Grading systems and 'gaming' them: An eternal story?

[Lightfoot]

But what I've seen change over the years is the appreciation for the cut nuts among us who can see the differences and are willing to pay extra for those differences. I know we are a minority, but our opinions didn't used to be discounted the way they are now on RT. You know, I have better things to do with my time than post on RT and on this thread in particular. But the reason I stick it out is because of the way I was treated when I was a newbie -- my choices were supported, even when that choice is to go with a more expensive choice than most would choose. But now, the SOP on PS seems to be "why pay more for super-duper cut when you won't be able to see the differences" or "if it's an AGS 0, you don't have to be concerned about cut," etc., and when those of us who have chosen to pay more explain our reasoning, we are dismissed.

Lula, I think you bring up a really great point about PS here - that it should always be supportive and accepting of the numerous preferences people can have when it comes to diamond shopping. And it would truly be a shame if PS were not that way - I've never seen a place where newbies are so welcomed, helped and educated with open arms as PS.

It also makes me sad to think about people such as John P. not wanting to post as much in PS. Of the two diamond question topics I started on PS, John answered in both and was always extremely helpful and unbiased - I truly appreciated his input and it helped with my education. My personal opinion is that it can be tough for the tradespeople to post in an educational manner on PS because they could be criticized for promoting for so many different things. If people are so quick to jump on them, and that drives them away, then it just leaves fewer tradespeople around to provide different sides of the story, thus possibly leaving us more likely to jump on the few that do post, no? But with more tradespeople and healthy discussion among them and the consumers, I think everyone wins.

The issue of gaming aside, I think if one thing viewers of this thread can take away is a feeling that many respected PS contributors (trade and not) would like more acceptance and support and healthier discourse among differing opinions, then that is a good thing. I will personally respect those sentiments. With diamonds, there is room for so many different preferences - none better than the other. And I think we should be a little understanding of those tradespeople that do work with PS vendors, because I personally think it is difficult to give helpful advice in such a careful way as to not be considered promoting (and they have regularly accomplished this).

With that said, I apologize to the cut nuts if my comments earlier about "what you take home with a diamond" were disrespectful. PS has actually made me a big cut fan myself and I don't think I was remembering that when I wrote that statement.

 

[John P]

John,

re:Actually I'd be more generous to technology. Where your example speaks of 30% I'd actually put it somewhat higher; more like 60-70%. Still, that leaves a whopping 30-40% of observable differences which can be the basis for this discussion.

we need separate classical RBC from Fancy cuts,
for RBC technologies could give 60-80% information about Optical performance , but result for Fancy cuts is much more less yet.
Girdle shape, pattern ( combination big and small VF's), balance between Fire, Scintillation and Brilliance are very important for Fancy cut Performance evaluations. it is reason why I give only 30% for current technologies .
I do not know any technology which can grade Girdle Shape beauty .
I do not know any technology which give high score for Emerald cut, but some consumers love Emerald cut very much.

only Fancy Cuts is real Crash tests for technologies . I think all discussion about RBC, GIA Ex, AGS 000 are helpless before we can compare Performance RBC with Fancy cuts.
To find answer for RBC we need to log out from RBC discussion. Current Discussion about RBC is deadlock.

I agree with you in principal. And especially because the playing field is so different; not nearly as "standardized."

But with RBC still making up the majority of the market it has been most practical for me to observe reactions of live viewers for that shape. It's interesting what people do distinguish between closely matched stones in some cases...and do not notice, even between different makes...in other cases.

Some of this is human physiology attributable to age and presbyopia. In other cases it can be a mystery to observe how people "see" a diamond's cut quality differently. In a case last month I watched (sheila) describe notable characteristics, while her intended (bruce) took the diamonds from her and could not see anything different at all until he was told what to look-for by (sheila). I'm not talking about obstruction or taste factors; I'm talking differences between a nicely cut but low-crowned 60/60 and a small-tabled near-Tolk. In a radically different case, in the same store, two RBCs that were virtual twins were shown, but both parties in the couple observing them could detect same-differences to a surprising degree; beyond even the salesperson showing them the diamonds. The second couple was younger (far younger than the salesperson) so that may have been a factor.

When we start talking about Princess Cuts and other fancies it takes the discussion to a while different level.

 

[John P]

It also makes me sad to think about people such as John P. not wanting to post as much in PS. Of the two diamond question topics I started on PS, John answered in both and was always extremely helpful and unbiased - I truly appreciated his input and it helped with my education. My personal opinion is that it can be tough for the tradespeople to post in an educational manner on PS because they could be criticized for promoting for so many different things. If people are so quick to jump on them, and that drives them away, then it just leaves fewer tradespeople around to provide different sides of the story, thus possibly leaving us more likely to jump on the few that do post, no? But with more tradespeople and healthy discussion among them and the consumers, I think everyone wins.

The issue of gaming aside, I think if one thing viewers of this thread can take away is a feeling that many respected PS contributors (trade and not) would like more acceptance and support and healthier discourse among differing opinions, then that is a good thing. I will personally respect those sentiments. With diamonds, there is room for so many different preferences - none better than the other. And I think we should be a little understanding of those tradespeople that do work with PS vendors, because I personally think it is difficult to give helpful advice in such a careful way as to not be considered promoting (and they have regularly accomplished this).

With that said, I apologize to the cut nuts if my comments earlier about "what you take home with a diamond" were disrespectful. PS has actually made me a big cut fan myself and I don't think I was remembering that when I wrote that statement.

That's terrific Lightfoot. And thank you for the kind words. It would be nice to foster positive discussion about this topic, which has been increasingly speculated-on by laboratory researchers and professional jewelers with-whom I interact. In fact my experience with Pricescope and internet-sales-models is what stimulates the questions and conversation with me from those folks. I consider that a boon resulting from my long experience here. In that spirit I have great respect for the principals of many companies here, with whom I have personal experience and relationships. My interest in this topic is not tied to brands, it's tied to human cognition and present-&-future technology.

 

[diagem]

When we start talking about Princess Cuts and other fancies it takes the discussion to a while different level.

