GIA EX: Let the buyer beware...

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/8/2006 3:21:16 PM
Author: adamasgem

...I also think their educational programs are improving from what I have seen, after the severe dumbing down in the 90's, and AGAIN, I commend them on that.

GIA continues to be the most aggressive force for gemological education. Hats off to their long history. I hope the coursework continues to become more current. I also think it would be reasonable to begin requiring re-qualification every couple of years - or annually. I suggest that they've already broken that ground with their distance education endeavors: Offer re-qualification via internet as an option.

 

[BrianTheCutter]

Date: 3/8/2006 2:53:48 PM
Author: NanStacy

Just a word of thanks to all of you on this excellent thread.
Imagine how difficult this kind of interchange would have been before the Web, and Pricescope!

100% correct. This is precisely the point. Now there must be a next step. Pricescope is a wonderful vehicle. What would readers next suggest in order to be heard? What are your ideas in line with item C from the original post?

C. Come together and voice public concern. In this internet age we can do this using an independent webpage that people can quickly link. It will cite reasons that people are concerned with aspects of this system and perhaps invite electronic signatures. It will be open to consumers as well as trade people so that this information can be shared concisely and uniformly.

What positive can we do and who is willing to move forward? Here are steps being taken:

* An edited version of my statement is being sent as a letter to the editors of our trade periodicals. I have been asked by others for permission to reproduce it elsewhere with attribution. Such permission is granted so long as the content remains intact.

* John has finished a webpage for consumers with examples to beware. The images are powerful (a colleague who provided the data is writing his own piece and we will wait until he has published before going live).

* This thread will continue to be a good resource for awareness as long as it is readable. Thoughtful and respectful conversation is productive but ranting and raving is not.

My friends, we can bicker and argue about the elephant in the room but it does not address the problem. We should discuss ways to move him, or to communicate with him to be careful, lest he crush the pedestrians here. We do have a voice and I believe we can be heard. The AGS polish/symmetry strictness comment from Garry is an example of broad thinking. Of course, I am personally inclined to agree with Marty on that point, but it is those kinds of deliberations we need.

To our consumer friends, and enthusiasts who share our concerns, option C remains your strongest resource. Bookmark this thread. Quick awareness for others is only a mouse click away. What a wonderful age we live in.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/8/2006 6:09:10 PM
Author: BrianTheCutter

Date: 3/8/2006 2:53:48 PM
Author: NanStacy

Just a word of thanks to all of you on this excellent thread.
Imagine how difficult this kind of interchange would have been before the Web, and Pricescope!

100% correct. This is precisely the point. Now there must be a next step. Pricescope is a wonderful vehicle. What would readers next suggest in order to be heard? What are your ideas in line with item C from the original post?

C. Come together and voice public concern. In this internet age we can do this using an independent webpage that people can quickly link. It will cite reasons that people are concerned with aspects of this system and perhaps invite electronic signatures. It will be open to consumers as well as trade people so that this information can be shared concisely and uniformly.

What positive can we do and who is willing to move forward? Here are steps being taken:

* An edited version of my statement is being sent as a letter to the editors of our trade periodicals. I have been asked by others for permission to reproduce it elsewhere with attribution. Such permission is granted so long as the content remains intact. Copies should be sent to every newpaper in the country''s consumer affairs editor as well as every TV station.

* John has finished a webpage for consumers with examples to beware. The images are powerful (a colleague who provided the data is writing his own piece and we will wait until he has published before going live). I''ve seen it and it hits the nail on the head

* This thread will continue to be a good resource for awareness as long as it is readable. Thoughtful and respectful conversation is productive but ranting and raving is not. Moi ?

My friends, we can bicker and argue about the elephant in the room but it does not address the problem. We should discuss ways to move him, or to communicate with him to be careful, lest he crush the pedestrians here. We do have a voice and I believe we can be heard. A good first step for the board would be the removal of SOME of GIA''s top "management", WITHOUT a golden handshake.


The AGS polish/symmetry strictness comment from Garry is an example of broad thinking. Of course, I am personally inclined to agree with Marty on that point, but it is those kinds of deliberations we need.

