GIA tricked & cheated: +63% depth XXX diamonds

[John P]

@John Pollard
Why not just say....
GIA lies.

Oh my. We have a strmrdr sighting.

I'm actually neutral about GIA's ultimate position on this. @Rockdiamond posed it well above. If two diamonds have identical weight and visual appeal...but one spreads notably smaller...there's no harm done if the jeweler responsibly sells the one with smaller-spread for appropriately less.

(also from above) The wrinkle is the presumption that buyers will know two "1-carat" diamonds can face-up with different spreads. As anyone who sees client-traffic knows, most new buyers have no idea about that. But that's not GIA's fault...

Or is it? [ Cue dramatic music again ]

 

[Karl_K]

sells the one with smaller-spread for appropriately less.

I laughed. That is funny.
Edit: A search shows I was right to laugh there is no discount on average from 63% to 63.1% depth or even 63.5%
Some of them are listed more than 62% depth gia X stones with all the same other specs.
Which would indicate atleast on the PS virtual lists they are not discounted which is a very good indication they are not discounted on the wholesale level on average.

 

[TODiamonds]

Translation: GIA publishes their set of rules for gemologists to follow, however GIA plays by their own rules.

 

[Karl_K]

To late to edit: but to be fair to Sir John a jeweler could push back on the pricing and likely get a discount and pass it on but on internet lists where things are listed and sold at list+ markup someone could over pay for these diamonds.
So his statement could be true in some cases where the jeweler pushed back and passed the savings on to the client.

 

[OoohShiny]

To late to edit: but to be fair to Sir John a jeweler could push back on the pricing and likely get a discount and pass it on but on internet lists where things are listed and sold at list+ markup someone could over pay for these diamonds.
So his statement could be true in some cases where the jeweler pushed back and passed the savings on to the client.

This statement brings to mind @diagem's comment the other day - if Rap stopped existing, would retailers, middle men, sightholders and miners know how to price their goods??!

 

[Karl_K]

This statement brings to mind @diagem's comment the other day - if Rap stopped existing, would retailers, middle men, sightholders and miners know how to price their goods??!

No
It would be replaced by something simular quickly.
Idex probably.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I've been pricing diamonds well before Rappaport came into prominence.
And even today, there's no "rap Sheet" for fancy colors- and so many unique diamonds have to be priced based on things other than Rappaport.
Also- if we look at any popular size color clarity ( 1.00 G/I1 RBC), the percentage of variance from the most costly to the least costly is massive- so someone is assigning values to these stones.....

It's a very good question as to how people price the stones.......I'd say it comes from looking at a lot of diamonds, over a long period of time.

 

[OoohShiny]

I've been pricing diamonds well before Rappaport came into prominence.
And even today, there's no "rap Sheet" for fancy colors- and so many unique diamonds have to be priced based on things other than Rappaport.
Also- if we look at any popular size color clarity ( 1.00 G/I1 RBC), the percentage of variance from the most costly to the least costly is massive- so someone is assigning values to these stones.....

It's a very good question as to how people price the stones.......I'd say it comes from looking at a lot of diamonds, over a long period of time.

Things get even more variable when MMD/Lab Grown Diamonds are looked at - it is driving me slightly crazy that we don't have a PS-search engine (or similar) to trawl and collate prices from various sites, as it makes it very hard to talk about value and/or recommend stones to potential purchasers in the Lab Grown section! (putting to one side future value discussions, of course )

re: pricing based on experience, I would agree that would be a learned skill but with the internet, both the consumer and the vendor can be better informed. The heart of the discussions seems to focus on "what price should diamonds be for the 4Cs and also the elusive 'beauty' variable", but I imagine it is hard to, effectively, 'price stones in a vacuum', which would have been the case before Rap and before the internet. Local stones/prices for local markets? Makes sense, but the whole world is the local market now!

 

[diagem]

I've been pricing diamonds well before Rappaport came into prominence.
And even today, there's no "rap Sheet" for fancy colors- and so many unique diamonds have to be priced based on things other than Rappaport.
Also- if we look at any popular size color clarity ( 1.00 G/I1 RBC), the percentage of variance from the most costly to the least costly is massive- so someone is assigning values to these stones.....

It's a very good question as to how people price the stones.......I'd say it comes from looking at a lot of diamonds, over a long period of time.

I assume you mean Rapnet when you look at any popular size, presumably the largest diamond data base available. Also on that platform all diamonds have a % off Rapaport Price List, and one thing is certain, the highest discounts are placed on the first pages and as the diamonds value increase they go down the page rankings.

On one aspect, you are lucky as you really have no choice but to value the greater majority of your stock based on real value NUMBERS, but this is a far cry from the industry norm.