And I believe this is where energy should go towards...
We must also differentiate between Square symmetrical Princess Cuts and other asymmetrical Fancy shaped Diamonds...
To start with...., Fancy cuts can enjoy a wide variety of C&P angle combinations vs the tight 34.50-40.80 combinations standard Round Brilliants require.
Minor facets are becoming key when designing new cuts, may I dare to say even more important than the mains in some designs.
I believe I read it in Bruce Harding's Antwerp paper (can't find the link but its here on PS somewhere) where he mentions the lack of R&D in the 'anti-thesis' angle combination area's.

I have been playing around for some time already with these anti-thesis combinations and am finding myself fascinated with some of the results.

 

[risingsun]

I had to come back into this thread to acknowledge Lula's post. Lula, you have expressed, far better than I, how I feel about being a cut nut. This is one of the reasons I had a colored stone custom cut for me by a master gem cutter. I believe that we need to respect the choices that others make. We all have different priorities and I would like to see them accepted as such. I have worked with two online vendors, as well as my local jeweler, who carry top tier diamonds. I don't see them posting on PS anymore, but I don't think they are "gaming" anyone with their branded diamonds.

Rising Sun can you please explain you PoView in greater depth?[/quote]

When I first joined PS, there was an emphasis on educating consumers about top tier diamonds and the workmanship, science and artistic vision that went into cutting these stones. We had webinars and education was encouraged. There were robust discussions, which stayed within the parameters of the topic. I came here to gain information before upgrading my diamond. I didn't know anything about these Ideal 0 super duper loupers. I became interested in learning more about them, and ultimately purchased one for my upgrade. I was drawn in by the very aspects that make these stones what they are. We can't assume that new posters are in possession of this information. Although it is legitimate to offer someone an alternative, which is less expensive, I think we need to explain very clearly why we are doing so. There seems to be an automatic reaction to recommend reducing cut and clarity. Now, I have noticed a similar response to cut. Telling consumers that they won't notice the difference between a top performing H&A and an Ideal 0, for example. We can't know what the consumer finds important. For myself and others, I wanted the top performing H&A for my own reasons. After providing adequate education, the consumer has the right to choose what resonates with them.

About "gaming" the system...In my view, gaming is the same as cheating. That is a bold statement to make. I would like to hear some scientific evidence, which indicates how cutters/vendors have cheated their diamonds into this elite, 1% top tier group. Cheating in what way? How do they not measure up? Lula has truly explained my own position. There are "flavors"among the top tier stones. They are all at the top of their "game," which is meant in a positive way. At this point, the consumer chooses the diamond which is most pleasing to them. At this level, the diamond should be more than pleasing, it should knock your socks off. The top of this grade is very small. How much room for "gaming" is there at this level?

I would appreciate keeping this a no snark zone.

 

[Serg]

Bigger diamond is better ( has better light performance. Same Light return, but bigger Light performance ) then smaller diamond with same proportions and symmetry ( for example 3d models are same except diameter )

For example small asymmetry decrease light performance ( I do NOT do statement what "diamond with perfect symmetry is better than diamond with less level symmetry )

in same time we can use asymmetry to increase diamond size( mass , diameter and area ). So we have chance ( at least hypothetical chance) to receive asymmetrical polished round diamond which has better light performance than biggest round diamond with perfect symmetry what we can cut from same rough.


many clients do not see difference between diamonds with perfect symmetry and just very good symmetry. So for such clients bigger diamond with less symmetry is better choice because such diamond has better light performance ( for these clients) than smaller diamond with perfect symmetry .

there is consumer cheating here? it is not gaming , it works for different consumers niches .

Did anybody hear from Bugatti, Ferrari managers what " Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda, Ford,...companies "Gaming quality standards " and cheating consumers "?????

Black PR does not help to build strong consumer brand

 

[risingsun]

Post deleted.

 

[Serg]

Bigger diamond is better ( has better light performance. Same Light return, but bigger Light performance ) then smaller diamond with same proportions and symmetry ( for example 3d models are same except diameter )

For example small asymmetry decrease light performance ( I do NOT do statement what "diamond with perfect symmetry is better than diamond with less level symmetry )

in same time we can use asymmetry to increase diamond size( mass , diameter and area ). So we have chance ( at least hypothetical chance) to receive asymmetrical polished round diamond which has better light performance than biggest round diamond with perfect symmetry what we can cut from same rough.


many clients do not see difference between diamonds with perfect symmetry and just very good symmetry. So for such clients bigger diamond with less symmetry is better choice because such diamond has better light performance ( for these clients) than smaller diamond with perfect symmetry .

there is consumer cheating here? it is not gaming , it works for different consumers niches .

Did anybody hear from Bugatti, Ferrari managers what " Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda, Ford,...companies "Gaming quality standards " and cheating consumers "?????

Black PR does not help to build strong consumer brand

Serg~ I'm not sure what you mean by consumer cheating. Paul started this thread about the cutters/vendors cheating the system. I do know that the quality of a Ford Focus is supposed to be very good, but I'd still rather drive my BMW

Risingsun,


Sorry misleading , I mean
"where is cheating of consumers here ? " ("there is consumer cheating here? " is completely wrong statement)

 

[whatmeworry]

A cutter cuts a GIA EX. You say it's a poor performer than another GIA EX becuase it gets a bad HCA score. HCA score is not part of the GIA EX standard. You can't say they are gaming GIA EX or cutting at the minimum GIA EX because HCA is not part of GIA's standard. You can say they are cutting at the lower level of HCA, a different standard not part of GIA.

A cutter cuts an AGS0 but it's not an H&A by HRD's standard. Well H&A is not part of the AGS requirements. You can't say they are gaming AGS0 or cutting the minimum AGS0 becuase H&A is not part of the AGS standard. You can say they are not meeting HRD's H&A standards.

If you want to have a discussion about applying other standards on top of GIA EX or AGS 0 because they are too lax for you, that's a different conversation than talking about gaming or cheating standards, which frankly appears to be taking shots at competitors.

