GIA EX: Let the buyer beware...

[JohnQuixote]

It's more appropriate to refer to these kinds of measures as reports. But a lot of jewelers refer to them as certs. EGL actually uses that word on their documents.

Let's give Garry a break guys. Remember, in his neighborhood they use 'Ridgy-didge' to mean genuine-authentic.

 

[kenny]

Garry, is it true you guys have to wear heavy shoes so you don''t fall off the bottom of the earth down there?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 3/13/2006 4:51:22 PM
Author: amarz


While my diamond knowledge is still very much in the early stages of development, I find it very reassuring that there are vendors and experts such as Brian Gavin, Wink, Gary etc. who are passionate enough about what they do to stand up and speak out in order to protect consumers and the dignity of their trade. As a consumer, the fact that you all are willing to openly discuss these concerns, advocate for change, and still remain openminded and respectful, speaks volumes about your character. So, Lazarus, my suggestion would be to purchase a stone from a well respected vendor (such as those found on pricescope) who will use their eyes and expertise to help you select a stone that is beautiful and meets THEIR strict standards, instead of relying on the lab report that accompanies it. I think that you would be doing yourself a disservice to simply weed out all stones that come with a GIA report as some of them, as far as I understand, are still going to be killer stones.

To all the experts, keep up the good work, those lacking diamond knowledge (Me

) really appreciate it!


Angela

What a nice post. It is good to see that our efforts are being recognised. I wish to reiterate that in spite of my dissapointment in what I see to be a substandard grading system being put forth by GIA, that many many of the diamonds graded by them will be absolutely killer knockout drop dead gorgeous. Unfortunately, I do not believe that their paper, by itself, will be able to provide the guidance for consumers that I was hoping for.

It will be the consumer who does a little extra work, who will be able to work with the jeweler of their choice, whether on or off line to get the best value for their hard earned dollars, regardless of whose paper it comes with.

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This article http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/37/1/GIA-Excellent-Cut-Grade-Case-Study.aspx may help explain why GIA devised a system that many people feel is not to consumers or retailers benefit.

 

[Rod]

Your article was fantastic and really helped me understand with real world pictures and language what GIA is doing. What I found particularly interesting, especially since I wear a shallower cut diamond is why "older" observers preferred the shallower cut stone, as opposed to the deeper or even ideal cut stone. Why would age make a difference in people''s perception of a diamonds beauty? I''m 51 years old, however, I''m getting younger every day

. In my situation, I actually preferred the look of my shallower cut diamond, over many other''s I could have chosen.

Did my "older" eyes deceive me???

Thanks again for the article.........

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/16/2006 10:36:25 AM
Author: Rod
Your article was fantastic and really helped me understand with real world pictures and language what GIA is doing. What I found particularly interesting, especially since I wear a shallower cut diamond is why ''older'' observers preferred the shallower cut stone, as opposed to the deeper or even ideal cut stone. Why would age make a difference in people''s perception of a diamonds beauty? I''m 51 years old, however, I''m getting younger every day

. In my situation, I actually preferred the look of my shallower cut diamond, over many other''s I could have chosen.

Did my ''older'' eyes deceive me???

Thanks again for the article.........

Rod, your eyes are able to focus closer when you are young (or if you are nearsighted), but that ''near point of accomodation'' recedes with age, reaching 10 inches for most by age 40 and receding beyond for many - possibly causing farsighted condition.

 

[Rod]

Sure, John, it''s called Presmyopia and like most adults my age, I now wear glasses to correct the spring that broke around the time I turned 40. That said, since my vision with glasses is basically as good as it was when I was younger, I would think I would see the same thing as a younger person sees when looking at a diamond. So what does the fact that "older" people preferred the shallower cut diamond mean? Perhaps the "older" people were asked not to wear glasses, or contacts? I guess I just find it interesting that categorically, "older" people preferred the shallower stone?

 

[kenny]

You don't have to be 40 to be a Presbyterian.
But I think Presbyterian's vision is the same as that of other denominations.

