellent cut stones to take pictures of and do not wish to take pictures of the GIA stones I have that do not have pictures, especially since they probably will grade out AGS 0 or 1''s. As soon as I have a GIA Excellent Steep/deep to take a picture of I will, but I expect that Gary or John or Brian or Paul or someone located where they see more diamonds than I do here in Idaho will have already done so.
I could create simulated photos with my Diamcalc that I am beginning to know how to use, but it will not be as dramatic as seeing the real thing. This IS a BAD deal for the public, and chances are most of them will never know it and how much better their diamond could have looked with reasonable cutting.
Wink
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Not sure if I would say AGS was narrowing their parameters as much as redifining them. They did remove the steep/deeps because they could now prove that they did not return as much light to the eye. There research has indicated that optical symmetry does in fact improve the perception of brilliance, but they still will grant the coveted AGS 0 light return grade without it, provided that they have adequate contrast in a good enough distribution to look good, even though the research shows that there will be better dispersion if there is optical symmetry. (I think that may be a contribution to the research by Marty Haske.) Optical symmetry does matter and does make a better performing stone, but AGS also recognizes that there are stones without that symmetry that are also incredible.
Unfortunately, GIA does in fact seem to be saying "Don''t worry, be happy, we have taken care of it for you." I could not agree less, I just hope the market will not fall for it. I love John''s comment, I am not wanting to leave this marriage, now if we can just get the GIA to go to counseling with us...
Wink
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,871
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Welcome to the pond Shay. Watch out for fish eyes.
Yours is a solid 'elite-minded' consumer perspective, except that GIA and AGS studies diverged, which many feel is part of the problem. GIA’s WLR and DCLR studies were not really so far removed until GIA changed the obscuration model to suit trade-based observations.
From an elite-minded perspective yes, AGS has upgraded (light performance) and tightened their standards - while GIA has introduced a system with a much wider top mark than AGS would ever allow.
For a larger perspective I'll play devil's advocate: There are buyers who will wind up with GIA EX diamonds which you or I would consider steep/deep (not quite enough spread for weight/not quite the performance). But in mainstream 'life' they are shiny diamonds and the buyers who will receive them as objects of love will love them and never consider them second, third or fourth best (as the AGS/you/I would). Same as it ever was.
The growing difference is awareness and education.
If ‘Joe’ brings a Sarin report to PS with 57 63 41.6 35 he will get a dozen ‘pass’ or ‘run’ replies. Now is that diamond unbearably ugly? No. Are better configurations available? Yes. Joe didn’t know that before, but now he does… Awareness. Now he asks questions, learns and find the best value and ‘C’ balance for his money... Education.
However, if Joe isn’t on the internet he may bring 2 of his beer buddies to the store and show them the same 57 63 41.6 35 under blazing lights. Ooh. Shiny. They give it the thumbs up, clap him on the back and start planning the bachelor party.
Sale.
Don’t worry, it’s fine. When Joe drops to a knee and pops the q, will she love it? Yes. I have yet to hear of a girl rejecting a proposal because the pavilion angle was > 40.9.
That is how it’s been done for years. The buyer sees the shiny diamond in the store, haggles, and gets approval from friends/family BEFORE worrying about documentation. The internet has created a complete reversal: Shoppers here see measurements, mag photos, documentation, proof of performance and get the thumbs-up or down from a quorum of educated peers BEFORE they ever even see the actual diamond. It’s crazy like a fox.
GIA’s new grade won’t impede ‘how it’s done’ in most common situations. It will just be another ‘EX’ or ‘VG’ on the paper. Make no mistake, blazing lights & beer buddies will still close a lot of sales.
We’re just bummed because we feel GIA had a chance to help improve our craft and didn’t take advantage of it.
The fact is that there ARE consumers who want distinctions like the AGS is making…and the number of them is growing as information about cut spreads. GIA has not done anything terminal – it’s the same as it ever was ‘out there.’ ...But the exclusivity and reputability of AGS reports just shot up.