 

[risingsun]

Bigger diamond is better ( has better light performance. Same Light return, but bigger Light performance ) then smaller diamond with same proportions and symmetry ( for example 3d models are same except diameter )

For example small asymmetry decrease light performance ( I do NOT do statement what "diamond with perfect symmetry is better than diamond with less level symmetry )

in same time we can use asymmetry to increase diamond size( mass , diameter and area ). So we have chance ( at least hypothetical chance) to receive asymmetrical polished round diamond which has better light performance than biggest round diamond with perfect symmetry what we can cut from same rough.


many clients do not see difference between diamonds with perfect symmetry and just very good symmetry. So for such clients bigger diamond with less symmetry is better choice because such diamond has better light performance ( for these clients) than smaller diamond with perfect symmetry .

there is consumer cheating here? it is not gaming , it works for different consumers niches .

Did anybody hear from Bugatti, Ferrari managers what " Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Honda, Ford,...companies "Gaming quality standards " and cheating consumers "?????

Black PR does not help to build strong consumer brand

Serg~ I'm not sure what you mean by consumer cheating. Paul started this thread about the cutters/vendors cheating the system. I do know that the quality of a Ford Focus is supposed to be very good, but I'd still rather drive my BMW

Risingsun,


Sorry misleading , I mean
"where is cheating of consumers here ? " ("there is consumer cheating here? " is completely wrong statement)

Serg~ Thank you for the clarification. I do not believe there is any cheating of the consumers here on PS. I do think that we are providing less education than we used to, which may limit their choices. A statement was made by Paul, in the beginning of this thread, which indicated that cutters/vendors could be cheating consumers by producing what were described as top tiers stones that, in fact, "cheated" the system and didn't belong in the top tier group. I am disputing this statement because I have not seen any scientific evidence of this practice. I need more than this type of statement to accept it as fact. I also need to know by which matrix this is being measured. I hope I have made my position more understandable. This is based upon my perception of Paul's statements.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Most of what I think has already been said, but when someone comes here new asking for suggestions of stones, I almost always list superideals from the well-known vendors. Some have better supply than others, so the frequency of my recommendations from a specific vendor will be affected by supply. I feel confidence in recommending superideal H&A stones because I know there won't be buyer's remorse after the money spent is a fading memory. I have resisted the long-standing trend to recommend low color and clarity because I just do not think it is safe when someone is buying and engagement ring. There is too much room for a friend or family member to ask color and clarity (because that and carats are all most people understand) and there could be a less than desired reaction to lower color and clarity. But going with the specs posted earlier (34-35 ca. 40.6-41.0 pa, etc.) along with a good IS image, I have yet to see a stone that was not gorgeous!

When someone lists a selection of stones, I still tend to steer them toward vendors who openly post the most info on the stones. I just have no patience for virtual lists. I have actually purchased 5 H&A stones for myself, and I have looked at and returned 3 others in the process (plus 4 non-H&A stones). I mainly had to learn some minor preferences that I have such as table size. And I have definitely learned my color tolerance combined with my financial resources!!!

But, I do have to add one thing. Even though I have had around 8 H&A stones in my possession and have found them all perfectly beautiful, when my son-in-law was ready to pick a diamond for my daughter, I knew we really had to balance budget and still try to get a stone that she'd be happy with for a lifetime. I always go into diamond selection with the fact in mind that the diamond will likely never be upgraded, but I still like vendors who offer it for people like me who change their minds! My daughter's e-ring diamond is an AGS Excellent because polish is excellent instead of ideal. Symmetry and light performance are ideal. The idealscope was excellent. It came from a vendor that has H&A stones cut, but some slightly miss the mark. I'd never in a million years be able to put her diamond next to mine and be able to tell it isn't a H&A stone. In fact, it may be one, but I didn't have access to a hearts image. Did the same thing when helping my brother-in-law a few years ago.

So, while I still feel that respected H&A stone vendors are the way to go, when the budget or supply is limited, I will recommend second tier stones with nice IS images. I know I do not have expertise like Karl, Yssie, or Stone, but I can usually feel safe recommending the superideals. But again, not everyone can afford to buy superideal when there is a desired size target. Not everyone is as OCD as I am so I try to be a little open-minded when helping others. (To tell you how OCD I am, I have considered trading one H&A diamond, and because it has about perfect "numbers", I can't deal with trading it for a stone that doesn't have all Excellents on the helium scan! Yes, it is a sickness!)

My biggest problem on here is when people are told to go look at diamonds to see what they like, because I DID that personally and most of us simply do not have access to a well cut selection locally to really have a meaningful experience. Not to mention color cannot be discerned in almost any jewelry store due to the lighting. More power to those who have access to go somewhere that does, but most of us do not. Tiffany was the best overall selection I could find, and guess what? All the diamonds looked fantastic in their lighting even though I am sure few, if any, were superideal!

Paul, my apologies if this is totally off topic. I just wanted to explain my own experiences which shape why I recommend what I recommend. I still am not sure where I fall in comparison to the other posters on this thread! I wasn't posting as much in 2010 due to a move and other big family events and apparently missed the big shift in posting. I think maybe slg is coming from the same place?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

This post is long (my apologies but it is important) and contains a lot of ideas, that possibly could warrant an article. I however prefer to bring these points forward first, so that your feedback and reaction can influence the potential future article.

Introduction:

Regular posters on PS sometimes highlight how the industry ‘games’ certain grading systems, mostly cut-grading systems. What is this ‘gaming the system’ actually? Here are examples.

Example 1: The GIA cut-grading system

GIA introduced a cut-grading-system for rounds in 2006. It has five possible grades; Poor, Fair, Good, Very-Good & Excellent, with most cutters aiming for the Excellent-grade, if not the Very-Good grade.

According to GIA, the division into five grades is based upon the number of categories humans are able to clearly discern. Granted, this is a worthy explanation, but with basic studies which are partially flawed and the further simplification of converting a 3D item with 57+ measurements into a handful of averaged and rounded 2D data points for ease-of-repeatability (well-documented on Pricescope) the best one can say is that the system is not foolproof. I would say that the general sentiment on this forum is that an EX cut-grade by GIA is a nice start, but the stone needs to be further examined via HCA and further photographic evidence. So briefly, within the EX grade of GIA, there are still various levels of cut-quality that warrant further investigation.

