Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

IGI Reports to Include Cut Grade for Fancies

We will certainly stay ontop of this topic Yoram.
There is a lot to learn about what is in this press release (e.g. proportions? Spread?) and what is mentioned as missing (dispersion aka fire and scintillation).
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
We will certainly stay ontop of this topic Yoram.
There is a lot to learn about what is in this press release (e.g. proportions? Spread?) and what is mentioned as missing (dispersion aka fire and scintillation).
Click to expand...


Looking forward to hearing more....

“We use proportion ranges to identify candidates for the excellent grade, but our gemologists are now evaluating light return in addition to polish and symmetry,” added IGI lab director Benoit Scheyvaerts. “Given the wide optical variety of fancy shapes, this is not a dispersion or scintillation analysis. It is a basic assessment of the overall light return versus darkness.”
 
Interesting! I genuinely hope that it differentiates the "winners" from the not-so-great stones. Of course, I do expect a small number
of stones to fall through the cracks on either side. Curious to see whether my opinion matches up with their take on it.:think:
 
Interesting!!
I think it’s far more likely aimed at Lab Grown diamonds. That’s been a godsend for secondary labs( not EGL though)
I see a large percentage of lab grown with IGIs. Very few naturals though.
 
My first thought is to blast it.... But I will be nice...
What are the right proportions for an emerald cut when 2 diamonds with the exact same numbers on the report, one can be awesome and the other a total turd?
Who determines what an EC should look like to train the graders?

Asschers/SE are even harder because there have been awesome asschers/SE on PS with a table of 55-58% and a depth of 58-60% and others 34-35% table and 75%-76% depth. Who determines what a well cut Asscher should look like to train the graders?

Cushions and Ovals, there are a lot of different ways to cut the pavilions and a few different ways to cut the crowns. Each way will have varying proportions that work well with it.
Which is the "right" way?
Who determines what a well cut cushion or oval should look like to train the graders?
 
Hello everyone. Thank you for the interest.

IGI is excited to introduce this system, in order to provide information about all four of a diamond's value-setting Cs, for all shapes.

There is additional information in this synopsis.

1662482892019.png
 
Last edited:
Rockdiamond said:
Interesting!!
I think it’s far more likely aimed at Lab Grown diamonds. That’s been a godsend for secondary labs( not EGL though)
I see a large percentage of lab grown with IGIs. Very few naturals though.
Click to expand...

In the USA that's a logical impression David. There are 20 IGI grading laboratories - the majority of natural diamond reports, by far, are issued overseas.

The system has been in development for a long time. It's not aimed at one sector. The majority of research occurred using natural diamonds, but the approach applies to LGD as well. Diamonds of all origins are welcome.
 
Karl brings up vital aspects.
As a "heritage" skeptic of cut grading, I share the concerns.
But- it's clear that the market is splitting into two groups.
Educated buyers ( PS readers), and the 98% of others who buy diamonds.
It would be short-sighted for a lab to miss the opportunity to appeal to those who, unlike the folks reading this- choose to purchase sans educating themselves.
It's likely that some - or many- of us will not necessarily agree with the standards and or results that IGI comes up with.
But it's hopefully a step in the right direction overall.
 
Will there be a space on the reports for comments? I'd like to see a lot of latitude in that area.
 
Hi John,
What is the difference between mechanical and instrumental assessment?
(excellent pace and diction on the video voice over BTW)
 
I agree Garry- the videos were well produced.
Was that you John- doing the narration?
As has been the case, ever since cut grading was discussed- I know I'd probably have an issue with the guidelines, from a theoretical standpoint.
Another aspect of Lab Grown diamonds is that the badly cut ones are common- but they're not varied in the way that natural diamond fancy shapes are.
In this regard, LGD's are so different from Naturals.
Crystals aren't grown in strange shapes like natural diamonds.
While ugly fancy shapes are indeed common in both LG and natural, no- one is cutting truly wonky LGD's ...yet. There've been countless amazing "rule breaker" fancy shaped natural diamonds over the years...you don't see those in LGD's
So- more LGD fancy shapes- the ones that are well cut- follow fairly strict protocols. Table, depth, girdle thickness, that sort of thing.
That aspect would make an LGD cut grade more workable than natural in my opinion.
 