To our consumer friends, and enthusiasts who share our concerns, option C remains your strongest resource. Bookmark this thread. Quick awareness for others is only a mouse click away. What a wonderful age we live in.

The two simplest things for consumers to do are:

1) Vote with your pocketbook, shun the GIA paper (or else do your homework first, NOT all GIA/GTL paper will be bad or BS )

2) Send everyone you know a link to the applicable PriceScope threads, sort of like a chain letter, gaining momentum, and ask them to send the links to their friends.. Doesn''t take long until theoretically the world knows what they are being fed...

"Peer" pressure alone doesn''t seem to do any good, because they don''t think they have any peers. It is the "not invented here syndrome" at work.

Those who sell well cut diamonds from all levels of the trade are hurt, from Internet dealers to the basic honest Mom and Pop brick and mortar retailers, but some don''t know it yet, because they are all in competition, which makes it difficult, if not in some ways, cut-throat. Some, especially the mass merchandizers, will smile all the way to the bank with the "new" paper.

Lest those in the trade forget, GIA tried to play their "selective endorsement" game on QVC TV awhile back (after a "generous contribution" from QVC), and there was such an uproar from the trade on the trade website Polygon.net they had to give the money back (supposedly).

 

[strmrdr]

This is in response to points 1 and 2 by Marty above and partially an answer to what needs to be done.

Point
1: a consumer boycott will hurt the wrong people.

2. Outside of pricescope I don''t know of one person I know who would understand this thread and most wouldn''t care about it if they did.
It has to put in simple to understand terms and presented in a clear manner.

Just in 10 seconds I came up with these questions someone not familiar with diamond lingo and cut would have.

What is Steep/deep ?
What is Brillianteering ?
What is a girdle?
what does this mean "For example, all diamonds with 34.8, 34.9 and 35.0 CA" What are those numbers and what does California have to do with diamonds?
What is Facetware?
What is Symmetry?

Why should I care about all this?

Those questions and more will have to be explained before this is ready for the world.

 

[diagem]

I must congartulate and salute you guy''s on this thread, I dont want to get into your discussion as far as the steep/deep range of ex-ex certified diamonds, as i am a strong believer that "perfect Diamonds" are non-exitant. And my concentration is aimed on the field of "fancy shapes"

I do though totally agree with you on the "political" matters that involve the GIA these day''s.

I strongly believe its time for "us" Industry members, to do what ever we are capable to soften GIA''s "monopoly" on opinions and labaratory certificates.

After what was called a "setlement agreement" between GIA and Max Pincione. et al, and the fact that the "standards issue" was resolved!!!???, I understood that the GIA has "shot themselves in the leg"... BIG TIME..., and for some reason i keep hearing that the "bribery scandall" is far from over. I guess there is more to come..............

Its time for the consumer to understand that GIA is not the "mother of all certificates", and for us "industry members" to put an emphasis in widening our range as we try to inform the consumer on this sensative-wide issue of GEM AQUISITION.

Brian, Garry, and Marty (and i am sorry if i missed someone), keep up the excellent work,

 

[MissAva]

I have been able to follow most of this thread, but could you provide a legend for the colors in the circles?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/9/2006 9:46:23 AM
Author: Matatora
I have been able to follow most of this thread, but could you provide a legend for the colors in the circles?

Sorry I inadvertantly posted the wrong dartboard graphic and I''m trying to have it pulled and post the correct one..

The concept was that the 10 ring was 50% of the dart board..

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/9/2006 9:51:19 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 3/9/2006 9:46:23 AM
Author: Matatora
I have been able to follow most of this thread, but could you provide a legend for the colors in the circles?

Sorry I inadvertantly posted the wrong dartboard graphic and I''m trying to have it pulled and post the correct one..

The concept was that the 10 ring was 50% of the dart board..

This is the one I had intended to post....

 

[kenny]

Oh adam

ROTFLMFAO

 

[RockDoc]

Rockdoc has a solution for this.......


I've discussed a little of this with Marty.......


