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

[diagem]

In order to create a grading system with solid factual and repeatable results for fancy shapes one will end up choosing the face up position for making the call. Unless some organization can force a particular angle of viewing other than perpendicular to the table, logic would say that any other angle is so limited that it would not be better than perpendicular. You certainly can't be promoting using a number of different angles and mixing the results. That would be meaningless. I agree some diamonds will perform better at some random angle, but you wouldn't want to judge every other stone of that shape at that angle. To me, that would be both unscientific and rather naive.

I am not promoting anything David, but the cut grade will be incomplete unless motion will be part of the assessment.
Correct me if I am wrong but IMO scintillation can only be assessed while the Diamond/light source and/or viewer are in motion.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Is the available rough cut differently now due to the pressure of the grading systems or is there just more emphasis on cut "gaming"?

Or are we still talking about such a small fraction of stones that it is insignificant?

Hi RA,
Not only the rough is cut differently. There is today more of a business in buying diamonds that have missed XXX and repolshing them (especially since rough is in short supply with rising prices).
Partly this is because XXX can be sold very quickly, perhaps even before the re-manufacturer has to pay for the goods they bought, and partly because of the higher price.
Some dealers are surprised if you actually want to look at XXX.

With large chains opening hundreds of new stores in China and Asia each year there is a lot of demand. Imagine if you worked for a company and not only needed to buy to replace sales form existing stores - but on top you open 2 stores a week, each with more than $1mill in diamond inventory.

 

[oldminer]

............. the cut grade will be incomplete unless motion will be part of the assessment.
Correct me if I am wrong but IMO scintillation can only be assessed while the Diamond/light source and/or viewer are in motion.

Diagem; "Scintillation" is created while a diamond /light source/ and/or viewer is in motion. True enough Imagem takes a series of static images after the stone has been moved between images. The brightest pixels in all the images are static elements of what would have looked like the scintillation of the stone if it was in a video. However, the elegant part is that pixel analysis of these several different position, yet static, images can be performed to make a statisically accurate and repeatable metric that we have called "sparkle" and that turns out to be directly related to how much scintillation occurs in a moving diamond in a continuous manner. The statice component of scintillation is "sparkle" and they are the brightest pixels in each image.

Serg: I agree that computing fire content by machine will not be equal at this time to human perception. That is one more excellent reason not to attempt to measure fire and that is one more reason Imagem does not measure it. We agree that a large range of potential fire exists and fancy stones run from virtually none to quite a lot of fire. There are many reasons for it. Again, while the colored pixels other than black and body color could be counted, it just does not create a metric that rises to the importance of light return, sparkle and contrast, the three major metrics which human perception seems to use to select better performing diamonds from lesser performing ones.

Beauty remains totally a personal choice, but factual data has a value to many consumers.

 

[Serg]

............. the cut grade will be incomplete unless motion will be part of the assessment.
Correct me if I am wrong but IMO scintillation can only be assessed while the Diamond/light source and/or viewer are in motion.

Diagem; "Scintillation" is created while a diamond /light source/ and/or viewer is in motion. True enough Imagem takes a series of static images after the stone has been moved between images. The brightest pixels in all the images are static elements of what would have looked like the scintillation of the stone if it was in a video. However, the elegant part is that pixel analysis of these several different position, yet static, images can be performed to make a statisically accurate and repeatable metric that we have called "sparkle" and that turns out to be directly related to how much scintillation occurs in a moving diamond in a continuous manner. The statice component of scintillation is "sparkle" and they are the brightest pixels in each image.

Serg: I agree that computing fire content by machine will not be equal at this time to human perception. That is one more excellent reason not to attempt to measure fire and that is one more reason Imagem does not measure it. We agree that a large range of potential fire exists and fancy stones run from virtually none to quite a lot of fire. There are many reasons for it. Again, while the colored pixels other than black and body color could be counted, it just does not create a metric that rises to the importance of light return, sparkle and contrast, the three major metrics which human perception seems to use to select better performing diamonds from lesser performing ones.

Beauty remains totally a personal choice, but factual data has a value to many consumers.

David,

where did I tell what Fire can not been computing by machine ?


I did follow statements:
1) Fire metric is not simple number of number colorful pixels.
2) For correct Direct Fire measurements the machine should use lights sources with same angular sizes as in consumer light environment
3) Correct Indirect Fire measurement is more simple , cheap, powerful and flexible than correct direct Fire measurements If you have precise diamond 3D model.
4) Fancy cuts demand 3D models with higher level accuracy than round cut and than available now accuracy level.