 

[belle]

Date: 3/16/2006 4:23:52 PM
Author: Rod
Sure, John, it''s called Presmyopia and like most adults my age, I now wear glasses to correct the spring that broke around the time I turned 40. That said, since my vision with glasses is basically as good as it was when I was younger, I would think I would see the same thing as a younger person sees when looking at a diamond. So what does the fact that ''older'' people preferred the shallower cut diamond mean? Perhaps the ''older'' people were asked not to wear glasses, or contacts? I guess I just find it interesting that categorically, ''older'' people preferred the shallower stone?

(presbyopia)

rod, did you do your diamond shopping with or without your glasses? the reason garry cites for older people preferring shallow stones, is that they are effected differently by head obscuration. as you bring the diamond closer in viewing range (as an older, presbyopic person would do) more light is obstructed by the head effecting the apperance of the diamond.

 

[Rod]

Date: 3/16/2006 4:35:35 PM
Author: kenny

You don''t have to be 40 to be a Presbyterian.
But I think Presbyterian''s vision is the same as that of other denominations.

VERY VERY FUNNY Kenny!!

 

[Rod]

Date: 3/16/2006 4:36:28 PM
Author: belle

Date: 3/16/2006 4:23:52 PM
Author: Rod
Sure, John, it''s called Presmyopia and like most adults my age, I now wear glasses to correct the spring that broke around the time I turned 40. That said, since my vision with glasses is basically as good as it was when I was younger, I would think I would see the same thing as a younger person sees when looking at a diamond. So what does the fact that ''older'' people preferred the shallower cut diamond mean? Perhaps the ''older'' people were asked not to wear glasses, or contacts? I guess I just find it interesting that categorically, ''older'' people preferred the shallower stone?

(presbyopia)

rod, did you do your diamond shopping with or without your glasses? the reason garry cites for older people preferring shallow stones, is that they are effected differently by head obscuration. as you bring the diamond closer in viewing range (as an older, presbyopic person would do) more light is obstructed by the head effecting the apperance of the diamond.

Thanks for spell-checking me

And yes, I shopped with my glasses. I do everything with my glasses. They''re no-line bifocal, so I believe I see as well with my glasses as "them youngsters do." By gummit the old man said as he whistles through his dentures........LOL

 

[belle]

Date: 3/16/2006 4:43:35 PM
Author: Rod

Date: 3/16/2006 4:36:28 PM
Author: belle

Date: 3/16/2006 4:23:52 PM
Author: Rod
Sure, John, it''s called Presmyopia and like most adults my age, I now wear glasses to correct the spring that broke around the time I turned 40. That said, since my vision with glasses is basically as good as it was when I was younger, I would think I would see the same thing as a younger person sees when looking at a diamond. So what does the fact that ''older'' people preferred the shallower cut diamond mean? Perhaps the ''older'' people were asked not to wear glasses, or contacts? I guess I just find it interesting that categorically, ''older'' people preferred the shallower stone?

(presbyopia)

rod, did you do your diamond shopping with or without your glasses? the reason garry cites for older people preferring shallow stones, is that they are effected differently by head obscuration. as you bring the diamond closer in viewing range (as an older, presbyopic person would do) more light is obstructed by the head effecting the apperance of the diamond.

Thanks for spell-checking me

And yes, I shopped with my glasses. I do everything with my glasses. They''re no-line bifocal, so I believe I see as well with my glasses as ''them youngsters do.'' By gummit the old man said as he whistles through his dentures........LOL

rod, i hope you were not offended by my spell check!

my medical side took over for a minute there...sorry!

how does your diamond look with glasses and without? do you notice the effects of obscuration?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/16/2006 4:43:35 PM
Author: Rod

Thanks for spell-checking me

And yes, I shopped with my glasses. I do everything with my glasses. They''re no-line bifocal, so I believe I see as well with my glasses as ''them youngsters do.'' By gummit the old man said as he whistles through his dentures........LOL

Shhh. Careful Rod. Marty''s already miffed about the glare component returned to the metric. Do you want to incite a further glare/UV-filter rage? Not to mention optics correlating to your prescription... err, presbyterian... err, presbyopian...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 3/16/2006 10:36:25 AM
Author: Rod
Your article was fantastic and really helped me understand with real world pictures and language what GIA is doing. What I found particularly interesting, especially since I wear a shallower cut diamond is why ''older'' observers preferred the shallower cut stone, as opposed to the deeper or even ideal cut stone. Why would age make a difference in people''s perception of a diamonds beauty? I''m 51 years old, however, I''m getting younger every day

. In my situation, I actually preferred the look of my shallower cut diamond, over many other''s I could have chosen.