We will need some consumer "volunteers". The details of how this will work will need to be kept confidential so I am not going to go into detail here, so this is kept "squeaky clean", pure and without any sort of bias against anyone.

I will briefly tell you all what is needed.

CONSUMERS that have Diamonds that have either one of the new GIA report stating it is excellent cut grade from a consumer or an updated report that states.

If you have one of these and wish to participate - contact me by email - [email protected]


We will need 50- to 200 consumers to volunteer.

Rockdoc

 

[oldminer]

Here''s the scoring on the multi-ring dart board....

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/9/2006 11:51:21 AM
Author: oldminer
Here''s the scoring on the multi-ring dart board....

Thanks Dave.. That just about sums it up...

 

[kenny]

On this GIA dartboard does GIA call the blue area AGS?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 3/8/2006 6:09:10 PM
Author: BrianTheCutter

* An edited version of my statement is being sent as a letter to the editors of our trade periodicals. I have been asked by others for permission to reproduce it elsewhere with attribution. Such permission is granted so long as the content remains intact.

As one of those who asked I want to thank you for your quick and positive response. It is a wonderful thing this internet, where vendors in different states can compete and still cooperate. I want to thank you for the positive way in which you present this complex material and the efforts that you and others are taking to make it comprehensible to the public.

Wink

 

[tarssarb]

1) Width of the Excellent grade:
2) Steep/deep cutting hides weight:
3) Steep/deep cutting entraps body color:
4) Brillianteering is stereotyped:
5) Forced rounding:
6) Rounding and brillianteering incongruities:
7) Girdle thickness:
Facetware rounding issues:

So I had a few thoughts reading this thread, and am defintely not in this field of research (diamonds nor statistics). Clearly as the dartboard picture implies, issues 1,2,3,7 are intentionally chosen and not a mistake. So you may not like their definition of ideal, but that is what they selected intentionally for whatever monetarty reason. I am not sure what to say about 4, other than if it is a very small percent of stones, arbitrarily blocking them adds a nice market pitch without effecting many people... ie no girdle gimmicks allowed!

I wanted to comment mostly on 5,8 and separately 6. It sounds like they did a huge stone evaluation study with arbitrary humans givening the response (data), so the data they had will be balloons of poorly correllated trends. Now if they hired statisticians and they needed to dissect the data, I can easily imagine them grouping the stones into bins and then averaging the bins. Then you get neat lines with good regressions to show the bossman. Imagine, a data set on xy coords that looiks like an shotgun spray in an oval pattern pointing towards 2oclock. Now divide the x axis into 3 bins and average. Draw a line through the three points and you get a nice line pointing at 2 oclock. The stat guys probably picked a bin size slightly larger than the variance of the measruement (ie ca of 34.8 +/- xxx). If this is what they did, they should have fit a function to regenerate a smooth response surface for facetware.

On 6, this is a fantastic point related to weighting. If they hired again stats people and said tell me about every thing that effects a diamonds beauty, they probably would do a gigantic design of experiment (factorial/tuguchi) with numerous factors (ie ca, pa, girdles, star%, etc). These factors would then be discretized. (bins again ie LGF 75,80,85). However, the hardest thing to do in these generic DOE setups is picking the bin size. So although the analysis should say which factor/variable is most sensitive (has biggest effect on beauty), if the bin size were too small or too big then the response generated (conclusion) may not be correct. Unless you pick the right bin spacing, you will not detect areas of rapid change. So in this case, if the bins were 34.5, 35, 35.5. The person analyzing the data will not see the steep response curve as suggested exists at 34.8,34.9,35.0 because they have no data that shows that steep incline.

But I have no idea how their diamonds were selected or if they were discretized or even what the details were... I am just commenting on what it seems to me at first take. I am just stating that the bins are commonly used right or wrong to communicated noisey data to people.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/9/2006 10:35:16 AM
Author: RockDoc
Rockdoc has a solution for this.......

I've discussed a little of this with Marty.......