With GIA being the foremost authority in lab-grading however, the GIA cut-grade is for most diamond cutters the final word. In essence, on the worldwide diamond-market, a potential premium exists for an EX grade, but often not for further refinement. It is thus logical that many diamond cutters will aim to obtain this EX grade if in any way possible, without paying attention to further refinement.

This logical and, in this case, that human reflex is aided by technology. The GIA system is very predictable and has been incorporated in all brands of diamond-planning technology. After scanning a rough stone, most factory systems will calculate the biggest stone one can obtain while staying inside a specific cut-grade; in this example GIA EX. For most rough stones the advice will be a combination of the deepest pavilion and crown angle combination. For the same diameter, this will yield the highest weight.

As a result, we see an oversupply of such "steep-deep" combos in GIA-EX. On PS, it is very well known that these generally are less nice, but on the worldwide diamond-market, there is no problem selling them... After all they have the coveted "GIA EX" grade. Given that higher yield out of the same rough, the seller also has room to supply them at slightly lower prices, which even enhances their appeal.

Here on PS, we often describe such stones as the result of ‘gaming the system’. We can probably argue whether that ‘gaming’ takes place with intent, but the fact is that it is sufficient for many cutters to produce the minimum-level of the GIA EX-grade. Considering this result; a majority of diamonds produced near the minimum-level of the grade, it can be questioned whether the resulting production is in line with GIA's original intent of creating a clearly discernable Excellent grade.

My conclusion is that the creation of the system has had a consequence which was not the intention of the creators of the system.

Example 2: The AGS cut-grading system

The above series-of-events was already observed on diamond-discussion forums in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, when assessing stones with the old version of the AGS Ideal grade. In the same way, AGS had a 2D cut-grade (like the current GIA system) which resulted in an overwhelming production of steep-deep AGS Ideals.

Probably this reality led the AGS to develop a new cut-grading system, introduced in 2005. According to AGS tradition, the system has 11 cut-grades, ranging from 10 to 0 (Ideal), but in practice, only the top Ideal-grade seriously has commercial appeal.

Because of the 3-dimensional nature of the new AGS system, it is a bit more difficult to understand and predict grades. But after time intelligent cutters have also found out where the minimum-levels of this Ideal-grade are. And once again, the logic of human nature leads to productions being targeted at this minimum-level.

At the same time, within the AGS Ideal grade, there are still various levels of performance. This is only natural, because the grade mainly depends upon an assessment of brightness only, with almost none of fire and absolutely none of scintillation. The same applies for GIA, by the way. Very often, AGS-Ideal is represented as an automatic H&A, which does not need to be the case. And even AGS accepts that there are still different levels within the top-grade, but prefers to describe that as differences in ‘taste’. And granted, further refining of the AGS-system would probably drive even more of their grading-business away to GIA (already a huge problem for AGSL) so I can fully understand their human reaction.

Halfway-conclusion

Grading-systems with a definite top-grade have an adverse effect. Supply will tend to concentrate on achieving the minimum-level of that top-grade, in the absence of a stimulus to do better than that. This can be described as ‘gaming the system,' as if there were malicious intent to deceive. I think that the phenomenon definitely exists, but I would attribute it to simple human logic, not evil or malice, which also makes it more difficult to combat.

Final question: Pricescope as a grading-system

When we observe our favorite website Pricescope, and especially the RockyTalky forum, it is a mini-market for diamonds; a market with its own unwritten rules and understandings. In this mini-market, the advice given on the forums can be regarded as a grading-system of its own.

Here, we do not have grades ranging from Poor to Excellent or 10 to 0, but we can roughly divide the advice in three categories:
- The lowest grade is that of 'Fail.' Do not buy this stone, we will present you with better and cheaper alternatives.
- The middle grade is that of ‘More info needed. Please check further, if possible in person’.
- The top-grade is ‘Buy’, ‘Yummy’, ‘Kewl’, ‘Go for It’

In this mini-market for diamonds, we have a limited number of specialized vendors, aiming specifically to sell via the forum. This may prove very beneficial for them because a sale to a satisfied PS-consumer can lead to positive bias and thus free publicity, even to non-Pricescopers.

But just like with other cut-grading systems, this has influenced the average supply. Reaching the top-grade of 'Buy' on PS is the goal so, logically, vendors need to figure out what the minimum-level of this grade is. And, since they are intelligent people, more and more have figured this out.

Given that we are describing human reactions to systems, it is logical to assume that, over-time, supply of diamonds on PS is increasing at or near the minimum-level of the Pricescope 'Buy' grade. And, indeed, we've seen more and more supply on PS relaxed in cut-quality to achieve the minimum-level of the Pricescope 'Buy' grade. This has happened over the past years and is increasingly happening today.

Interesting to note that, unlike the lab cut-grading systems, the PS-system also involves steering people to minimum-levels of color and clarity arrived-at by group consensus. So, just as there are an abundance of diamonds aimed to achieve the minimum-level of 'Buy' in cut quality the number of available In-House diamonds also bulges at the 'Buy' FGH colors and SI-VS clarities; where options outnumber all other clarity grades by a factor of 10 to 1.

Important to note in this regard is that the PS-system is not set in time, but that it evolves over time. With vendors pushing the minimum-level envelope, it naturally evolves to less strictness.

Summary

When grading-systems try to describe a certain reality in human behavior or action (Cut is a typical example of human action), the existence of the system generally has the effect that it pushes human behavior in a natural way towards the minimum permissible-level of a certain grade. Just like most drivers will tend to go between 75-80mph in a 70mph speed-limit zone.

So what is described as ‘gaming the system’ on PS (when talking about GIA and AGS) also exists at the level of Pricescope too. The advice on the PS-forums is also a grading-system, and indeed, vendors have turned it into an art to game this system too. I think that it is good to realize this and possibly discuss strategies to counter this natural evolution.