I believe what machine Fire measurement. :
1) is possible
3) will be done correctly* in next few years( both types:direct and indirect )
* it means what such metrics will have very good correlation with human fire perception .
what we are doing right now.
1) we design and optimize cushions cuts according our Fire metrics ( we have goal to receive cut with similar brightness as round cut(AGS0) but with higher Fire
2) Cut it
3) compare fire of these cuts with round cut in different light environments with goal to find difference between our Fire metrics and Human Fire perception . if we found sum difference we change our fire metrics and repeat step 1. after each iteration we see bigger and bigger correlation between Fire Prediction and Human Fire perception .

 

[oldminer]

Seg; You are arguing with someone who is agreeing with you. You also are saying that currently there is no device to measure fire properly and you say that in the future there will be, We agree. There is no agreed upon model for the lighting or many other aspects to make this a standardized metric... Maybe you will create such a complex metric that you feel works like human perception. I wish you luck with such a venture. I am sure we applaud your efforts to make better and more high performing diamond configurations which may help keep the diamond business viable into the future. I only wish your work and the work of others going on quietly behind the scenes could be more widely known, but innovation requires time, trade secrets and a large investment in order to become viable.

 

[Serg]

Seg; You are arguing with someone who is agreeing with you. You also are saying that currently there is no device to measure fire properly and you say that in the future there will be, We agree. There is no agreed upon model for the lighting or many other aspects to make this a standardized metric... Maybe you will create such a complex metric that you feel works like human perception. I wish you luck with such a venture. I am sure we applaud your efforts to make better and more high performing diamond configurations which may help keep the diamond business viable into the future. I only wish your work and the work of others going on quietly behind the scenes could be more widely known, but innovation requires time, trade secrets and a large investment in order to become viable.

David,
I am not argue with you. I have high respect for your efforts .
I am argue with Imagem marketing( same for Infinity, GIA, AGS marketing).
I prefer to see correct information on PS with very low level of promotion .

re: but innovation requires time, trade secrets and a large investment in order to become viable.

and right market time . we lost marketing window 7 years ago and need wait other window. current market is not ready yet for innovations

 

[John P]

It is a good example WMW - why all grading systems for basic light return functions should be open ended.
The OctoNus system uses tolkowsky 1ct = 1.00
This means 'say' the pav etched stones might achieve 1.50 for fire.
Brilliancescope, AGS and all other measuring systems I know can not do that. I do not think Imagem can either as it has ben presented.

It is an good example of how creativity and innovation is killed by current grading systems.

There is unarguably a reluctance to explore (and finance marketing-of) new concepts, no-doubt connected to persistent focus on RB as an icon. I would note, however, that AGSL and IGI are both willing to partner with manufacturers in developing metrics and standards for new proprietary cuts.

I'm sitting on a panel of cut-focused speakers at JCK Vegas and we'll be visiting the innovation topic as part of "The Future of Diamonds: Quality Over Rarity." For anyone reading and attending JCK; it would be nice to have some forward-thinkers in the audience.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

....................
Serg: I agree that computing fire content by machine will not be equal at this time to human perception. That is one more excellent reason not to attempt to measure fire and that is one more reason Imagem does not measure it.
.................

Dave old cuts are perhaps a point in case - stones you know very well and have always dealt in.

They probably score poorly on brillance, sparkle etc, but they are widely liked by consumers who prefer firey stones.
Apart from the very large facets that show big colored flashes, in my opinion there are two other reasons OEC's show a lot of fire:

1. because the stereo effect where one eye see's a color and the other sees a bright flash- only the bright flash will register. (edited) The smaller number of virtual facets reduces the chance of that happening.
2. the brighter overall the diamond is, the harder it is to see the fire.

 

[Jim Summa]

What Karl says here about jewelers gaming customers using different reports is on the mark. Whether $4000, $400, $40, or 40 cents...people work harder than ever for their money and it's easy to close a sale when the majority of professionals are using EGL’s to back up their sales pitch on what we KNOW are stones graded for the uninformed.

I also agree that the “on-line” diamond pricing edge is diminishing. Just look around the city or area you live in and count the stores that are shuttered for refusing to change.

Sadly, some of the adaptations are loosened standards. My experience with a number of other jewelers, even other AGS members, is that they've convinced themselves that continuing to use soft-reports is providing their clients with “choices.” Their cursory explanation (excuse) is that “EGL is the most widely used diamond certification“ so this practice is “fair” and by being “informative” to their prospective customer they're doing their job. Personally I think using soft-certs is misrepresentation at least and outright fraud at worst.