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
flopkins
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2004
- Messages
- 2,026
Shay37
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2004
- Messages
- 3,343
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,733
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,871
Thank you all for some very interesting postings. I''m posting some comments, not to change people''s view but simply to offer another perspective, perhaps a greater scope of thinking.
Several things regarding AGS and GIA. I''m a firm believer in market share. I''ve seen it happen all too often before (but it''s not written in stone to be a 100% lock) where a better product loses to a better marketed product. Frankly, I feel my cut grading analysis falls into this catagory but I digress.
Some examples of this are Beta VS VHS. Mac VS PC. Polygon VS JCK (and a small host of others). All examples of where the lesser "quality" product had prevailed because of market share. GIA has market share. EGL has market share. If AGS hadn''t had HOF as a major customer, they''d be smaller than they are. I feel the only way GIA will lose market share is with a total meltdown of sorts, which I''m not saying isn''t a possibility.
comment #2. I''m a firm believer also in cut anaylysis and performance anaylysis. They are separate. They are both important. The way a diamond looks (also read "appears") is both dependant on the cutter''s workmanship and independant of a cutter''s workmanship. Stop calling performance grades, cut grades. Listen to your customers. When a person says "how is this diamond cut", 9 of 10 times they mean, "how well did the cutter do his job?". Most people in and out of the trade, can look at a diamond/s and offer up an opinion of which one "looks" better. To this end, there is no absolute and quite frankly, I feel that telling people which diamond is the most brilliant can bring about a bigger negative reaction from the public than the "investment craze" of the early 80''s. "Most Brilliant" and "Best Performance" are synonomous with "Holy Grail" and certainly are not a standard. Buyers and Sellers both want a standard. I don''t know Brian Gavin, but I trained with Maarten DeWitte and I think that if the three of us sat down and looked at stones to see how good the cutter was, it would be with a loupe and not at arm''s length. We would look at facets and not at the effect of facets.
comment #3. Here on PS we are in an sort of an ivory tower like that of which we criticize GIA. While there is a very small minority of people who want MORE information most people don''t. When you go to a doctor all you want to know is what is wrong and how will you get better. You don''t need to know what''s in the medicine and how it will affect various systems in your body. When it comes to cut. Two words. Simple and Effective. This was the #1 thing I came away with from the Vegas Show after GIA and AGS gave their presentations. I heard one jeweler tell his wife as he was exiting one of the talks.."Well Mildred....did you understand one GD thing he said?". In following a well know wholesaler of "ideal cut" goods, I heard him say.."how the hell am I supposed to explain this to my customers?".
Let me know when the next cut conclave is, I''ll definately be at this one.
Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter
Several things regarding AGS and GIA. I''m a firm believer in market share. I''ve seen it happen all too often before (but it''s not written in stone to be a 100% lock) where a better product loses to a better marketed product. Frankly, I feel my cut grading analysis falls into this catagory but I digress.
Some examples of this are Beta VS VHS. Mac VS PC. Polygon VS JCK (and a small host of others). All examples of where the lesser "quality" product had prevailed because of market share. GIA has market share. EGL has market share. If AGS hadn''t had HOF as a major customer, they''d be smaller than they are. I feel the only way GIA will lose market share is with a total meltdown of sorts, which I''m not saying isn''t a possibility.
comment #2. I''m a firm believer also in cut anaylysis and performance anaylysis. They are separate. They are both important. The way a diamond looks (also read "appears") is both dependant on the cutter''s workmanship and independant of a cutter''s workmanship. Stop calling performance grades, cut grades. Listen to your customers. When a person says "how is this diamond cut", 9 of 10 times they mean, "how well did the cutter do his job?". Most people in and out of the trade, can look at a diamond/s and offer up an opinion of which one "looks" better. To this end, there is no absolute and quite frankly, I feel that telling people which diamond is the most brilliant can bring about a bigger negative reaction from the public than the "investment craze" of the early 80''s. "Most Brilliant" and "Best Performance" are synonomous with "Holy Grail" and certainly are not a standard. Buyers and Sellers both want a standard. I don''t know Brian Gavin, but I trained with Maarten DeWitte and I think that if the three of us sat down and looked at stones to see how good the cutter was, it would be with a loupe and not at arm''s length. We would look at facets and not at the effect of facets.