Did my ''older'' eyes deceive me???

Thanks again for the article.........

Thanks Rod.
At the coal face - when people are sitting down at my desk in the store selecting between many diamonds, there are a number of factors involved in the selection process.

1. Generally we discuss color and clarity first - when people see an H beside a D, and see the difference in price - many select G-F. (we do not offer stones below H). When it comes to clarity i make a recomendation to buy the stone with inclusions they can not see with a naked eye - most buy SI1. We do both these tests in shaded daylight because that allows for best color and best clarity judgement(both my stores have great natural light and we do not trade at night time).

2. I show the stones with an ideal-scope and Ideal-Light - and people learn the basics of cut from that.

3. Then they look thru the boxes - with under .70ct stones we have boxes with 5 rows of 6 stones - all lined up with the 4C''s on the front - and their dimensions.

Most people work out the color clarity range and then look for the biggest looking diamond at that price they want to spend.
There might be a .50ct at 5.2mm and another at 5.1mm and one at 5.0mm. The 5.2mm will almost always be the first to sell out of the box.

They will usually compare 2 or 3 on their fingers (like in the article). We have a mixture of halogen, fluoro and the new cold white flood lights, as well as plenty of daylight. Most people walk around to do this test.

Very often the stone they choose (when seen thru an ideal-scope) has the start of that darkness that we see just inside the table and the ''paddles'' around the outside stars that tells us the stone is shallow.

I will often point out to people that if they hold the stone very close to theri face - the stone goes dead. Rarely a younger person changes their mind - but in the purchasing price trade off - many choose the spread.

It is becuase of this experiance that I decided to add spread to HCA as a factor with equal weight to fire and scintillation - but 1/2 that of brilliance / brightness.

GIA and aGS have spread as a knock down factor - I use it as an actual grade consideration. Not saying i am right and they are wrong - but in 30 years of doing this - I believe spread is a critical factor consumers want to know.

Add to this my anecdotal experiance that shallow stones loook better when they are dirty. (I have begged Sergey to make a modelling option in DiamCalc to put ''virtual'' grease on the diamond pavilion).

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/16/2006 7:17:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


Add to this my anecdotal experiance that shallow stones loook better when they are dirty. (I have begged Sergey to make a modelling option in DiamCalc to put ''virtual'' grease on the diamond pavilion).

Garry.. I''ve been showing the effect of grease on the pavilion since the mid 90''s in 2D simulations, as well as in my SAS2000 3D simulations, and my clients have used the 2D simulation (example on my SAS2000 page) I believe, to sell an ultrasonic cleaner with every diamond..

What happens when there is grease (RI ~ 1.5) on the pavilion is:

1) The critical angle opens up, and you loose more light out of facet interactions on the pavilion, technically the stone is then "duller"

2) The contrast pattern you then see might change as a result, either increasing or decreasing, depending on the cut of the stone, and the stone might appear "better", but it can''t be any "brighter" overall as it doesn''t change the basic internal reflectivity, just the light loss at the diamond/grease/air interface, that''s the optical physics as I see it. Trade off, pattern or uniformity in lower brilliance, or higher brilliance with possibly more contrast

3) Now given that most people don''t take care of, or bother to clean their stones (amazing the amount of cookie dough you see), cutting stones like this to enhance the "slob" effect might be an idea, someone might even trademark it something like the Lazy8

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 3/17/2006 12:22:58 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 3/16/2006 7:17:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


Add to this my anecdotal experiance that shallow stones loook better when they are dirty. (I have begged Sergey to make a modelling option in DiamCalc to put ''virtual'' grease on the diamond pavilion).

Garry.. I''ve been showing the effect of grease on the pavilion since the mid 90''s in 2D simulations, as well as in my SAS2000 3D simulations, and my clients have used the 2D simulation (example on my SAS2000 page) I believe, to sell an ultrasonic cleaner with every diamond..