I am also willing to bet you next time you get offered a standard colorless diamond at (let say) minus 20% Rapaport, ask the seller a numerical dollar value instead of a discount from Rapaport, he won’t be able to price you the number without a check on his phone application or on the sheet itself. Try it.... out

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yoram!!!
Old Buddy!!!
Yes, I call myself incredibly lucky....after all, I know you, right

I am also willing to bet you next time you get offered a standard colorless diamond at (let say) minus 20% Rapaport, ask the seller a numerical dollar value instead of a discount from Rapaport, he won’t be able to price you the number without a check on his phone application or on the sheet itself. Try it.... out

My brokers ALL know, by this time, that listing the price as "-20%" won't work here.....I'm too lazy to start calculating- let them earn their money.....but you're 100% correct- most of them only discuss percentage "back of rap" on colorless diamonds.... ( but not after I get through with them)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Things get even more variable when MMD/Lab Grown Diamonds are looked at - it is driving me slightly crazy that we don't have a PS-search engine (or similar) to trawl and collate prices from various sites, as it makes it very hard to talk about value and/or recommend stones to potential purchasers in the Lab Grown section! (putting to one side future value discussions, of course )

It is not far off OS. Probably been done by now but Andrey is having new developer blues.

 

[OoohShiny]

It is not far off OS. Probably been done by now but Andrey is having new developer blues.

Ooooooooh, that would be awesome!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

After years GIA has still not addressed their "rounding errors". I am saddened and appalled.
Listed Excellent cut over 63% depth:

Listed XXX

Here are a few 64% depth triple excellent cut rounds

 

[headlight]

Wow!

 

[MissGotRocks]

Sad that the foremost lab still adheres to these number ranges. Clearly designed to make money and not for the benefit of the consumer. Acquiring AGS just watered them down in terms of transparency of true angles. You get their benefit of a cut grade but the non-rounded values are gone. I guess any consumer now can pay for a Sarine report but it is just another loss for consumers in my opinion. Such a shame that such an expensive commodity is still shrouded in smoke and mirrors!

 

[DejaWiz]

Sad that the foremost lab still adheres to these number ranges. Clearly designed to make money and not for the benefit of the consumer. Acquiring AGS just watered them down in terms of transparency of true angles. You get their benefit of a cut grade but the non-rounded values are gone. I guess any consumer now can pay for a Sarine report but it is just another loss for consumers in my opinion. Such a shame that such an expensive commodity is still shrouded in smoke and mirrors!

Graded Inaccurately, Always
As opposed to
Always Graded Superiorly

 

[denverappraiser]

How is this still a 'round brilliant'? At a minimum it's 'modified', and it's possibly a 65 facet round fantasy cut, which would mean no cut grade at all.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Wow!

Yes.
My whistleblower effort.
And here is how one company managed to trick GIA into giving Excellent Cut grade to a 64.9% deep diamond.

And after looking at a few videos of 64% deep diamonds it appears this is also still happening.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

How is this still a 'round brilliant'? At a minimum it's 'modified', and it's possibly a 65 facet round fantasy cut, which would mean no cut grade at all.

True Neil, However I doubt anyone at GIA actually looks at the models. I feel they pull certain bits of data into automated reports and produce their cut grade.
But given the dumb adding up crown height, girdle thickness and pavilion depth % to give a total that has rounding errors in it seems unlikely to be able to allow diamonds with 1% extra depth above their allowance of 63%.
How hard would it be to add the simple algorithm of depth/avg diameter and ding +63%?
I did Fortran programming 48 years ago and bet I could write that code even withough ChatGPT!

 

[Serg]

Yes.
My whistleblower effort.
And here is how one company managed to trick GIA into giving Excellent Cut grade to a 64.9% deep diamond.

And after looking at a few videos of 64% deep diamonds it appears this is also still happening.

recently seen Michael D Cowing's post in facebook

 

[Rockdiamond]

It’s a “Round Modified Brilliant” in my book. Truly a sham.
But many 1.00 ex cut grade stones spread 6.2-6.3 mm. And the cutters get away with this because the percentage of buyers that read PS is way too low

 

[Texas Leaguer]

On the other hand I do believe extra facets should depreciate the craftsmanship top grade.

Good point.
As we tightened the specifications and qualifications for our brand through the years, one of the first new things we dissallowed was an extra facet, and for exactly this reason. An extra facet usually indicates a shortcut the cutter has taken in order to repair a cut fault, without recutting the entire stone which would result in weight loss and diameter loss in most cases. It can of course also be used to repair a chip or remove a surface inclusion, but again it is like putting a band aid on a booboo. For a brand that is marketed as elite in cut craftsmanship, we did not feel this was defensible.