Live long,

In an online-discussion, the choice of certain words and the possible different interpretation by others can lead to conclusions, far away from the original intent. That is why I took the liberty of re-reading my original post, bearing in mind where I could be misunderstood.

After this exercise, I still stand behind my original post:

- Grading systems lead to an increased supply of goods, close to the minimum-level of the top-grade. I saw Garry confirming this at least twice in this thread.
- The advice on PS-forums also is a grading-system with a definite top-grade. The peculiar thing about this system is that it is in motion, and where I think the logical direction is for it to become more lax, I also saw in this last week (influenced by this thread?) how a lot of advising posts were much more conditional, thus stricter.

All in all, I found the following funny: If you ask GIA, they will tell you that there are no discernable quality-differences within their top-grade, at the most taste-factors. But it is common knowledge on the PS-forum that certain combos within GIA-EX truly are not the best.

If you ask AGSL, they will tell you that there are observable differences within their top-grade, but they would also prefer to call them taste-factors. Still, I think that it is common knowledge that these potential differences are indeed quality-related.

And when I started discussing PS here as a grading-system, I come to understand that it would be acceptable to call potential differences taste-differences, but not quality-differences. Do I see a similarity in reactions?

Actually, it is not a problem if you prefer to talk about taste, and not about quality. After all, if in rounds, the estimate (Sergey, thank you) is that between 60% and 80% of a diamond's performance can be predicted by technology, and if in fancy shapes, this figure is only around 30%, that leaves sufficient room for interpretation, beyond the minimum PS-criteria.

I really am still curious where my thinking is incorrect.

Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

And when I started discussing PS here as a grading-system, I come to understand that it would be acceptable to call potential differences taste-differences, but not quality-differences. Do I see a similarity in reactions?

You submitted no scientific proof there is a quality difference or that the current standards harm consumers.
There is evidence of both with the GIA system. AGS does a better job but not at the level that PS pro-sumers blindly accept.

 

[Serg]

re: "As a result, we see an oversupply of such "steep-deep" combos in GIA-EX. On PS, it is very well known that these generally are less nice, but on the worldwide diamond-market, there is no problem selling them... After all they have the coveted "GIA EX" grade. Given that higher yield out of the same rough, the seller also has room to supply them at slightly lower prices, which even enhances their appeal.

Here on PS, we often describe such stones as the result of ‘gaming the system’. We can probably argue whether that ‘gaming’ takes place with intent, but the fact is that it is sufficient for many cutters to produce the minimum-level of the GIA EX-grade. Considering this result; a majority of diamonds produced near the minimum-level of the grade, it can be questioned whether the resulting production is in line with GIA's original intent of creating a clearly discernable Excellent grade."

I do not share this point of view.
1) Firstly of all what is exact definition of GIA Ex Steep-Deep diamonds?
2) Is P41.4Cr34.5 Steep-Deep diamond?
3) Last 5-7 years I and Garry had a lot of discussion about Light performance of P41.4Cr34.5. He did not proof for me what such diamonds is not nice in Stereo Human observer conditions . My point of view what such Diamonds could have more Fire than P40.7Cr34.5 .
4) I did not see any AGS works which consider Stereo Vision. I did not see any tests which proof what P40.7Cr34.5 is better than P41.4Cr34.5

I do not share point of view what Diamonds with small leakage under IS/ASET are generally less nice for consumers than "Ideal diamonds with "zero" leakage "

 

[Serg]

re;The advice on the PS-forums is also a grading-system, and indeed, vendors have turned it into an art to game this system too. I think that it is good to realize this and possibly discuss strategies to counter this natural evolution.

Solution is simple. We just need stop to use Penalty Systems and start to use Score Systems .
Penalty Systems are blocking natural evolution, it is main reason why people try to game with Penalty systems

 

[Rockdiamond]

re: "As a result, we see an oversupply of such "steep-deep" combos in GIA-EX. On PS, it is very well known that these generally are less nice, but on the worldwide diamond-market, there is no problem selling them... After all they have the coveted "GIA EX" grade. Given that higher yield out of the same rough, the seller also has room to supply them at slightly lower prices, which even enhances their appeal.

Here on PS, we often describe such stones as the result of ‘gaming the system’. We can probably argue whether that ‘gaming’ takes place with intent, but the fact is that it is sufficient for many cutters to produce the minimum-level of the GIA EX-grade. Considering this result; a majority of diamonds produced near the minimum-level of the grade, it can be questioned whether the resulting production is in line with GIA's original intent of creating a clearly discernable Excellent grade."

I do not share this point of view.
1) Firstly of all what is exact definition of GIA Ex Steep-Deep diamonds?
2) Is P41.4Cr34.5 Steep-Deep diamond?
3) Last 5-7 years I and Garry had a lot of discussion about Light performance of P41.4Cr34.5. He did not proof for me what such diamonds is not nice in Stereo Human observer conditions . My point of view what such Diamonds could have more Fire than P40.7Cr34.5 .
4) I did not see any AGS works which consider Stereo Vision. I did not see any tests which proof what P40.7Cr34.5 is better than P41.4Cr34.5

I do not share point of view what Diamonds with small leakage under IS/ASET are generally less nice for consumers than "Ideal diamonds with "zero" leakage "

+1 ( million)
Thank you Serg.
I think a big problem here on PS is certain misconceptions that are reinforced over and over again.
Leakage is a big one.
I think that using scientific "light return" data, and ignoring the science of human behavior is a huge mistake.
That's my case- and why I feel GIA's "EX" cut grade is a plateau, rather than a peak.
Plus, in many cases "VG" stones that don't make the grade can be visually more appealing to some people than other stones that do get EX.
it's also why I feel that the classification of one stone as "Super Ideal" being automatically "better" than another ignores the fact that many observers will select the stone classified as a "lesser" cut here on PS.
So, in essence they are not compromising on cut at all- or they could pay extra for a "super ideal" they might like less than another stone considered lesser cut here on PS.

 

[yssie]

re;The advice on the PS-forums is also a grading-system, and indeed, vendors have turned it into an art to game this system too. I think that it is good to realize this and possibly discuss strategies to counter this natural evolution.