Now the last part of Karl’s post gave me pause. He said << Many consumers here and even Sir John can confirm that goes on more than anyone who learns at PS would like.” >>

Does anyone think PS is immune to this kind of practice? Really? I’m going to state the unpopular and say there is a ton of gaming going on here. The most obvious to me is the use of non-patented ASETs to improve a stone and plain old photo-airbrushing to make one’s own product stand out in the crowd. Less obvious is the way labels are used to imply something about a stone that it is not. To me this is misrepresentation as much as retail jewelers who soft-cert people. But it seems to float by here…at best with some lame excuses…at worst it happens where we don’t even know unless we’re dealing with a client-in-common. This is no different to me than retailers who accept or participate-in the dishing of EGL-certs and get by with their lame excuses.

As a retail jeweler when I first posted here I was asked about the current state of affairs in the traditional market and you know what? I didn’t have the answer. I wonder if anyone can answer this about PS?

 

[oldminer]

What is a "non-patented ASET". This is a term I have not seen used before. I can understand the complaint about photoshopped images or providing an ASET image which is not the correct one for a particular diamond. I think many of us would like to understand you better on the ASET issue.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Is there some sort of "accepted ASET"?
It seems to me that there's no standard for physically photographing diamonds using an ASET.
Jim, I also have to question a few other things you wrote: I would question implications that a stone isn't what the seller claims to to be- but that statement can be read a bunch of different ways.
However making claims that photo-shopped images have been shown here- and not been picked up upon by the regulars?
Frankly, I don't see how that could happen.

 

[Karl_K]

Now the last part of Karl’s post gave me pause. He said << Many consumers here and even Sir John can confirm that goes on more than anyone who learns at PS would like.” >>

Does anyone think PS is immune to this kind of practice? Really? I’m going to state the unpopular and say there is a ton of gaming going on here. The most obvious to me is the use of non-patented ASETs to improve a stone and plain old photo-airbrushing to make one’s own product stand out in the crowd. Less obvious is the way labels are used to imply something about a stone that it is not. To me this is misrepresentation as much as retail jewelers who soft-cert people. But it seems to float by here…at best with some lame excuses…at worst it happens where we don’t even know unless we’re dealing with a client-in-common. This is no different to me than retailers who accept or participate-in the dishing of EGL-certs and get by with their lame excuses.

As a retail jeweler when I first posted here I was asked about the current state of affairs in the traditional market and you know what? I didn’t have the answer. I wonder if anyone can answer this about PS?

Hi Jim,
People are aware of it and less likely to fall for it when advising others.

I am not sure what you mean by non-patented ASET?

We have some very good graphic artists here and I am pretty good at spotting doctored photos, there has been people caught in the past and the results were not pleasant for them.
If you suspect a photo is doctored immediately use the report post button and it will be investigated.

Miss-use of labels is a very serious problem in the online diamond arena.
Collectively the PS members and professionals have tried to address it many times with limited success.
The best we have been able to do is educate consumers about it.
The pro-sumers know that vendor applied tags are suspect and not to accept anything without evidence.
They work hard to pass that on.
I do not know how we can further address this issue.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

What Karl says here about jewelers gaming customers using different reports is on the mark. Whether $4000, $400, $40, or 40 cents...people work harder than ever for their money and it's easy to close a sale when the majority of professionals are using EGL’s to back up their sales pitch on what we KNOW are stones graded for the uninformed.

I also agree that the “on-line” diamond pricing edge is diminishing. Just look around the city or area you live in and count the stores that are shuttered for refusing to change.

Sadly, some of the adaptations are loosened standards. My experience with a number of other jewelers, even other AGS members, is that they've convinced themselves that continuing to use soft-reports is providing their clients with “choices.” Their cursory explanation (excuse) is that “EGL is the most widely used diamond certification“ so this practice is “fair” and by being “informative” to their prospective customer they're doing their job. Personally I think using soft-certs is misrepresentation at least and outright fraud at worst.

Now the last part of Karl’s post gave me pause. He said << Many consumers here and even Sir John can confirm that goes on more than anyone who learns at PS would like.” >>

Does anyone think PS is immune to this kind of practice? Really? I’m going to state the unpopular and say there is a ton of gaming going on here. The most obvious to me is the use of non-patented ASETs to improve a stone and plain old photo-airbrushing to make one’s own product stand out in the crowd. Less obvious is the way labels are used to imply something about a stone that it is not. To me this is misrepresentation as much as retail jewelers who soft-cert people. But it seems to float by here…at best with some lame excuses…at worst it happens where we don’t even know unless we’re dealing with a client-in-common. This is no different to me than retailers who accept or participate-in the dishing of EGL-certs and get by with their lame excuses.