Bravo on the well produced videos but...
Where is the download link for the cutting guidelines?
What is the lighting environment used for testing?
The question of who decides what a top stone of a given shape should look like is a huge problem.
 
One big problem with proportion based cut grades for fancies is that it kills innovation.
MMD rough availability and price point leaves it wide open to market innovative cuts that the high price of mined rough severely limits.
A 2-5ct innovative cut is possible in MMD but not economically wise in mined.

Another thing there are a lot of possible cuts that will knock peoples socks off but they have poor spread and will be killed by a parameter based system at the time when MMD opens the possibility of these being economically produced and compete pricewise with premium cut diamonds of similar spread but lighter weight.
 
Karl_K said:
One big problem with proportion based cut grades for fancies is that it kills innovation.
MMD rough availability and price point leaves it wide open to market innovative cuts that the high price of mined rough severely limits.
A 2-5ct innovative cut is possible in MMD but not economically wise in mined.

Another thing there are a lot of possible cuts that will knock peoples socks off but they have poor spread and will be killed by a parameter based system at the time when MMD opens the possibility of these being economically produced and compete pricewise with premium cut diamonds of similar spread but lighter weight.
Click to expand...

Agree and disagree Karl.
Spread is a factor that can and should be conveyed. Along with the other factors that are vital and important. Then buyers in retail businesses and consumers have info and choice. Spread is one of many important factors.
Excellent over the top spread can be good and bad:
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
Agree and disagree Karl.
Spread is a factor that can and should be conveyed.
Click to expand...
First criteria is high light performance then,
Forget about $ per ct and instead think of $ per mm.
Then spread as commonly thought of is irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kya
Karl_K said:
First criteria is high light performance then,
Forget about $ per ct and instead think of $ per mm.
Then spread as commonly thought of is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

My story is ovals do not have as much light return as rounds, but usually have a larger spread and $ for $ give you much more overall light return.
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
My story is ovals do not have as much light return as rounds, but usually have a larger spread and $ for $ give you much more overall light return.
Click to expand...
2 ovals both the same mm size lxw but different table and depth both have healthy overall light return one weighs 1ct and one 1.2ct they look nothing like each other, sell for the same price.
That is possible because cvd rough is generally rectangular cubes and the rough cost for both stones is the same.
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
I am sure they will not be judging diamond beauty in a lab like that Yoram. That would be like making GIA diamonddock Bobo's all over again!!!
Click to expand...
Hope you are right..., but so far, everyone is just adding their own "signature limitations" to their so called "exclusive" cut grade claims...

Time to understand the beauty of diamonds is much more than just maximum _____!!! And limiting is just stalling innovations moving forward.

Let diamonds go free!!! Limit them with common sense but dont hold up their future potential designs. In the future, diamonds should look completely different than the standards we keep trying to enforce upon them.
 
I just watched your video and truly find it pleasing to see the use of Excellent as the top grade for fancy shapes. This new system looks promising. I look forward to seeing it become well accepted. It has the potential to help consumers and that is very important.
 
oldminer said:
I just watched your video and truly find it pleasing to see the use of Excellent as the top grade for fancy shapes. This new system looks promising. I look forward to seeing it become well accepted. It has the potential to help consumers and that is very important.
Click to expand...

I wonder if the proportions to be used might be yours Dave.
The very same ones that first connected us when I asked permission to use them for the diploma of diamond technology in Australia!
 
I suspect that their "system" will be very much like mine except IGI has far more data that can now be crunched to bring a higher level of perfection to this still quite subjective outcome of cut grading for fancy shapes. The Imagem process that I was a part of for 15 years added in the elements of light behavior, sparkle and contrast, but both my system and Imagem were before the current prime time for further growth of scientific grading. Trying to find ways to adopt advancements rather than cast doubts before the product is even in use are just negative emotions. We all fear drastic changes. That's simply human nature. If IGI has done a good job and holds true to solid and smart standards, then they have a great opportunity to reduce consumer doubts while creating far more confidence in sales of fancy shape diamonds, lab or mined.