Solution is simple. We just need stop to use Penalty Systems and start to use Score Systems .
Penalty Systems are blocking natural evolution, it is main reason why people try to game with Penalty systems

I honestly see that as even more problematic - it would require some definitive, comprehensive, widely-accepted definition - or multiple definitions - of "best" to aspire to.. which is already a hot enough debate topic with a penalty system, because new consumers naturally seek to turn the one into the other - like w/ the HCA actually, it's not designed for selection but how many times do we see consumers try to use it that way anyway?

re: "it can be questioned whether the resulting production is in line with GIA's original intent of creating a clearly discernable Excellent grade."

I do not share this point of view.
1) Firstly of all what is exact definition of GIA Ex Steep-Deep diamonds?
2) Is P41.4Cr34.5 Steep-Deep diamond?
3) Last 5-7 years I and Garry had a lot of discussion about Light performance of P41.4Cr34.5. He did not proof for me what such diamonds is not nice in Stereo Human observer conditions . My point of view what such Diamonds could have more Fire than P40.7Cr34.5 .
4) I did not see any AGS works which consider Stereo Vision. I did not see any tests which proof what P40.7Cr34.5 is better than P41.4Cr34.5

As a consumer.. that's an interesting point. Q - we are assuming that if one eye sees say red and the other sees white, the brain interprets those inputs as red or pink or something, not white? (actually a q, I have no idea of the answer). I can follow to the conclusion that if light is escaping through the pavilion in an ocean and there is a single island that is properly angled for tIR - well, if that island does get a ray of light to play with, it's going to ship it out as a lone refraction that can disperse without any fear of recombining w/ adjacent dispersions..

That's an ideal situation.. does it actually play out this way IRL, when observed w/ two eyes?

 

[Lula]

I found this old thread while I was searching for something else. In my opinion, this is a great example of the very *civilized* and informative discussions about cut quality that used to occur regularly on RT.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/hof-outshines-unbranded-h-a.112648/
What changed?

 

[whatmeworry]

re;The advice on the PS-forums is also a grading-system, and indeed, vendors have turned it into an art to game this system too. I think that it is good to realize this and possibly discuss strategies to counter this natural evolution.

Solution is simple. We just need stop to use Penalty Systems and start to use Score Systems .
Penalty Systems are blocking natural evolution, it is main reason why people try to game with Penalty systems

I honestly see that as even more problematic - it would require some definitive, comprehensive, widely-accepted definition - or multiple definitions - of "best" to aspire to.. which is already a hot enough debate topic with a penalty system, because new consumers naturally seek to turn the one into the other - like w/ the HCA actually, it's not designed for selection but how many times do we see consumers try to use it that way anyway?

It doesn't require definitions of what best is and it shouldn't. Only accepted measurements that this stone is brighter than that one. Or this one has more fire than that one. Then a consumer can ponder whether a steep deep but more fiery diamond is better than a spreadier but brighter diamond. It allows cutters more freedom to explore without being judged as inferior if they choose to emphasize say fire at the expense of brightness. And it prevents marketing claims of being the brightest, most fiery, most etc...

 

[yssie]

re;The advice on the PS-forums is also a grading-system, and indeed, vendors have turned it into an art to game this system too. I think that it is good to realize this and possibly discuss strategies to counter this natural evolution.

Solution is simple. We just need stop to use Penalty Systems and start to use Score Systems .
Penalty Systems are blocking natural evolution, it is main reason why people try to game with Penalty systems

I honestly see that as even more problematic - it would require some definitive, comprehensive, widely-accepted definition - or multiple definitions - of "best" to aspire to.. which is already a hot enough debate topic with a penalty system, because new consumers naturally seek to turn the one into the other - like w/ the HCA actually, it's not designed for selection but how many times do we see consumers try to use it that way anyway?

It doesn't require definitions of what best is and it shouldn't. Only accepted measurements that this stone is brighter than that one. Or this one has more fire than that one. Then a consumer can ponder whether a steep deep but more fiery diamond is better than a spreadier but brighter diamond. It allows cutters more freedom to explore without being judged as inferior if they choose to emphasize say fire at the expense of brightness. And it prevents marketing claims of being the brightest, most fiery, most etc...

If only everyone agreed on that!

 

[Laila619]

I don't know...it might just be me but I honestly don't think Rocky Talky has changed--cut is still king. I still see people recommending H&A stones above all else. Someone will post an image of a beautiful stone that isn't quite H&A, and it will be pointed out that the hearts are slightly off at 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock, etc. Then the confused poster (who is still trying to understand what's "wrong" with his choice) will be steered to a H&A stone from one of the most popular vendors.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This is a photo of the proposed study that no one has yet completed or even attempted.
It shows how one can use the basis of any grading system and compare it with human perception of each of the Basic Light Return features which we can observe.
Until such a study is done properly it is unlikely that we will have grading systems that reallly work from a beauty perspective.

Of course this would also enable new niches of diamond cuts that have best brightness, or best fire, or most or least scintillation. And they will make the calibration of any system (eg Bscope) possible (if such systems can be shown to align with human perception, which my bet is any monoscopic view will never be able to do!)

Yssie and others asked some questions regarding Serg's comments.
I posted the above earlier - this is how everyone can come to agree on what #'s actually truly represents peoples perception of brilliance, fire and scintillation or whatever quality you choose to measure.
For example AGS could test its monoscopic computer data against stereoscopic human data, and if they felt the need they could rejig their results. OGI could attempt to calibrate their data, as could Brilliancescope and we could all better understand the various cut offs of IDEA-scope, ASET etc.

This is a very costly study and should be done with different nations etc. We have started it by building the MSS stones http://www.octonus.ru/oct/mss/index.phtml but it requires deep pockets for a dedicated professional survey team.

Someone elas asked about fire vs white flashes.
A white flash will totally obscure a coloured flash almost all the time because the white flash will almost always be brighter. My long held belief brilliance is the enemy of fire. I have actually seen this recently with a very firey cut - a movie in mono vs a movie in stereo (our LBox now has 3D movie capacity) and it seems to me that one of the prerequisites for a very firey cut is that the brilliance should not be as high.