As a retail jeweler when I first posted here I was asked about the current state of affairs in the traditional market and you know what? I didn’t have the answer. I wonder if anyone can answer this about PS?

Good question Jim.
BTW As a manufacturer of the hand held ASET under licence to AGS I would like to know if you are referring to the one I sell?

 

[Jim Summa]

Dave Atlas: The ASET was developed and patented by Al Gilbertson of GIA (the same Al Gilbertson who published the best history of diamond cutting in the US that I know of). AGSL purchased this patent from Al a few years back. If you change the shape of the cone and/or the height of the color, or open up the eyepiece as some do, or really do anything to this tool after purchase it will read differently than the ones AGSL sells.

David (Rockdiamond): I don't think you and I can talk much about ASET. I am just being honest here. I'm an AGS CG, meaning I had to scale mountains of ASET theory, usage and rules etc etc in classes. I know you don't buy it, fundamentally, so there is really no place for us to go. With regard to live photo etiquette I will trust the discussion to people like Kenny, who is pretty sharp.

Karl, I do miss the days of Strmrdr, I wonder what he would say?

Gary: I am not sure which model of the ASET is being altered although I think it is quite possible it is the handheld model you are selling under license from AGS? I have watched John Pollard use the handheld with a small backlight setup and he is real picky about how he does it.

Karl again: I hear you on labels but to think PS corrects all those situations is unrealistic. I feel bad for people who come here, read enough to get comfortable, but buy without ever posting. They can easily be gamed. No way around it.

Yes. I know I'm rubbing the cats fur the wrong way. Sorry guys. PS has become like that fine old jeweler that gets insulted at direct questions because they have been doing this for years so who are you to question me, I've been selling and helping people for years etc...but mainly to avoid the embarrassment of not knowing or just plain protecting their territory. There is an irony there that is kind of funny to think about.

 

[WinkHPD]

Jim,

Nice to see you posting again. I urge you to stick around and post more often, we need to see the thinking of responsible retailers.

I have the advantage of knowing you in real life as well as on line, and I know that there are many good retail stores out there that can answer the needs of the internet shopper in many ways. We get a little insulated here as we are used to the Internet being the end all and be all of our existance, especially with the younger buyers who are often more comfortable buying on line than off.

Still, as a former B&M store, I know that there is a lot of crossover that is both possible and in fact desired.

I appreciate that you have raised some interesting questions, and I look forward to seeing this conversation continue.

Wink

 

[yssie]

Yes. I know I'm rubbing the cats fur the wrong way. Sorry guys. PS has become like that fine old jeweler that gets insulted at direct questions because they have been doing this for years so who are you to question me, I've been selling and helping people for years etc...but mainly to avoid the embarrassment of not knowing or just plain protecting their territory. There is an irony there that is kind of funny to think about.

I like questions. This thread has raised many.

I don't like questions that can't be answered, or worse, that people *won't* answer. I like numbers, and I don't believe in X-Factors. But, I will freely acknowledge that any tool has uses and limitations, and if a person or vendor chooses not to trust that tool because he/she feels those limitations are too pervasive - well, who am I to argue with a considered choice?

So - what is the party line, ultimately, in your opinion, that PS is protecting? And how do we go about challenging it?

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, I do miss the days of Strmrdr, I wonder what he would say?

Karl again: I hear you on labels but to think PS corrects all those situations is unrealistic. I feel bad for people who come here, read enough to get comfortable, but buy without ever posting. They can easily be gamed. No way around it.

To be honest I really miss being able to post as I did as strmrdr.
opening the eyepiece slightly has very little effect on the results if ASET white is used.
Combined with ASET black it is more of an issue but it makes the stone look worse.
The biggest problem is the official AGS camera setup is junk and does not take accurate images, that makes people have to come up with there own setup.

I understand where you are coming from with labels and it is a problem, what is your solution?
The best we have been able to do so far is consumer education.

 

[oldminer]

Jim, are you saying that some vendors are using a "modified" ASET to help improve the look of the diamonds they are selling? IS that what you neant by "non-patented"?. I never heard of such a problem before, but if someone can think of it, likely someone else has already tried it. The one commonly provided to Pricescope people is the original, actual AGS-ASET. I have indeed seen an imitation version at the JCK SHow in Las Vegas, but never took it seriously or thought much about how one might misuse it. It seemed quite similar to the official ASET and no one paid much attention to it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Dave Atlas: The ASET was developed and patented by Al Gilbertson of GIA (the same Al Gilbertson who published the best history of diamond cutting in the US that I know of). AGSL purchased this patent from Al a few years back. If you change the shape of the cone and/or the height of the color, or open up the eyepiece as some do, or really do anything to this tool after purchase it will read differently than the ones AGSL sells.