What happens when there is grease (RI ~ 1.5) on the pavilion is:

1) The critical angle opens up, and you loose more light out of facet interactions on the pavilion, technically the stone is then ''duller''

2) The contrast pattern you then see might change as a result, either increasing or decreasing, depending on the cut of the stone, and the stone might appear ''better'', but it can''t be any ''brighter'' overall as it doesn''t change the basic internal reflectivity, just the light loss at the diamond/grease/air interface, that''s the optical physics as I see it. Trade off, pattern or uniformity in lower brilliance, or higher brilliance with possibly more contrast

3) Now given that most people don''t take care of, or bother to clean their stones (amazing the amount of cookie dough you see), cutting stones like this to enhance the ''slob'' effect might be an idea, someone might even trademark it something like the Lazy8

Marty you did not address my main contention:

i.e. shallower diamonds look much better than slightly deeper diamonds when both are dirty.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/17/2006 6:49:16 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 3/17/2006 12:22:58 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 3/16/2006 7:17:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


Add to this my anecdotal experiance that shallow stones loook better when they are dirty. (I have begged Sergey to make a modelling option in DiamCalc to put ''virtual'' grease on the diamond pavilion).

Garry.. I''ve been showing the effect of grease on the pavilion since the mid 90''s in 2D simulations, as well as in my SAS2000 3D simulations, and my clients have used the 2D simulation (example on my SAS2000 page) I believe, to sell an ultrasonic cleaner with every diamond..

What happens when there is grease (RI ~ 1.5) on the pavilion is:

1) The critical angle opens up, and you loose more light out of facet interactions on the pavilion, technically the stone is then ''duller''

2) The contrast pattern you then see might change as a result, either increasing or decreasing, depending on the cut of the stone, and the stone might appear ''better'', but it can''t be any ''brighter'' overall as it doesn''t change the basic internal reflectivity, just the light loss at the diamond/grease/air interface, that''s the optical physics as I see it. Trade off, pattern or uniformity in lower brilliance, or higher brilliance with possibly more contrast

3) Now given that most people don''t take care of, or bother to clean their stones (amazing the amount of cookie dough you see), cutting stones like this to enhance the ''slob'' effect might be an idea, someone might even trademark it something like the Lazy8

Marty you did not address my main contention:

i.e. shallower diamonds look much better than slightly deeper diamonds when both are dirty.

Garry.. OK, to address shallow vs steep, the same comments above apply in general, you might get more or less relative leakage in specifc areas and different patterning, which will make the look of the stone entirely different. Depending on how Sergey has his software written, is should be an easy "mod" to the code. I DON''T KNOW whether your observations regarding steep/shallow differences would hold up because I don''t know what you mean specifically about the subjective "better". Not trying to pull your chain but, but their might be differences in amount of leakage. Let me try a simple 2D simulation I have built into my software and I''ll post it this weekend. There might be some conclusions from the leakage patteren, although I don''t do the reverse ray tracing so I can''t do the "visualization rendering" that Sergey does.

Also you have to remember that the "relative leakage" values may or may not hold with an non-absorbing diamond, as the ray that you presupposed has leaked out, may not exist at that point in the ray trace sequence, because it has been absorbed internally, dependent on the color of the diamond. It is a non linear problem, and size dependent. If you take two identical cut diamonds of different sizes you will get different "looks" if they are of the "same" color grade, because the "same" color grade for two sizes implies that the larger diamond has less color causeing nitrogen per unit volume than the smaller stone. A TECHNICAL FACT we can''t get away from.

 

[adamasgem]

Garry, I did three sets of 2D runs staring with the tolkowsky model with shallow 40.26 and steep 41.76 pavilion models with and without grease on the pavilion. The clean stones are on the left side of the pics and the dirty stones are on the right side. The next three graphs illustrate that the effect YOU might be seeing is contrast and/or brightness loss BUT, it seems to be HIGHLY dependent. THERE IS NO INTERNAL ABSRPTION MODELED.