comment #3. Here on PS we are in an sort of an ivory tower like that of which we criticize GIA. While there is a very small minority of people who want MORE information most people don''t. When you go to a doctor all you want to know is what is wrong and how will you get better. You don''t need to know what''s in the medicine and how it will affect various systems in your body. When it comes to cut. Two words. Simple and Effective. This was the #1 thing I came away with from the Vegas Show after GIA and AGS gave their presentations. I heard one jeweler tell his wife as he was exiting one of the talks.."Well Mildred....did you understand one GD thing he said?". In following a well know wholesaler of "ideal cut" goods, I heard him say.."how the hell am I supposed to explain this to my customers?".
Let me know when the next cut conclave is, I''ll definately be at this one.
Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,766
GIA have made it very clear there will be no discussion or picking at the bone on this system.
Kenny they do lurk here and I believe some of them are feeling quite sick about the debacle. But what can they do?
There was meant to be a 15 minute update here at the very important Hong Kong trade fair, but it appeared that because I turned up, they cancelled the presentation with no notice, even though they had 20 minutes of unused time after the first presentation.
The GIA Symposium organizers have also made it very clear there will be no Cut War room as they had at the last event in 1999; nor will anyone who wants to make a presentation on this topic be able to do so.
If there is an event that could lead to the loss of GIA''s market dominance then this would appear to be the one bad move.
I will present a journal article next week after this fair on studies I have made of the CVE Diamond Dock(tm) lighting used in the observer surveys.
I think I have a ful grasp of what, why and how the survey and previous studies led to this scenario.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,871
Garry, here's what they can do.
They can tell each other they will get away with this because very few buyers are educated about cut.
And they will get a way with it - for a while.
Online diamond purchases may be a small (but growing) percentage today but. . .
An exploding number of people are looking to the internet for diamond education.
Google "diamond tutorial".
Pricescope comes up third.
That's a big deal folks.
The GIA's days of exploiting buyer's cut-ignorance to maximixe their profits are limited.
Every buyer who reads threads like this will take a pass on GIA paper, and seek out AGS stones.
They can tell each other they will get away with this because very few buyers are educated about cut.
And they will get a way with it - for a while.
Online diamond purchases may be a small (but growing) percentage today but. . .
An exploding number of people are looking to the internet for diamond education.
Google "diamond tutorial".
Pricescope comes up third.
That's a big deal folks.
The GIA's days of exploiting buyer's cut-ignorance to maximixe their profits are limited.
Every buyer who reads threads like this will take a pass on GIA paper, and seek out AGS stones.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Gary,
I was planning on going to the sympsosium this time since I missed the last one, but felt that the value was not there for a small jeweler like myself without extensive discussion of cut, which as you stated is not on the evento horizon. Too bad, as it is the single most important issue that actually touches my business.
I am very excited to see your CVE Diamond Dock (tm) study. I expect it to be very "illuminationg" and I am looking forward also to your analysis of why this was done so poorly.
Thank you for taking the time to do these things, they are very helpful to us out here in the trenches!
Wink
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
PS: I hope some of my techncal comments and sarcasm will bring a smile to the face of some. I KNOW it has raised the blood pressure of at least one over there in the Ivory tower. After looking at what has evolved trying to remain serious about the whole thing is very difficult. The King has no clothes.Date: 3/7/2006 9:27:07 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
GIA have made it very clear there will be no discussion or picking at the bone on this system. Arrogance ?
Kenny they do lurk here and I believe some of them are feeling quite sick about the debacle. But what can they do? I really feel sorry for some of them who did some very good work, in spite of management.