David (Rockdiamond): I don't think you and I can talk much about ASET. I am just being honest here. I'm an AGS CG, meaning I had to scale mountains of ASET theory, usage and rules etc etc in classes. I know you don't buy it, fundamentally, so there is really no place for us to go. With regard to live photo etiquette I will trust the discussion to people like Kenny, who is pretty sharp.

Karl, I do miss the days of Strmrdr, I wonder what he would say?

Gary: I am not sure which model of the ASET is being altered although I think it is quite possible it is the handheld model you are selling under license from AGS? I have watched John Pollard use the handheld with a small backlight setup and he is real picky about how he does it.

Karl again: I hear you on labels but to think PS corrects all those situations is unrealistic. I feel bad for people who come here, read enough to get comfortable, but buy without ever posting. They can easily be gamed. No way around it.

Yes. I know I'm rubbing the cats fur the wrong way. Sorry guys. PS has become like that fine old jeweler that gets insulted at direct questions because they have been doing this for years so who are you to question me, I've been selling and helping people for years etc...but mainly to avoid the embarrassment of not knowing or just plain protecting their territory. There is an irony there that is kind of funny to think about.

Jim,
I agree with David ( Oldminer) it is good to see you posting.
All due respect- but we certainly can discuss ASET- especially in the context you raised it.
That being- : Gaming they system, and how ASET may or may not contribute to it.
I have the setup you described John using- the light and handheld.
I got it to take photos, when they are requested- and in doing so I learned that there is no "approved" method of photographing ASET images.
I got many "decent" photos with the table light and handheld unit- but there are so many variables.
Such as- how the stone sits in the light- and getting perfectly "square" to the camera.
Still, I don;t see how anyone could use this to "game" the system. If the stone is tilted, it will show things to be worse than real life, not better.
Seemingly, the only way to "game" this is to Photoshop. I also believe that some photos we see are "color corrected"- but a case can be made that such correciton os part and parcel of getting the "right" ASET image.

But when you include "regular photos", I must disagree.
Kenny is a valuable contributor with a great photographic knowledge, however implying that only people like Kenny can identify photoshopped images is way off base. There have been cases of images that were "messed with" and caught here on PS- In fact I honestly believe that this aspect, in particular, is not all that difficult to catch.
If someone was photoshopping images, that would be a very serious offense.
All due respect, but you did raise this point- so I ask- can you show, or have you reported instances of "photo-airbrushed" images?
IMO it's everyone's responsibility to keep this place "clean"
Professionals in particular can assist in weeding out problem representations, if used.

I believe this discussion is ample proof that PS is open to having the system examined, and discussed.

 

[Learning Slowly]

I am new to this field and have quickly become aware of the distaste and anathema for EGL certs. I was curious if another study like that done in 2004 by PS has been done, and how come few people cite this article. I regularly hear people say that EGL's Color and Clarity gradings are low with respect to GIA, but the PS article suggested EGL's polish and symmetry gradings were stricter than AGSL and GIA. Why is this rarely cited? Additionally, I am curious if Grade differentiation varies with respect to color range. What would happen if someone looked at 20 stones graded D by EGL International (since its regarded as the softest cert), and then 20 G, and then compared them to AGSL, GIA, and EGL USA? Is EGL as prone to call an E or F a D, as they are to call a H and F? I would suspect EGL grades, on occasion, "some" D stones. (One I'm sure will argue that any "true" D would be sent to GIA and thus EGL may only find a small percentage of true D's). I believe this type of study would be quite helpful for the consumer. Additionally, what about a quantitative follow-up to the PS study and observation of the cut, symmetry, polish, et al comparisons. It's been going on 7 years, and I suspect "somethings" have changed. Wouldn't this help clarify the "gaming", instead of various testimonies (which I value and doubt in now way) that unscientifically collect data. Also, do any vendors on PS actually sell EGL or EGL USA diamonds? If so, why? If not, PS is missing a significant conversation partner: no?