DARK GREEN is glare
Light green are "good rays"
RED are light loss

REMEMBER this is a 2D in plane analysis, sort of like the original model used by Tolkowsky, so it may or may not reflect the perception you see, might it might have something to do with it, and that what you see as "better" might be a function of the lighting. I'll leave it to Sergey to put the hook in his software, which will probably be more usefull. My original 2D was qualitative and intended to show the effects of NOT keeping your stone clean.



The first set is using a uniform intensity +/- 90 degree input distribution with respect to the table little differeence

The second set is with +/- 30 degrees input distribution : little difference

The THIRD set is with +/- 2 degrees input distribution: BIG difference

PS These have been called "whiskers" diagrams

 

[adamasgem]

Here is the +/30 degree input angle set

 

[adamasgem]

here is the +/- 2 deg set which might bear on your conclusion about dirty shallow stones being "better"

 

[Serg]

re:I have begged Sergey to make a modelling option in DiamCalc to put 'virtual' grease on the diamond pavilion).

Garry,
If you agree to put 'virtual' grease on the whole diamond , enough change RI. You can do it in Diamcalc right now.

 

[Rod]

Date: 3/16/2006 4:56:32 PM
Author: belle

Date: 3/16/2006 4:43:35 PM
Author: Rod

Date: 3/16/2006 4:36:28 PM
Author: belle

Date: 3/16/2006 4:23:52 PM
Author: Rod
Sure, John, it''s called Presmyopia and like most adults my age, I now wear glasses to correct the spring that broke around the time I turned 40. That said, since my vision with glasses is basically as good as it was when I was younger, I would think I would see the same thing as a younger person sees when looking at a diamond. So what does the fact that ''older'' people preferred the shallower cut diamond mean? Perhaps the ''older'' people were asked not to wear glasses, or contacts? I guess I just find it interesting that categorically, ''older'' people preferred the shallower stone?

(presbyopia)

rod, did you do your diamond shopping with or without your glasses? the reason garry cites for older people preferring shallow stones, is that they are effected differently by head obscuration. as you bring the diamond closer in viewing range (as an older, presbyopic person would do) more light is obstructed by the head effecting the apperance of the diamond.

Thanks for spell-checking me

And yes, I shopped with my glasses. I do everything with my glasses. They''re no-line bifocal, so I believe I see as well with my glasses as ''them youngsters do.'' By gummit the old man said as he whistles through his dentures........LOL

rod, i hope you were not offended by my spell check!

my medical side took over for a minute there...sorry!

how does your diamond look with glasses and without? do you notice the effects of obscuration?

Belle, sorry not responding sooner, we''re moving today, so things are a bit hectic.

I don''t think it would be possible for you to offend me. So, please fret not about the spell check comment.

I''m not technical enought to really understand obscuration. All I can see with my glasses on versus with my glasses off, is my diamonds patterns are a bit more blurred without my glasses. Not too scientific, I guess and for the most part the discussions on this topic and the GIA rounding issues in general are WAY beyond my comprehensiion. Though, I am fascinated, I don''t really get it.

Anyway, thanks for even worrying for a moment that you could have offended me. You most certainly did not.

Thanks........

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Marty could you explain the difference between 30 - 2 degrees etc ?
Does it mean the average lighting direction or the average viewing direction differences etc?

And can you give us a simple analysis of the differences?
also the verticle arrangement makes it very hard to compare results.

Sergey - usually the top of a diamond rubs on things and stays relatively clean.
It is the pavilion that is almost always dirty.
(Trivia: Diamond has the highest ability for grease to stick to it of any substance)

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/17/2006 3:02:10 PM
Author: Serg
re:I have begged Sergey to make a modelling option in DiamCalc to put 'virtual' grease on the diamond pavilion).

Garry,
If you agree to put 'virtual' grease on the whole diamond , enough change RI. You can do it in Diamcalc right now.

Sergeys correct for that ammended condition.
Use a RI ~ 1.617 and you will get the same effect as if there was a film of oil/grase RI~1.5 over the whole diamond. You might even get some colorless spinels cut to test the ammended condition on a visual basis, which would approximate the steep/shallow conditions . See the Fresnel reflectivity comparison below..

A Clean spinel will react much like a dirty diamond

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/17/2006 5:07:32 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Marty could you explain the difference between 30 - 2 degrees etc ?
Does it mean the average lighting direction or the average viewing direction differences etc?