We will need some consumer 'volunteers'. The details of how this will work will need to be kept confidential so I am not going to go into detail here, so this is kept 'squeaky clean', pure and without any sort of bias against anyone.

I will briefly tell you all what is needed.

CONSUMERS that have Diamonds that have either one of the new GIA report stating it is excellent cut grade from a consumer or an updated report that states.

If you have one of these and wish to participate - contact me by email - [email protected]

We will need 50- to 200 consumers to volunteer.

Rockdoc

With all respect Bill, we believe ‘confidential’ is the problem in the first place.

The internet allows transparency, and the freedom to share. Corporations should realize the importance of feedback and openness with their customers. The entire public is GIA’s customers, but they failed to be open and used trade members with bias to do their studies. We don’t want to imitate what they’re doing.

GIA is dictating what we should buy from them and it’s not sound. Top experts and enthusiasts already see the problems. The public at large doesn’t, but many can be made aware thanks to the internet. Our most powerful tool is the spread of awareness.

The real challenge will be the one Strm put forward: The average person doesn’t have the fundamental understanding needed to appreciate the problems: A few people loudly complaining here, making NASA charts of 35.0 Cali @ 1.21 gigawatts in the Heisenberg compensator - will not reach a meaningful audience.

The facts are not in dispute. We need a statement. Simple, with graphics, that evenly describes the problems in terms new shoppers can understand.

Leonid, don’t you think we could build an independent page? We would not move the discussion from your forum, but don’t you think it would be appropriate, once we have arrived at the content, for it to stand alone? Once openly developed, with input here, we can move the content to the new page. What if this page could store electronic signatures for the purpose of showing who understands/agrees (open to consumers as well as the trade)? What do you think of that idea? I will gladly coordinate this.

We’re not here to pull down GIA. We’re here to bring a message to the public. We do need participation, not so much in studies, but in many, many clicks of the mouse.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 3/9/2006 12:58:15 PM
Author: tarssarb

I am not sure what to say about 4, other than if it is a very small percent of stones, arbitrarily blocking them adds a nice market pitch without effecting many people... ie no girdle gimmicks allowed!

Greetings, and welcome to the conversation and the forum.

All the stats stuff sounded fairly reasonable but like most math, the concepts make my head hurt.

I have to give way to more knowlegeable souls to analyse that and tell us if it means what I think it did, in which case I am largely in agreement with what I think you said.

I will take some exception with the comment above however. It is a very small percentage of stones, as you correctly state, but the effect is to penalize stones with supperior light performance, simply because the GIA did not do the homework it stated it was going to do. Instead of taking the time to figure out when it was good or bad, they just penalized all of the stones, thus downgrading stones which are often thought of as works of art by their owners.

There are only a few cutters willing to take the time and make the effort to do this, but it is patently unfair to penalize them for figuring out how to maximize the beauty and the light performance of their stones.

Wink

 

[kenny]

John Q said, "Simple, with graphics, that evenly describes the problems in terms new shoppers can understand."


First I mentioned the Target Logo; then Adamasgem posted the concentric circles.

How about concentric circles?
In the middle is a small circle representing the small range of AGS best cut.
Surrounding this is a much larger circle representing GIA best cut.

Leave off the words Ideal and Excellent; they are unnecessary and confusing distractions.

The size of the circles will be proportional to how many size combinations fall in the circles.

This plays on the simple idea of a target.
People understand targets.
You want to hit the bull’s eye.
Closer is better.

It also has underpinnings of a hunt and a sucessful kill.
It simplifies the complexity of understanding cut.
Just aim for the center.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/9/2006 2:03:30 PM
Author: kenny



John Q said, 'Simple, with graphics, that evenly describes the problems in terms new shoppers can understand.'


First I mentioned the Target Logo; then Adamasgem posted the concentric circles.

How about concentric circles?
In the middle is a small circle representing the small range of AGS best cut.
Surrounding this is a much larger circle representing GIA best cut.

Leave off the words Ideal and Excellent; they are unnecessary and confusing distractions.

The size of the circles will be proportional to how many size combinations fall in the circles.

This plays on the simple idea of a target.
People understand targets.
You want to hit the bull’s eye.
Closer is better.