 

[Rockdiamond]

I am new to this field and have quickly become aware of the distaste and anathema for EGL certs. I was curious if another study like that done in 2004 by PS has been done, and how come few people cite this article. I regularly hear people say that EGL's Color and Clarity gradings are low with respect to GIA, but the PS article suggested EGL's polish and symmetry gradings were stricter than AGSL and GIA. Why is this rarely cited? Additionally, I am curious if Grade differentiation varies with respect to color range. What would happen if someone looked at 20 stones graded D by EGL International (since its regarded as the softest cert), and then 20 G, and then compared them to AGSL, GIA, and EGL USA? Is EGL as prone to call an E or F a D, as they are to call a H and F? I would suspect EGL grades, on occasion, "some" D stones. (One I'm sure will argue that any "true" D would be sent to GIA and thus EGL may only find a small percentage of true D's). I believe this type of study would be quite helpful for the consumer. Additionally, what about a quantitative follow-up to the PS study and observation of the cut, symmetry, polish, et al comparisons. It's been going on 7 years, and I suspect "somethings" have changed. Wouldn't this help clarify the "gaming", instead of various testimonies (which I value and doubt in now way) that unscientifically collect data. Also, do any vendors on PS actually sell EGL or EGL USA diamonds? If so, why? If not, PS is missing a significant conversation partner: no?

This is a good question- as it relates to "gaming" the system. Mainly because the primary use of non GIA/AGSL reports is to confuse consumers.
Nothing has changed in the 7 years since the study- expect maybe that these facts are even more relevant today.
Don't trust any grade other than GIA, or AGSL. Period.

 

[John P]

Gary: I am not sure which model of the ASET is being altered although I think it is quite possible it is the handheld model you are selling under license from AGS? I have watched John Pollard use the handheld with a small backlight setup and he is real picky about how he does it.

This is because the AGS-licensed units have graduated inserts and manual cone-base adjustment built into the lid. When using other solutions the orientation of the girdle-plane becomes different by shape and size unless you address it, as I do.

To be honest I really miss being able to post as I did as strmrdr.
opening the eyepiece slightly has very little effect on the results if ASET white is used.
Combined with ASET black it is more of an issue but it makes the stone look worse.

We think the bar is higher for ASET white, which is why we use it. But in any setup girdle-orientation is an unknown and it can be spoofed, intentionally or not.

The biggest problem is the official AGS camera setup is junk and does not take accurate images, that makes people have to come up with there own setup.

Completely agree. AGS has not provided a solution for those wishing to reproduce photos worthy of online-assessment or the kind of detail enthusiasts can get-into. The result is fundamentally different standards (white versus black), different setups (hand-held, homemade, hybrid) and different approaches (girdle-plane-orientation, cone-division, eyepiece details). Add that every setup will have different lighting, camera, exposure and post-processing methodology. This creates unavoidable variability and the potential for significantly different results.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I am new to this field and have quickly become aware of the distaste and anathema for EGL certs. I was curious if another study like that done in 2004 by PS has been done, and how come few people cite this article. I regularly hear people say that EGL's Color and Clarity gradings are low with respect to GIA, but the PS article suggested EGL's polish and symmetry gradings were stricter than AGSL and GIA. Why is this rarely cited? Additionally, I am curious if Grade differentiation varies with respect to color range. What would happen if someone looked at 20 stones graded D by EGL International (since its regarded as the softest cert), and then 20 G, and then compared them to AGSL, GIA, and EGL USA? Is EGL as prone to call an E or F a D, as they are to call a H and F? I would suspect EGL grades, on occasion, "some" D stones. (One I'm sure will argue that any "true" D would be sent to GIA and thus EGL may only find a small percentage of true D's). I believe this type of study would be quite helpful for the consumer. Additionally, what about a quantitative follow-up to the PS study and observation of the cut, symmetry, polish, et al comparisons. It's been going on 7 years, and I suspect "somethings" have changed. Wouldn't this help clarify the "gaming", instead of various testimonies (which I value and doubt in now way) that unscientifically collect data. Also, do any vendors on PS actually sell EGL or EGL USA diamonds? If so, why? If not, PS is missing a significant conversation partner: no?

This is a good question- as it relates to "gaming" the system. Mainly because the primary use of non GIA/AGSL reports is to confuse consumers.
Nothing has changed in the 7 years since the study- expect maybe that these facts are even more relevant today.
Don't trust any grade other than GIA, or AGSL. Period.

David you best read the survey because for EGL USA the survey findings might surprise you.