That last point is why we need proper scoring methodologies - consider AGS's penalty system: With a cut off that they use, where there is a possability to design a diamond with better performance in one or various BLR's - the AGS system can not work because their rules ding a stone for any one of their factors. (But at least they have some system to be able to be 'calibrated').

 

[risingsun]

I found this old thread while I was searching for something else. In my opinion, this is a great example of the very *civilized* and informative discussions about cut quality that used to occur regularly on RT.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/hof-outshines-unbranded-h-a.112648/
What changed?

I now consider you to be my twin sister. I'm on Team Lula! Being respectful of each other in a discussion used to count for something.
A poster, not to long ago, asked about a specific HOF setting, which his gf wanted for her engagement ring. The diamond was being purchased online. He had some questions about the setting. It just so happens that it was my setting. I attempted to answer his questions. Several people jumped on the thread suggesting he have a replica made. This triggered another poster to talk about HOF diamonds. I was challenged to ask someone from HOF to come onto PS to justify their prices. Say what? If you don't want to pay the premium, don't buy one. Why become passive-aggressive with me? BTW, a well know jewelry designer did give the poster a quote to make a replica. He would have charged an additional $2000 to make the ring.

I realize that we seem to be speaking at cross purposes in this thread; however, from the consumer's perspective we have placed our trust in our PS vendors, sponsored or not, to offer the highest grade of diamonds available, if that is what we choose. It appears as if that belief is being challenged. It this discussion is a hypothectical one, that should be made clear. In addition, some of us have noticed that consumers are being urged to buy almost as good stones. I've repeated myself ad nauseum on this topic. If someone is going to make this suggestion, please do not simply respond that it will look the same. Offer some education about the differences and let the person decide for him/herself.

 

[Serg]

I found this old thread while I was searching for something else. In my opinion, this is a great example of the very *civilized* and informative discussions about cut quality that used to occur regularly on RT.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/hof-outshines-unbranded-h-a.112648/
What changed?

I now consider you to be my twin sister. I'm on Team Lula! Being respectful of each other in a discussion used to count for something.
A poster, not to long ago, asked about a specific HOF setting, which his gf wanted for her engagement ring. The diamond was being purchased online. He had some questions about the setting. It just so happens that it was my setting. I attempted to answer his questions. Several people jumped on the thread suggesting he have a replica made. This triggered another poster to talk about HOF diamonds. I was challenged to ask someone from HOF to come onto PS to justify their prices. Say what? If you don't want to pay the premium, don't buy one. Why become passive-aggressive with me? BTW, a well know jewelry designer did give the poster a quote to make a replica. He would have charged an additional $2000 to make the ring.

I realize that we seem to be speaking at cross purposes in this thread; however, from the consumer's perspective we have placed our trust in our PS vendors, sponsored or not, to offer the highest grade of diamonds available, if that is what we choose. It appears as if that belief is being challenged. It this discussion is a hypothectical one, that should be made clear. In addition, some of us have noticed that consumers are being urged to buy almost as good stones. I've repeated myself ad nauseum on this topic. If someone is going to make this suggestion, please do not simply respond that it will look the same. Offer some education about the differences and let the person decide for him/herself.

re:however, from the consumer's perspective we have placed our trust in our PS vendors, sponsored or not, to offer the highest grade of diamonds available, if that is what we choose.

unfortunately PS did not do clear Distinction between Highest grades for
1) Craftsmanship
2) Light Performance

most on PS consider "Light Performance "grade as slave of "Craftsmanship to make ideal symmetry diamonds"
But "Light Performance "grade is not just "Craftsmanship to make ideal symmetry diamonds" + "some magic combination of diamond proportions "

 

[denverappraiser]

Paul,

No, you’re not wrong, but I think you’re coming at it from an unusual position. This is simple game theory at play. With any game, it’s necessary to define the victory conditions. In this case, the objective for the cutters is an XXX, but in a broader sense, ‘victory’ is in producing stones that sell quickly and for as much money as possible. For the vast majority of cutters, they can increase both of these attributes (price and speed of sale) by driving for the top grades at the various labs and they do NOT increase either of them further by adding standards above and beyond that. This means that sensible behavior is to cut to the minimum possible standard that gets the premium with the smallest weight loss (which drives down prices) and the least amount of labor (because that drives up costs). The game isn’t about optics, or brilliance or even cut grading at all. It’s about money. Consumers are gaming too. For them, 'victory' is usually in getting the best diamond for the lowest price. They get to define what is 'best' for them. Most consumers will pay extra for excellent or ideal, and they will not pay extra for refinements above and beyond that. You represent a special case. You’re not selling to ‘most’ customers and in your specialty marketplace you have customers who want the added value that you supply. In no way am I disparaging that but I think you would find your business model would need to change drastically if you were to sign on Walmart or Amazon as a distributor.

 

[oldminer]

Neil; We'll see Paul sign on with Walmart just as soon as Mark Morrell signs on with Walmart....never! Some things can't be rushed and there are a few customers at the far end of the bell curve of consumers who want the best and are willing to pay the toll for it.

I do think that objectivly grading certain elements of parametric craftsmanship can be done with success. This can easily be performed separately from any digital measurement like ImaGem, or ASET, Gemex, or I-S image analysis of defined light return components.

My own feeling is that the assessment of beauty remains personal and may be greatly assisted by the use of measurements, tools and technology, but cannot be done without human perception which varies in every person, just like fingerprints. We can guide consumers in selecting diamonds that should be durable, good visually for their weight, symmetric, well polished, attractive in outline, eye-clean, not eye clean, colorless, tinted or fancy color, etc, etc...But we should not put the final selection, one that ought to be based on beauty at the mercy of any system of arbitrary grading. It just won't work. What I do see at present is that a consumer can buy primarily round and princess cut diamonds with a good deal of security sight unseen due to the advancement of diamond cut grading. To a lesser exrtent we see this going forward with other shapes that have enough volume of sales for the market to see comparative ASET and other pertinent images. This is an ongoing and evolving process and not a matured one. It is changing all the time and the "gaming" of the system actually may serve to fine tune the outcomes over time.