It also has underpinnings of a hunt and a sucessful kill.
It simplifies the complexity of understanding cut.
Just aim for the center.

That could demonstrate width of top grade.

I was sent a good photo of diamonds next to each other with the same spread but different carat weights showing steep/deep's impact on apparent size.

These, along with reduced performance (steep/deep) are the largest issues.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 3/9/2006 2:03:30 PM
Author: kenny

John Q said, ''Simple, with graphics, that evenly describes the problems in terms new shoppers can understand.''


First I mentioned the Target Logo; then Adamasgem posted the concentric circles.

How about concentric circles?
In the middle is a small circle representing the small range of AGS best cut.
Surrounding this is a much larger circle representing GIA best cut.

Leave off the words Ideal and Excellent; they are unnecessary and confusing distractions.

The size of the circles will be proportional to how many size combinations fall in the circles.

This plays on the simple idea of a target.
People understand targets.
You want to hit the bull’s eye.
Closer is better.

It also has underpinnings of a hunt and a sucessful kill.
It simplifies the complexity of understanding cut.
Just aim for the center.

That''s part of the problem. Not everyone agrees about what constitutes the ''best''. Where''s the bullseye?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[JohnQuixote]

Salient point Neil, but perhaps the overall concept is still useful?

I think most people would agree that if you buy a 1.30 ct diamond it should not face up like a 1.12, don't you? Perhaps the bullseye could be representative enough to 'miss' those combos.

 

[kenny]

DA
Is it really the case that some AGS 0s cuts do NOT fit in GIA EX?

(edited post)

 

[Serg]

Marty,


Nice illustration of GIA cut grade system.
"All diamond is beautiful, because it is diamond" It is from GIA 2 years old cut grade presentation in Basel( somebody from Zail* told it for support GIA system. He sat with GIA speakers)
* May be company name is wrong. Garry, do you remember it?

 

[denverappraiser]

John,

If we carry this analogy to it's extreme we're going to end up with a 4 dimensional cross-eyed bull where ‘bull’ is the operative word. I certainly understand and agree that it would be helpful to produce a graphic model that makes this easier for consumers to understand but I’m not convinced that this is the right track.Kenny,
Yes, it's correct that there are AGS-0 stones that are not GIA-ex and visa versa.


Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/9/2006 2:42:21 PM
Author: kenny
Perhaps the bullseye is not in the middle.

Perhaps for technical reasons the circles should not be circles. (Though I think they should for simplcity)

But the idea that AGS has a smaller more select range that fits WELL within GIA range is key.
And this probably can be communicaed with one simple graphic.

It is hard for very smart expert to 'think simple.'
They can't resist adding layers of more information.

Never were truer words spoken.

The effort will need to be about awareness and education, with emphasis on awareness: Alert people that issues exist and here is where you can read something about it.

Proper process in education follows Bloom's Taxonomy of learning. As such, the page content will not be all things to all people. We can realistically expect to convey only knowledge (define basics) and comprehension (describe the issues), then suggest how they can move to application (choose to employ the simple knowledge and comprehension gained).

Example:

Knowledge: Here is a diamond. Here is a steep/deep diamond.
Comprehension: You can see where the steep/deep diamond looks smaller than it should for its weight.
Application: You should be aware that GIA EX grades include some of these steep/deep combos.

Anything much further than this will take more time than the average person is willing to invest. We can link back here for those who wish to get into the upper levels of the taxonomy: Analysis, synthesis and evaluation.

Remember, the average guy looking for an engagement ring spends 7-14 days from the start to the end of his process. PS consumers are not your average bear...but to be effective this page must be designed for the average bear and his/her attention span.

 

[oldminer]

I have used this photo in some talks given on how wide a range "Ideal Cut" really is. This in no way defends GIA''s broad interpretation, but it may be that people have not yet fully realized that there is no single "BEST" cut just as there is no most beautiful face. There is a range of most beautiful.