 

[Jim Summa]

Karl: You have hit on my point exactly....who knows how ASETs are changed here? Now you are a special case, no doubt about it. I believe you when you tell me this or that would be accurate as far as you can tell. But what about the next guy? I use this tool every day and some of the posted stuff looks downright wonky. Can we trust it won't be gamed? I tested last year for my CGA and one of the keys is to describe and qualify everything. This is the same stuff I think you would be demanding of everyone else as Strmrdr and even he couldn't know what goes on privately.

Labels. Standards should remain constant or tighten up, not loosen. Sellers get to say GIA EX and AGS Ideal are equal in their promos when we all know a GIA EX can be AGS3-4. The H&A thing is fuzzy already and those standards have gone down. There are hundreds of diamonds in that search now that were classified as non-H&A before. I can understand some sellers always pushing for increasing their opps but am surprised PS let this slide. We can do non-round talk which is even crazier in the label dept.

Dave Altas: Changing the AGSL-ASET tool itself, is what I am talking about.

Yssie: I don't think the politics here is much different than those in the retail business. We look the other way as rules bend, sometimes because they have a good rep, a great line, or they're our friends. But when we finally look back we see they softened a lot farther than we thought. And that makes the people trying to keep up higher standards stick out, and not in a good way apparently.

Karl again: The solution would be discussion but the politics might just kill progress.

John Pollard: Ok that's what I thought. Thanks.

Pricescope has been good to me. Karl once posted that if you want to be a jeweler read PS for 15 minutes and you will be way ahead of most of the people selling jewelry. Very Very true. This just isn't quite as true as I once thought it to be, that’s all.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Jim, are you saying that some vendors are using a "modified" ASET to help improve the look of the diamonds they are selling? IS that what you neant by "non-patented"?. I never heard of such a problem before, but if someone can think of it, likely someone else has already tried it. The one commonly provided to Pricescope people is the original, actual AGS-ASET. I have indeed seen an imitation version at the JCK SHow in Las Vegas, but never took it seriously or thought much about how one might misuse it. It seemed quite similar to the official ASET and no one paid much attention to it.

Jim the AGS use the version I made for them as the functioning part inside the Presentation ASET. Dave and I have some as hand helds to sell with AGS permission.

AGS instruments also have a hand held version, however I doubt many people would be impressed with it. It is a narrow tube affair using low cost H&A's with some colored paper inserts.

I think the AGS Instruments site is password protected - but here is a resellers page http://ogisystems.com/artworks/newplace/other/ags_accessories.html

 

[Learning Slowly]

This is my point. "If" people feel the study is accurate then doesn't that problematize the "only" trust GIA/AGS stance? Can consumers begin to "game" the cert system? If the EGL USA certified stone is a "better" buy, with possibly stricter cut, polish or symmetry grading than GIA, and I mean this in the context of the study, isn't it better to buy the well reduced EGL stone and then just pay for it to be GIA certified later? If I can get the same stone for 8-10% less because it has an EGL cert, is it not worth it? Or is there less of a consensus on PS's study than articulated above?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This is my point. "If" people feel the study is accurate then doesn't that problematize the "only" trust GIA/AGS stance? Can consumers begin to "game" the cert system? If the EGL USA certified stone is a "better" buy, with possibly stricter cut, polish or symmetry grading than GIA, and I mean this in the context of the study, isn't it better to buy the well reduced EGL stone and then just pay for it to be GIA certified later? If I can get the same stone for 8-10% less because it has an EGL cert, is it not worth it? Or is there less of a consensus on PS's study than articulated above?

The results of that study showed that retailers could buy equivalent (not the same) stone for a better price (statisticaly) if EGL USA graded it compared to GIA-GTL and AGSL.
Now of course there could be other factors, but prima-facie that means retailers will offer those stones at a price closer to the GIA / AGS and the retail customer is getting 'gamed'.

But a consumer buying those stones directly from a B2B listing that is offered with a standard B2C mark-up (i.e. virtual stones) will not be being 'gamed' but could infact game the system.

So I think that means LS, that we agree. However when it comes to those 2nd and 3rd tier lab graded stones I would strongly recomend consumers use a 3rd party independant appraiser that they pay for. In that case any saving might be wiped out.

Edited to note that I recently saw a very large stone listed 2x on RapNet, one GIA and the other as EGL (?).
The EGL graded stone was same SI1 clarity (it was lowish as I saw the stone later in person) and GIA I - EGL G (I thought it was a high I). The EGL price was about 5% higher than the GIA.

 

[Jim Summa]

Garry: Yes, I’ve seen yours used. It’s better than the tiny AGS “torpedo.” John is right they have not done a good job of providing solutions for folks using the ‘net to sell because that is not their focus. My issue is the people who invent their own systems, which I can tell aren’t right, and label it AGS ASET. You’re doing it the right way.