The current issue is something quite different. As others have said, this is about gaming the GIA system. (Diamond cutters are VERY smart people!). My question is why, after acknowledging this particular hack, has GIA not eliminated it by updating their computer assessment algorithm. (or have they?). It is very analogous to the penalty they assess for painting and digging at a certain level, which is completely instrument driven. It seems like they could easily code the system to look for multiple extra facets of regular size and distribution below the girdle line. If they wanted to.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

As others have said, this is about gaming the GIA system. (Diamond cutters are VERY smart people!). My question is why, after acknowledging this particular hack, has GIA not eliminated it by updating their computer assessment algorithm. (or have they?). It is very analogous to the penalty they assess for painting and digging at a certain level, which is completely instrument driven. It seems like they could easily code the system to look for multiple extra facets of regular size and distribution below the girdle line. If they wanted to.

Exactly my point for re-raising an old post Bryan.
Back in 2019 there were 37,000 X stones 63.1% and deeper. Today there are 50% more. 55,000 list on RapNet. Some are the dumb rounding error. Many have dug out girdles to achieve a thinner avg gridle % making a sick dog sicker!.

 

[Serg]

Exactly my point for re-raising an old post Bryan.
Back in 2019 there were 37,000 X stones 63.1% and deeper. Today there are 50% more. 55,000 list on RapNet. Some are the dumb rounding error. Many have dug out girdles to achieve a thinner avg gridle % making a sick dog sicker!.

There is the different point of view on same situation:
All these diamonds( above 63% with thick ( hiden ) girdle have same optical performance as diamonds with same pavilion , crown angles and thinner girdle( total height less than 63%). If a diamond with total Height below 63% has Excellent optical performance and we produce same diamond with +1% girdle thickness we receive the diamond with same Excellent performance. The difference only in spread and B2B buyers penalty such diamonds for low spread. Typically RBC diamonds with total height above 63% have much higher B2B discount . So manufactures usually has not extra profit from diamonds above 63%, but trade has it! . The exception is only critical masses( 1ct, 3ct,..) . Critical masses is the trade invention . Its come neither from manufactures nor from GIA.
If you want the retail to sell better diamonds to consumers, you should improve the retail instead of endlessly blaming GIA and cutters.
Retail creates rules for cutters . Cutters could follow any retail rules if the retail pays just 5-10% for all cutters work( scanning , allocation, sawing, bruting, blocking, polishing,). If retail buys only RBC with height below 63% nobody will produce diamonds with GIA Excellent grade for diamonds with 64% total height.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

There is the different point of view on same situation:
All these diamonds( above 63% with thick ( hiden ) girdle have same optical performance as diamonds with same pavilion , crown angles and thinner girdle( total height less than 63%). If a diamond with total Height below 63% has Excellent optical performance and we produce same diamond with +1% girdle thickness we receive the diamond with same Excellent performance. The difference only in spread and B2B buyers penalty such diamonds for low spread. Typically RBC diamonds with total height above 63% have much higher B2B discount . So manufactures usually has not extra profit from diamonds above 63%, but trade has it! . The exception is only critical masses( 1ct, 3ct,..) . Critical masses is the trade invention . Its come neither from manufactures nor from GIA.
If you want the retail to sell better diamonds to consumers, you should improve the retail instead of endlessly blaming GIA and cutters.
Retail creates rules for cutters . Cutters could follow any retail rules if the retail pays just 5-10% for all cutters work( scanning , allocation, sawing, bruting, blocking, polishing,). If retail buys only RBC with height below 63% nobody will produce diamonds with GIA Excellent grade for diamonds with 64% total height.

These diamonds get sold to people who do not know the problem they have Sergey.
I do not think that is fair. Even if they are cheaper.
They are not all girdle thickness issues. Some are just very steep crowns and very deep pavilion combinations.
Is that fair? When the published depth limit is 63% and there are lots of diamonds deeper 64%?

 

[Serg]

These diamonds get sold to people who do not know the problem they have Sergey.
I do not think that is fair. Even if they are cheaper.
They are not all girdle thickness issues. Some are just very steep crowns and very deep pavilion combinations.
Is that fair? When the published depth limit is 63% and there are lots of diamonds deeper 64%?

What is fair diamond trade? What is honest communication between diamond sellers and diamond buyers? These are very good questions. What is honest diamond beauty grading system?

I don't see anything fair in diamond sales system based on fixing a set of geometric parameters declared as ideal, and penalising and stigmatising deviations from them. What's honest about a system where sellers communicate with consumers using unnatural and unfamiliar language, making it impossible for consumers to verify the claims made and constantly creating atmosphere of intimidation?

If a consumer cannot perceive the difference in beauty between diamonds with heights of 63% and 64%, which only differ in the girdle thickness, why to deceive them into thinking that these diamonds have different beauty? Why not to honestly state that they simply have different spreads (appearance size)?