 

[denverappraiser]

Neil; We'll see Paul sign on with Walmart just as soon as Mark Morrell signs on with Walmart....never! Some things can't be rushed and there are a few customers at the far end of the bell curve of consumers who want the best and are willing to pay the toll for it.

I agree, and I'm not holding my breath for this eventuality, nor am I suggesting it would be desirable even if such a travesty should occur although it would surely make Paul a wealthy fellow. I mention it only because this is the nature of the 'game'. Walmart is the biggest retailer of diamonds in the world, up from virtually nothing 30 years ago. That wasn't luck. They DO sell some fine products as part of their product mix, and they, their suppliers, and their customers are very driven by the sorts of standards we're talking about here. 'What's the cheapest xxx possible?' is EXACTLY the sort of thing they get paid to address. They are totally unapologetic about it and they do the same thing with tires, clothing, apples and everything else they sell. They are hardly the only ones with this approach and I again point out it's very popular with customers. They do NOT say that theirs is the most beautiful or the 'best' merchandise out there, only that they meet the requisite standards being applied. Apparently that's enough for an awful lot of people. Is that 'gaming' the system? It's certainly taking a different tack from what the dealers here seem to favor but I think that's what the whole system was designed for. The boutique cutters were in the business of selling premium sorts of goods well before GIA decided they were going to make themselves the arbiter of what's 'excellent' and what's not and I don't see a tremendous change in either their procedures or their products. Eightstar's and Infinity's still rock along with many others. It's those other people who are changing. That's who the system is aimed at and that's who Paul is complaining about. I haven't seen a promotion at the mainline Walmart stores for ideal cut diamonds, but I guarantee it's coming and I HAVE seen it at their Sam's club division.

 

[risingsun]

Deleted.

 

[risingsun]

I found this old thread while I was searching for something else. In my opinion, this is a great example of the very *civilized* and informative discussions about cut quality that used to occur regularly on RT.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/hof-outshines-unbranded-h-a.112648/
What changed?

I now consider you to be my twin sister. I'm on Team Lula! Being respectful of each other in a discussion used to count for something.
A poster, not to long ago, asked about a specific HOF setting, which his gf wanted for her engagement ring. The diamond was being purchased online. He had some questions about the setting. It just so happens that it was my setting. I attempted to answer his questions. Several people jumped on the thread suggesting he have a replica made. This triggered another poster to talk about HOF diamonds. I was challenged to ask someone from HOF to come onto PS to justify their prices. Say what? If you don't want to pay the premium, don't buy one. Why become passive-aggressive with me? BTW, a well know jewelry designer did give the poster a quote to make a replica. He would have charged an additional $2000 to make the ring.

I realize that we seem to be speaking at cross purposes in this thread; however, from the consumer's perspective we have placed our trust in our PS vendors, sponsored or not, to offer the highest grade of diamonds available, if that is what we choose. It appears as if that belief is being challenged. It this discussion is a hypothectical one, that should be made clear. In addition, some of us have noticed that consumers are being urged to buy almost as good stones. I've repeated myself ad nauseum on this topic. If someone is going to make this suggestion, please do not simply respond that it will look the same. Offer some education about the differences and let the person decide for him/herself.

I sadly do not know how to double quote. Please read Oldminer's post, below. Are the measures he recommended satisfactory to you to evaluate light performance. Perhaps a better question is what do you see as the components of light performance and how should they be measured.


re:however, from the consumer's perspective we have placed our trust in our PS vendors, sponsored or not, to offer the highest grade of diamonds available, if that is what we choose.

unfortunately PS did not do clear Distinction between Highest grades for
1) Craftsmanship
2) Light Performance

most on PS consider "Light Performance "grade as slave of "Craftsmanship to make ideal symmetry diamonds"
But "Light Performance "grade is not just "Craftsmanship to make ideal symmetry diamonds" + "some magic combination of diamond proportions "

Serg~ Please read Oldminer's post, above. Are these measures satisfactory, in your opinion, to measure light performance? Perhaps a better question might be, what are the components of light performance and how should they be measured.

 

[John P]

When we start talking about Princess Cuts and other fancies it takes the discussion to a while different level.

And I believe this is where energy should go towards...
We must also differentiate between Square symmetrical Princess Cuts and other asymmetrical Fancy shaped Diamonds...
To start with...., Fancy cuts can enjoy a wide variety of C&P angle combinations vs the tight 34.50-40.80 combinations standard Round Brilliants require.
Minor facets are becoming key when designing new cuts, may I dare to say even more important than the mains in some designs.
I believe I read it in Bruce Harding's Antwerp paper (can't find the link but its here on PS somewhere) where he mentions the lack of R&D in the 'anti-thesis' angle combination area's.

I have been playing around for some time already with these anti-thesis combinations and am finding myself fascinated with some of the results.

Just returning from a nice weekend of Texas sun and fun.

Yoram, here is Bruce's Antwerp presentation:

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/study-colored-stone-diamond-cutting-angles

I did not recall the correlation you make but I am sure you're correct. Also relevant; Bruce summarizes the similarities (but not sameness) of established systems by saying: "...historic preferences are due to human perception. No measurement by instruments or statistical manipulation of data will provide this insight." This returns us to cut-perception and cognition factors outside of our ability to assess in current metrics.

In the spirit of sensory advances and 3D graphics technology I wonder if the future of VR will allow people to wear a visor to see a projection of a distant object as-it-would actually in their hands...and to what level of resolution this could take place. Michael Deering posed an abstract on 3D graphics around a decade ago which claimed 10,000,000,000 triangles per-second to be necessary to saturate the human visual system.

http://www.michaelfrankdeering.com/Projects/EyeModel/limits.pdf

<< A model of the perception limits of the human visual system is presented, resulting in an estimate of approximately 15 million variable resolution pixels per eye. Assuming a 60 Hz stereo display with a depth complexity of 6, we make the prediction that a rendering rate of approximately ten billion triangles per second is sufficient to saturate the human visual system. >>