There was meant to be a 15 minute update here at the very important Hong Kong trade fair, but it appeared that because I turned up, they cancelled the presentation with no notice, even though they had 20 minutes of unused time after the first presentation. The "world's Foremost" missing an opportunity to pat themselves on the back???
The GIA Symposium organizers have also made it very clear there will be no Cut War room as they had at the last event in 1999; nor will anyone who wants to make a presentation on this topic be able to do so. It is their sandbox
If there is an event that could lead to the loss of GIA's market dominance then this would appear to be the one bad move. Just the latest in a long string of events
I will present a journal article next week after this fair on studies I have made of the CVE Diamond Dock(tm) lighting used in the observer surveys. I wonder if the production line has shut down yet.
I think I have a ful grasp of what, why and how the survey and previous studies led to this scenario. What gave you the first clue? Did they lend you the proprietary dart board? Or did you trip over the white canes of their grading staff?
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2004
- Messages
- 9,159
Diamonddawn,
Great Questions.
If I'm understanding correctly, then my jeweler was correct when he told me that the AGS was "for profit" and the GIA was "non-profit."
My understanding is that GIA Gem Trade Laboratory is a for profit subsidiary of a non-profit. It’s very much like the fact that the Harvard Press is a for profit publisher of books that’s owned by Harvard University, a non-profit. Similar arrangements happen between museums and the gift shop, churches and summer camps and many other sorts of business operations. This is a tax matter and, as a customer it doesn’t really affect much.
Can't "tighter" standards be more misleading than looser ones if the distinctions made are not meaningful?
Absolutely. This is the question of the day. Are the distinctions meaningful? Many people criticize the standard color grading system for exactly this problem. The whole point of grading is to apply standards that are meaningful and useful.
I'm looking at VS2 -SI1 clarity diamonds because they will look the same to the naked eye as a flawless and I'm not interested in paying for differences that no-one but a lab will ever see. Will an AGS excellent cut actually look any better than a GIA excellent cut?
Maybe, maybe not. Not everyone is looking for the same things. “Look better” is a question of taste but there are some attributes that seem to be consistently popular while others are less so. Buying an AGS-0 does not guarantee that a stone will suit your fancy but most people seem to like them. Similarly, buying a GIA-fair does not guarantee that it won’t.
Or is the AGS creating artificial "branding" distinctions so that AGS stores can charge higher prices for diamonds that are fundamentally the same - that's my point about the lab being "for profit".
I would not describe branding as artificial so it’s a little hard to answer your question directly. AGS has drawn up a set of standard that they apply to stones and may customers find this information to be a valuable. GIA has done the same thing with different standards. The AGS ‘brand’ does not make the stone itself any different but it does help customers to be better informed about what they’re buying. This is true for the branding on most products. The brand represents an assurance that that the quality of the item is up to the standards of whoever stands behind the brand. How valuable this is will depend on what you think of the brand holder. Their taxable status has nothing to do with it. Both AGS and GIA are brands.
I'm sorry if I sound argumentative, but the "GIA" jeweler in my town seemed much more credible to me on this subject than the AGS store, and I'm trying to see if my gut reaction was right.
Wonderful. Shop there. There are many fine stores that sell strictly GIA graded stones and a jeweler can be proud to be associated with them. Don’t confuse AGS with AGS Lab any more than you should confuse GIA with Gem Trade Lab. AGS is a specific group of stores and a store must apply to become a member. They are each and independent business that sets their own policies and sells whatever merchandise they feel will best suit their market. They are not required to sell AGS Lab graded stones and they are welcome to sell GIA graded stones. Most sell both. The stores are not all the same. AGS Lab is a grading laboratory and distributing stones that they’ve graded is not limited to AGS stores. There are plenty of non-AGS dealers who sell them, including many of the dealers here. GIA is a college and they have graduates working at many different stores, including most AGS stores. They don’t have any official GIA brand retailer and, like AGSL, any jeweler is welcomed to sell stones accompanied by GTL documentation if they can. Clear as mud isn’t it?
Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,101
You are right Kenny. Having spent a lot of time researching my own diamond purchase, I was confident I had made the right decision to pursue a GIA graded stone. Now, I'm sorry I did and I feel the extra value-add I paid for has been greatly diminished. Even as a newbie to the world of diamonds, I know I will not place the same emphasis on a stone graded by the GIA. In fact, I will likely not concentrate stones graded by AGS, and I will likely suggest my
friend(s) consider AGS as the better alternative.
Zales may be able to keep GIA busier than before. Perhaps that's their goal. But for myself and many on this forum, when a GIA graded stone is on a par with a stone graded by the IGI, it won't carry much value to people looking for better quality.
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Hey Rod,
Love the stone, not the paper. If I remember you did your research and got a lights-out rock. That's what is important. Just don't get that GIA GTL tattoo on your arm near the diamond.
I would not compare GIA to IGI, since GIA's strictness in other areas has been a standard for years (sans bribery hiccup). IGI does not have a cut grading system to compare GIA's to.
Suggesting AGS0 to your friends is entirely reasonable, and the simplest way to target diamonds that have been held to a standard for cut that many people agree results in proven beauty.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2005
- Messages
- 4,101
Hi John,
Perhaps I didn''t make my point too well. I''m still a neophyte in this world. I wasn''t trying to say that GIA and IGI are on par with each other in any way. I realize GIA still has much higher standards. What I was trying to say though is that for myself and many others, we paid a higher premium to buy a stone graded by the GIA. If the new GIA grading parameters are compromised and if the compromise is to provide bias toward stones that more mass marketeers, such as Zales would promote, I then feel their graqding report is of little more value than perhaps a stone graded by IGI.
I do love my stone. And it''s not even Ideal. But, I had placed so much emphasis on obtaining a GIA graded stone, that I''m disappointed to see anything happen that might diminish the value of owning a stone graded by the GIA. And yes, I realize diamonds aren''t an investment that will yield higher returns if resold on the used market anyway.
I''m not sure if I''m making any sense, so I''ll just hush up and continue monitoring this thread and let you all know I greatly appreciate the opportunity to even offer a comment and I think you experts are incredible.
Perhaps I didn''t make my point too well. I''m still a neophyte in this world. I wasn''t trying to say that GIA and IGI are on par with each other in any way. I realize GIA still has much higher standards. What I was trying to say though is that for myself and many others, we paid a higher premium to buy a stone graded by the GIA. If the new GIA grading parameters are compromised and if the compromise is to provide bias toward stones that more mass marketeers, such as Zales would promote, I then feel their graqding report is of little more value than perhaps a stone graded by IGI.
I do love my stone. And it''s not even Ideal. But, I had placed so much emphasis on obtaining a GIA graded stone, that I''m disappointed to see anything happen that might diminish the value of owning a stone graded by the GIA. And yes, I realize diamonds aren''t an investment that will yield higher returns if resold on the used market anyway.
I''m not sure if I''m making any sense, so I''ll just hush up and continue monitoring this thread and let you all know I greatly appreciate the opportunity to even offer a comment and I think you experts are incredible.
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Rod, the great thing about PS is the many different perspectives. As an educated consumer your voice could have weight with GIA lurkers so your comments are valuable. I've cited the market share GIA has before. The value of your GIA paper won't diminish overnight. But you're correct in assuming that, from a cut perspective, AGS documents have become more elite.
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
John.. I believe that IGI (as well as other labs like EGL, PGS etc) use some modified variant of the old GIA cut class system (1-2-3-4) introduced in the 1990''s in their class work, much like the original AGS cut classification system. It was based on specific parameters (table, Crown, pavilion) each independently falling within some bound, which we know was a little flawed, but it was in the pre Raytracing days. In the updated GIA/AGS pdf file I previously linked to in this thread, I highlighted the CLASS 1 (Ideal-EX) boundaries used then.
At this point in time, It has much more correlation to the current AGS than the "NEW GIA CUT standards", and is probably better with regard to that issue (CUT).
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Of course not.