 

[John P]

Let's be clear: There are EGL-USA reports which are on-par with GIA but the majority of reports - and historic reputation - are considered soft. EGL-USA is aware of this I am sure. but they face a 'Catch-22'... If they adjust strictness their (large!) client-base has expectations... and any change upsets the current balance.. "Hey! What the #$%? EGL is giving us Gs where they used to give us Fs?! Forget it, we should just send to GIA instead..."

I'm aware of individual cases which defy the larger (soft) reputation but in my experience these are not the norm. And it is "the norm" which has eroded confidence online, and explains why EGL is rarely seen among Pricescope sellers.

If readers will bear with me I have two personal stories (opposite in fact), followed by some stats which are more relevant than my own little story/experiences.

ACT I... In February one of our dealers brought-in two EGL-USA graded princess cuts at the request of a salesperson. Each was 2+ cts, F-VS1 and F-VS2. I saw them come in. I placed them upside-down in a (standard) folded white grading-card next to an AGS I-color princess of same size. I showed them to the sales-mgr, the owner and the store gemologist, asking what colors we were looking at. The gemologist graded them all I at a north-facing window. So did the sales-mgr. The owner used a desk grading lamp and graded them I-J-H. None of them could believe they had just looked at two paper "Fs" among the three... Guess what kind of reputation EGL-USA earned that day?

ACT II... Last week a colleague who made a purchase with a supplier in-person told me this story: The diamonds he bought (all triple-EX RBs) came with EGL-USA reports. But he uses GIA exclusively, so he sent them there. When they returned the results were as-follows.

Weight...EGL...GIA
1.01...G SI1...H VS2
1.09...H SI1...H SI1
1.24...E SI1...F SI2
1.14...I SI1...I SI1
0.71...G SI1...G SI1

Wow. In contrast to the "the norm" these grades were quite close to GIA and EGL-USA was stricter in clarity in one case. This is much different than my prior story... I must mention that the supplier-in-question is a player of extremely high regard. My personal opinion is that - when this supplier sent goods to EGL-USA - a different (stricter) standard was applied in the spirit of fostering goodwill and business with such a prominent entity. Again, that is MY opinion only.

Finally...

ACT III... This may be most-interesting in terms of a "state-of-the-EGL-union". It might also relax the tightened neck-muscles of all the NY 47th-street guys who just got upset when reading ACT II...

I just did a practical EGL-USA versus GIA comparison: I searched the most prominent B2B network for available 1.00-1.09 D-VS2 RBs (neg fl). If we treat the most-expensive diamond as priced-at 13,000 (user-agreements prevent use of actual numbers)...

GIA 3EX results ranged from $11,000 to $13,000. Average price was $12,000.
EGL USA Ideals ranged from $6,900 to $7,700. Average price was $7,300.

I then investigated I-VS2 (a larger sample size was available). If we treat the most-expensive diamond as $9000:

GIA 3EX results ranged from $7650 to $9000. Average price was $8300.
EGL USA Ideals ranged from $4320 to $6030. Average price was $5400.

So, no matter your opinion, there is significant de-valuation by the trade-at-large for EGL-USA compared to GIA. Why? Because the trade-at-large believes EGL-USA to be softer. In fact the average valuation is generally between 1-2 color and clarity grades lower...which (coincidentally) is how many dealers describe EGL-USA certs vs GIA certs.

Is this a chicken-egg prospect? I don't know.

Is is unfortunate that "the norm" overshadows the good work being done in that lab. Branko Deljanin was EGL-USA's Director of Research for many years and spearheaded some of the greatest advances we enjoy in detection of synthetics and treatments...but you rarely hear about that... You only hear about how they compare to GIA in grading.

 

[Learning Slowly]

John, Thank you for your reply and those illustrations. They are in fact, extremely, interesting. I had not really seen this type of nuance discussed with respect to EGL. I guess this is why I was/am so interested in a follow-up comparison being done. And in terms of "gaming" instead of "being gamed", this makes me even more curious about the overgrading of EGL or EGL USA D diamonds. Since a GIA D can't be "upgraded", I am curious if buying an EGL D is more advantageous than buying an EGL F or G. And with the $4700 price difference described by JP between EGL and GIA D VS2 the cost of getting it appraised or sent to GIA doesn't seem obtrusive. JP, what was the average price for GIA E or F VS2 1.01-1.09? If its still higher than the EGL, then that is even more interesting. Again, thank you so much for your comments. This has helped greatly.