This problem is one of the consequences of diamonds being sold in carats (cubic millimeters) rather than in appearance size, square millimeters. When consumers want diamonds that appear larger, then heavier diamonds are sold to them. Is that fair?

Is it honest and wise that experts, laboratories, and trade choose what's easier for them rather than what consumers need and enjoy? Instead of evaluating the beauty of diamonds, professionals assess cutting parameters, completely ignoring other features that influence appearance, for example, the quality of the diamond material (milkiness, stria, etc).

Instead of evaluating the color from the crown direction, they assess it from the pavilion side. Instead of assessing the planarity of the diamond facets, they consider scratches.

There is no point in discussing the many dishonest consequences of the system created for the convenience of trade, but not for providing the best service to consumers. It is pointless to fix individual consequences of the fundamentally flawed system when the entire system needs to be changed. First and foremost, we need to move away from assessing beauty based on proportions and reject the misconception of Ideal Cut. Instead, we should allow consumers to independently compare the beauty of different cuts, honestly showing them that there is no cut where all three aspects of diamond beauty reach maximum levels simultaneously.

Some cuts may excel in Brilliance, others in Fire, and others in Scintillation. There is no single cut where all these phenomena are at their best. If a consumer prefers Scintillation, there's no need to promote RBC Ideal cut to them.

If you want to work honestly, make statements that consumers can independently verify and draw their own conclusions, choosing what appeals to them best. Trade should educate consumers and assist them in making choices rather than imposing decisions based on rejection rules and gimmick instruments.

Strategies based on dishonesty do not provide sustainable long-term development and success.

 

[Serg]

re:Strategies based on dishonesty do not provide sustainable long-term development and success.

To avoid misinterpretation, I would prefer to rephrase this statement in more detail.

To Strategies based on misleading consumers through overly simplified concepts and notions may lead to initial strong sales, but they do not foster sustainable long-term development and success.

 

[Serg]

Which of the sellers currently explains to customers that diamonds with identical proportions but different mass may have different Fire, for example? If customers want more Fire, then perhaps they should consider purchasing an SI1, H, GIA VG diamond because it has higher mass compared to a VS2, E, GIA 3EX diamond. However, they will most likely hear that 3EX diamond has a better Cut Grade, implying it has better Optical Performance, even though this is not true when we consider size impact of a bigger diamond that could be purchased for the same price. Diamonds deviating from a certain Ideal are stigmatized, and consumers are steered towards choices based on a simplified sales model, rather than on what the consumer would prefer if they had complete information about the relationship between price, size, and beauty of the diamond, including Fire.
Is it fair treatment for people who do not know the problem they have, Garry?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Serg,
I appreciate your perspective, and I agree in principle. But it is human nature to take the path of least resistance - for everyone in a supply chain to do what is most efficient to maximize their profitability, or just ensure their survival. It is a very competitive business after all.

I agree with Garry that the answer lies more with GIA than with other actors in the play. Their stated mission is consumer education and protection. To a large extent they are the tail that wags the dog (no offense to Rapaport). They are THE most trusted authority in the diamond industry from a consumer's perspective, and it is incumbent upon them to provide the best and most complete information in order for that retail pull you refer to to have power.

They do a good job, but could do better. You mention transparency (milkiness). This is another area I feel they could do a much better job in protecting consumers, in addition to alerting customers about spread.

 

[Serg]

Bryan,
Thank you for your comments .
I would agree with the notion that the larger an organization becomes, the more inclined it is to seek the path of least changes. However, when it comes to human nature, I believe any of us could provide numerous examples of people refusing the path of least resistance and adaptation. In fact, a significant portion of any nation's history is based on the actions of precisely such individuals, even though, of course, the majority of products and services are created by people who minimize their resistance. A minority of people set and alter the rules; the majority lives by them. GIA established the fundamental rules of the game, which Rapaport supplemented, and now the entire industry operates by them. If someone wishes to thrive based on minimal resistance, they must adhere to these rules, creating their competitiveness by minimizing their operational costs. Those who are dissatisfied with the current rules and are willing to deviate from the path of least resistance have the opportunity to establish new rules. Some may succeed, but most won't. However, without attempting, nothing will undoubtedly change. The most disadvantageous position is held by those who are dissatisfied with the current rules but are not ready to deviate from the path of least resistance. They merely waste their time on unproductive demands to change rules that were created by those who built a highly successful business upon them. These individuals cannot earn significant credibility among serious people.

I can't describe this situation any better than Krylov did in his fable
"The Elephant and the Flea."
"Oh, Flea! It seems she is strong when barking at the Elephant."

I have great respect for much of what Garry has done; however, I do not share the same respect for his attacks on GIA, stones like P41.2 Cr34.5, Total height 63-63%. It saddens me to see how he is wasting his time in such a way.



."