It has been a long journey since the early days of cut grading when we met one another doing similar independent work on opposite sides of the world. Seeing this progression seems like a win for consumers, cutters, dealers and vendors. There will be acceptance and criticism, This should make for great discussions on the forum.
 
The "New " IGI cut grading system looks "Car Restyling ". the Engine is same and old fashion .
 
oldminer said:
Trying to find ways to adopt advancements rather than cast doubts before the product is even in use are just negative emotions. We all fear drastic changes. That's simply human nature.
Click to expand...

Keeping limitations that are simply old school is what I would call fearing..., we are not doubting at all..., in fact, the reality shows that as you mentioned in 15 years no lab was able to break through with fancy cut assessments let alone cut grading except maybe for a couple of locked-in embodiments.

And as far as new fancy cut innovations..., nada!!

Obviously we are doing something wrong here...
 
Yoram, if you or another crafts person innovate with a successfully beautiful and marketable fancy cut, then you or whoever makes it happen will have done something that seems extremely difficult. If such a cut is well outside the parameters that IGI will use on the standard cuts, then the innovation will be extra special and unusual. Most diamond cutters can't afford to experiment and successfully market such stones because of the high cost of rough material and many previous failed attempts prove the case. Now, with cheap and abundant Lab material, maybe the time for innovation is here to experiment and improve. It surely won't be as costly to try.

For many years no one was able to break through globally with cut grade assessment of fancy shapes. The trade and the public were waiting on a leading lab to do it. GIA has not taken the step to make a try, but IGI is on the rise around the world and has the presence to open itself up to innovation. Once the public is accepting their grading, there will be a stream of following labs offering their versions, too.

Cutters, dealers and retailers all do what the public demands. I feel there is a strong demand for a good system, even one that screens out the poor performers and highlights the better performers without making any particular stone singly the sole "Ideal" stone. The goal to inform correctly and consistently without misinforming is a worthy one. This is true even when the consumer still can select the one that suits them best based on the look plus dependable information provided by a system.
 
oldminer said:
Yoram, if you or another crafts person innovate with a successfully beautiful and marketable fancy cut, then you or whoever makes it happen will have done something that seems extremely difficult. If such a cut is well outside the parameters that IGI will use on the standard cuts, then the innovation will be extra special and unusual. Most diamond cutters can't afford to experiment and successfully market such stones because of the high cost of rough material and many previous failed attempts prove the case. Now, with cheap and abundant Lab material, maybe the time for innovation is here to experiment and improve. It surely won't be as costly to try.

For many years no one was able to break through globally with cut grade assessment of fancy shapes. The trade and the public were waiting on a leading lab to do it. GIA has not taken the step to make a try, but IGI is on the rise around the world and has the presence to open itself up to innovation. Once the public is accepting their grading, there will be a stream of following labs offering their versions, too.

Cutters, dealers and retailers all do what the public demands. I feel there is a strong demand for a good system, even one that screens out the poor performers and highlights the better performers without making any particular stone singly the sole "Ideal" stone. The goal to inform correctly and consistently without misinforming is a worthy one. This is true even when the consumer still can select the one that suits them best based on the look plus dependable information provided by a system.
Click to expand...

Well said Dave
 
Great topic. Just back from a trip and catching up so I haven't had a chance to dig into this yet. But a major lab providing a cut grade for fancies will be a benefit to the market, provided it is well founded (even if not perfect). When GIA released their cut grade for rounds it gave consumers confidence they could better compare apples to apples without doing high level math or having advanced light performance images available, despite the fact that the system was overly broad and forgiving.

I think the reason the AGS system for fancies has not been more widely adopted is simply that the lab is so much smaller than the likes of IGI, HRD and GIA. Hard to get market penetration, even if you have the best mousetrap.
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
Hi John,
What is the difference between mechanical and instrumental assessment?
(excellent pace and diction on the video voice over BTW)
Click to expand...

Thank you Garry. My mother was an opera singer - sloppy diction was not a choice in our house, growing up.

For me, instruments are simple/passive: Old proportions loupes, Okuda's DGM, white & colored hemispheres, other structured light environments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top