 

[strmrdr]

I havent had time to put much time in on this but framing it GIA cut grade vs AGS cut grade will be seen as favoring AGS.
Stick to the facts about the GIA study.
Which is another major problem there are a lot of opinions in the diamond industry but very few facts.
Brian saying they rock vs GIA expert saying they suck in a he said he said situation isnt going to win this one.

An independant lab outside the diamond industry running a strait up comparison observation study would be a good idea if the $$ was available.

Does the GIA observation study stand up to a comparison with an independant study?
How well does facetware compare to the results of GIA''s observation study?
How well does it compare to the independant study?

Those are more questions I have.

 

[JohnQuixote]

I think the GIA facts are enough. A bullseye graphic could serve to demonstrate that new GIA EX is of such a width that it includes parameters anyone would have a hard time calling best (those which entrap body color, reduce performance and reduce spread for weight) without trying to discuss other labs.

 

[Shay37]

Date: 3/9/2006 1:30:13 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 3/9/2006 10:35:16 AM
Author: RockDoc
Rockdoc has a solution for this.......

I''ve discussed a little of this with Marty.......

We will need some consumer ''volunteers''. The details of how this will work will need to be kept confidential so I am not going to go into detail here, so this is kept ''squeaky clean'', pure and without any sort of bias against anyone.

I will briefly tell you all what is needed.

CONSUMERS that have Diamonds that have either one of the new GIA report stating it is excellent cut grade from a consumer or an updated report that states.

If you have one of these and wish to participate - contact me by email - [email protected]

We will need 50- to 200 consumers to volunteer.

Rockdoc

With all respect Bill, we believe ‘confidential’ is the problem in the first place.

The internet allows transparency, and the freedom to share. Corporations should realize the importance of feedback and openness with their customers. The entire public is GIA’s customers, but they failed to be open and used trade members with bias to do their studies. We don’t want to imitate what they’re doing.

GIA is dictating what we should buy from them and it’s not sound. Top experts and enthusiasts already see the problems. The public at large doesn’t, but many can be made aware thanks to the internet. Our most powerful tool is the spread of awareness.

The real challenge will be the one Strm put forward: The average person doesn’t have the fundamental understanding needed to appreciate the problems: A few people loudly complaining here, making NASA charts of 35.0 Cali @ 1.21 gigawatts in the Heisenberg compensator - will not reach a meaningful audience.

The facts are not in dispute. We need a statement. Simple, with graphics, that evenly describes the problems in terms new shoppers can understand.

Leonid, don’t you think we could build an independent page? We would not move the discussion from your forum, but don’t you think it would be appropriate, once we have arrived at the content, for it to stand alone? Once openly developed, with input here, we can move the content to the new page. What if this page could store electronic signatures for the purpose of showing who understands/agrees (open to consumers as well as the trade)? What do you think of that idea? I will gladly coordinate this.

We’re not here to pull down GIA. We’re here to bring a message to the public. We do need participation, not so much in studies, but in many, many clicks of the mouse.

Not about Rocdoc''s stuff, but I agree. The "cone of silence" that GIA is wanting to use for a lot of their stuff is frustrating to a simple consumer who just wants info. Now I''m getting info, but without knowledge of how that info was obtained, it makes it hard for me to trust said info. I hope that makes sense. One of the things that I love about talking with Brian in person or reading his info is that I can understand it. I don''t have to be a rocket scientist to get the point. I just want GIA to understand that we consumers are not too stupid to get it if they will give it to us. They just don''t seem to want to give info to anyone. That as I see it is the real problem here.

Just my .02. Shay37 swimming with the big boys again.

 

[dhog]

Thank you Brian for sticking up for us consumers who
put our trust in you and your company.We as consumers
who are in search of beautiful diamonds are only a small
percent of the market to GIA.

I believe that GIA is looking towards INDIA as becoming
the diamond trading capitol of the WORLD.

They "INDIA" are also #3 behind US and JAPAN for diamond
consumption.

Maybe their cut grade was developed with this in mind.
and for big profits in 3rd world countries.

see the link below for possible answers.

http://www.giaindia.ac.in/home.htm<a target="_blank" href='>