And can you give us a simple analysis of the differences?
also the verticle arrangement makes it very hard to compare results.

Sergey - usually the top of a diamond rubs on things and stays relatively clean.
It is the pavilion that is almost always dirty.
(Trivia: Diamond has the highest ability for grease to stick to it of any substance)

Garry The light is comming at the diamond in a uniformly distribution of angles from above with the distribution +/- 2 degrees (or +/- 30 degrees) from the table normal..

Not much you can say regarding the 2D analysis, other than for the profile view, higher angle lighting (like from overhead) is more effected by pavilion light loss due to grease than shallower angle lighting.

Please, If you don''t like my arrangement, then cut and paste side by side in another arrangement that you like, using paint or another program.

Or use Sergey''s idea with the RI of Spinel, although there will be a different "look" because the critical angle is opened up on the crown facets.

Sergey may not have his software initially coded to easily handle the RI ratio problem you pose (Riair versus RIgem), because it probably wasn''t his intent, so it may be a Russian bear for him to easily make the "fix" you wanted, and besides it can cost a lot of time and money to do it. Additionally he needs to handle the interface input, etc.. Can be a LOT of coding and checkout... So don''t bust his chops.. Send him money to do it (or me

)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 3/17/2006 6:08:55 PM
Author: adamasgem
Garry The light is comming at the diamond in a uniformly distribution of angles from above with the distribution +/- 2 degrees (or +/- 30 degrees) from the table normal..

Not much you can say regarding the 2D analysis, other than for the profile view, higher angle lighting (like from overhead) is more effected by pavilion light loss due to grease than shallower angle lighting.

Please, If you don''t like my arrangement, then cut and paste side by side in another arrangement

Thanks Marty.
So we could say that from a face up position that the dirty shallow stone would have a less see thru look and return more light, but once you rock the stones thru + - 30 degrees - there would be very little difference?

Here is an interesting idea - what would you choose - a diamond that is OK - just OK - or one that has more sparkle, but includes some dark zones that you can see sometimes?


The question is like.... would you sacrafice accepting something bad, to get something better, or would people prefer to not risk having some bad just to get some good. I need to think about a btter way to frame this question.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/17/2006 6:24:33 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 3/17/2006 6:08:55 PM
Author: adamasgem
Garry The light is comming at the diamond in a uniformly distribution of angles from above with the distribution +/- 2 degrees (or +/- 30 degrees) from the table normal..

Not much you can say regarding the 2D analysis, other than for the profile view, higher angle lighting (like from overhead) is more effected by pavilion light loss due to grease than shallower angle lighting.

Please, If you don''t like my arrangement, then cut and paste side by side in another arrangement

Thanks Marty.
So we could say that from a face up position that the dirty shallow stone would have a less see thru look and return more light, but once you rock the stones thru + - 30 degrees - there would be very little difference? No you can''t say that from what I have posted

It all depends on the lighting, I haven''t simulated tilt, two entirely different things

Here is an interesting idea - what would you choose - a diamond that is OK - just OK - or one that has more sparkle, but includes some dark zones that you can see sometimes? I happen to like contrast, "sparkle" can get lost at any distance, I happen to like broadflash.


The question is like.... would you sacrafice accepting something bad, to get something better, or would people prefer to not risk having some bad just to get some good. I need to think about a btter way to frame this question. Yes, I agree with you about framing the question

 

[JohnQuixote]

An article titled "Bill Boyajian's Fall From Grace" appears in Idex online today, 3/23/06. It's an editorial discussing "the governance and culture of governance at GIA." Specifically, strong opinions about the aftermath of the bribery/grading scandal and other ethical issues.http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.aspTextSearch=&KeyMatch=0&id=25423

Excerpt: "The hundreds of hardworking and dedicated people at the GIA (that are working for salaries substantially below those for equivalent work and responsibility in the private sector) deserve better. They deserve better management. They deserve a chance to regain their pride in the organization. For better or worse, the GIA is de facto the setter of standards in the diamond certification trade – it is almost like a regulator. Everyone, including this writer, is convinced that it is imperative that the integrity of the GIA be assured at all costs. "