For many years now, cut was(is) the basis for their price and profit margins, sell weight, color and clarity and keep the facts of +/- 50% pricing relative to cutting (yield, beauty) hidden from the consumer.
I've seen stones whose girdles were so thick I could use them as tires on my 84 Vette. The worst I remember was like a 5.8mm diameter 1 ct Round Brilliant
Tis the season for the cruise lines, and you should see what they sell in the islands as great bargins, shilled by the onboard cruise directors with paper from non US labs, whose paper is even worse than what we quite often see here.
Education on the internet is starting to change all that, and starting to drive the production of better cutting.
Unfortunately, to "help out the consumer", our industry "leader" (Lab name withheld to protect the guilty) seems to be "heading towards the dark side of the force" (quote from Rockdoc Skywalker in private conversations) with convenient mass merchandising redefinitions of what is the "best"
diamonddawn
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 4
Thank you Neil for your great direct answers to my questions. It seems like all the other experts here were more interested in grinding their own axes, so I was starting to wonder whether it was possible to actually get some help.
I guess I''m trying to figure out whether AGS "excellent" diamonds are actually better than GIA
diamonds or just theotetically better.
After reading all the discussion in this string and others, most of which I do not understand, the conclusion I''m reaching is that it''s a matter of opinion, and if market share means anything (and I''m not saying it does), then more people are in the GIA camp than the AGS camp (though clearly the opposite rules here).
I think I''m going to take your advice and go with my gut, if only because the AGS jeweler seemed like he was trying to sell me by using lots of big words that I don''t think even he understood, and I think he was competely full of it.
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,871
diamonddawn
Great idea, go with the lab with the largest market share.
Be sure to stop at that very fine restaurant, MacDonald's, for dinner on you way to WalMart to buy those very fine clothes.
Diamonds look best when they are cut within a narrow range of measurements.
This wastes more of the original rough diamond.
AGS's best cut is cut this way.
GIA's best cut has a much wider range that saves more weight of the original rough diamond.
So GIA can get a heavier diamond out of the same piece of rough diamond than AGS could get.
Cutters and seller love this because they make more money.
But GIA stones won't look as good and AGS stones.
Fourtunately most buyers are ignorant, or afraid of big words.
There - Small words.
If you don't like your AGS jeweler don't buy there.
But (s)he has nothing to do with the cut quality of the AGS stones.
Today's AGS stones are cut to higher standards than today's GIA stones.
Great idea, go with the lab with the largest market share.
Be sure to stop at that very fine restaurant, MacDonald's, for dinner on you way to WalMart to buy those very fine clothes.
Diamonds look best when they are cut within a narrow range of measurements.
This wastes more of the original rough diamond.
AGS's best cut is cut this way.
GIA's best cut has a much wider range that saves more weight of the original rough diamond.
So GIA can get a heavier diamond out of the same piece of rough diamond than AGS could get.
Cutters and seller love this because they make more money.
But GIA stones won't look as good and AGS stones.
Fourtunately most buyers are ignorant, or afraid of big words.
There - Small words.
If you don't like your AGS jeweler don't buy there.
But (s)he has nothing to do with the cut quality of the AGS stones.
Today's AGS stones are cut to higher standards than today's GIA stones.
diamonddawn
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2006
- Messages
- 4
Kenny, I''m going with the jeweler I got a good feeling about, rather than the one who I feel was trying to fool me. I''m sure there are AGS advocates who are nice believable people, and had I encountered one, I might be making the opposite decision.
Your sarcasm just makes me more comfortable with my decision. I''m sure that there are AGS advocates who are not patonizing and pompous, but I haven''t found them, either here or at the store I shopped at.
Thanks again Neil for your help. Your answer was a breadth of fresh air
Your sarcasm just makes me more comfortable with my decision. I''m sure that there are AGS advocates who are not patonizing and pompous, but I haven''t found them, either here or at the store I shopped at.
Thanks again Neil for your help. Your answer was a breadth of fresh air
- Status
300x240.png)