IGI Reports to Include Cut Grade for Fancies

[John Pollard]

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.

This is so well articulated. Thank you, @oldminer .

 

[John Pollard]

I'm headed to Denver, Colorado, for the Hard Rock Summit - a show that's open to consumers and pros alike fyi - so a bit short on time, but wanted to provide more insight.

Why it’s needed.

The number of IGI reports getting posted online for B2B and direct-to-consumer sales around the world has ballooned since the pandemic. It's hard to overstate this. We have been repeatedly asked to provide guidance regarding the influence of cut on appearance. In the spirit of @tyty333 's post above, we believe that providing a basic assessment of every value-setting C is preferable to leaving everyone in the dark about one of them.

How it works. Two ways.

1. By looking backward: In the video synopsis (at 1:25) you will hear the word proportions "qualification" emphasized. That qualifier was developed looking back in time, correlating human observation with sets of data compiled from all of the world's producers. The IGI "guidelines" for Excellent are designed to help producers who want or need more intel when trying to cut traditional shapes. They establish boundaries, but those with experience will quickly realize they are not a guarantee. In this system steps 3 and 4 are the deciding factors.

2. By looking forward: @Karl_K and @diagem , designs which are optimized for beauty will be welcomed for consideration. Dave described the situation eloquently above. You'll be happy to know there is a mechanism whereby new shapes or innovative parameters for existing shapes may be submitted. To prevent abuse, corroborating evidence must be provided, but that would not be a problem for the likes of you two.

Bravo on the well produced videos but...
Where is the download link for the cutting guidelines?
What is the lighting environment used for testing?

An introduction, the min-max boundaries and additional requirements by shape will come available soon. I don't know how much intel can be provided about the CVEs right away.

Before anyone gets turned into a newt or burns a witch (Monty Python anyone?) more info will be coming.

 

[Rockdiamond]

As a long-time observer, and life-long diamond grader, my perspective is longer...wider.
The cut grade for rounds did a lot of things- including killing off designs that could be proven "scientifically" to be "lesser"
So- spready 60/60's that were incredibly well cut are pretty much gone.
Replaced by the vast majority of 1ct diamonds that now spread 6.3 instead of 6.5mm
Personally, I love the "Super Ideal" stones- the concept and execution. It's great for consumers.
But, for my money, not to the exclusion of others.

We can agree to disagree that a "Super Ideal" possesses more beauty than a super well cut 60/60.
Or put another way- can we agree that beauty isn't scientifically quantifiable?

I'm all for improving cutting- and in fact, that's what's been happening. The fancy shaped goods being cut in Surat nowadays are heads and shoulders above the average cushion/radiant/pear shape of 10 years ago.
Smaller tables- more generous crowns.

I'm with Yoram in this one....partially.
Look at it this way- the vast majority of diamond buyers won't read this forum. They won't understand the finer points.
In discussions here, we can dissect the finer points.
The vast majority of buyers just want a grading system.
I'm 100000% sure we will find amazing examples of fancy shaped diamonds that get poor ratings from the new system.
But we're speaking boutique.,
How many diamonds can Yoram cut??
In this new world we currently live in, one company dominates the diamond market.
Companies like DBL- and Gem Concepts- are fleas next to the elephants of JA/BN.
In my opinion, the top of the market- people who understand what this discussion is about will continue to decide for themselves.
The big boys can ( and do) spend hundreds of thousands a month advertising on google etc....but thankfully, there's still a spot for boutiques.
And I will continue to make my own assessments, above a standardized grade. I know our clients will appreciate it.

 

[John Pollard]

I'm 100000% sure we will find amazing examples of fancy shaped diamonds that get poor ratings from the new system.

Can you elaborate, David?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Can you elaborate, David?

For that to happen, we'd first need to see the new system......then I'll find a wonky rule breaker for you

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sir John...and anyone else...
Do you really believe that folks who are dissecting the GIA Cut grade for .005% of CA/PA ( aka PS readers) aren't going to find aspects they want to refine on any cut grade system???

For the masses, yes.
But we're not those masses

 

[diagem]

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.

Dave..., you and others (on here) seem to take only "out of standard cuts" into account as to my meaning....

No, that's is not the only issue (although an issue no doubt) but until now the parameters & limitations are actually invisible as I understand (John Pollard: "An introduction, the min-max boundaries and additional requirements by shape will come available soon. I don't know how much intel can be provided about the CVEs right away.")

I also think that the standard cuts like RB's and fancy brilliants and/or step cuts etc... are being limited by the old school parameters and limitations..., I already know that such cuts with "out of norm specs" can be as beautiful and even more than the regular proportions invented 100 years ago.... (which unfortunately still stand by most institutions)

Crown heights (for example) have been under erred limitations for standard cuts since their inception due to the industrial revolution...., and as I already mentioned above...

'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 [David Atlas] 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..."

I am hoping you guys don't take this as an insult..., my intention is the contrary..., for productive criticism mostly..., John, you are in the position to make such great changes..., don't lock up the future, move forward and let diamond design flourish freely. We are just in the diaper stages now as lab grown diamonds will (already ongoing) change diamond cutting and design for ever.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I should have bolded a few sections of my post- because it sounded too critical.
I think the goal is admirable.
Although here on a PS discussion we may quibble, the vast majority of buyers will welcome the IGI cut grade.
IGI is rapidly gaining market share and prestige in the US. The grading is consistent and accepted by consumers. This will be a great addition.

Connoisseurs ( PS readers) will do what they do. True "Super Ideal" diamonds far exceed "Triple EX" in terms of standards. People love them for a reason. People will still seek out the "best of the best" cut grade, whatever it is.

I'll be super interested to see what IGI comes up with and how they spec out different shapes.
Will "Pudgy Pear" shapes be punished? Moval?
What sort of LxW ratios will be preferred?
All very interesting- and exciting. I can't wait to see the grading system.

 

[diagem]

1. By looking backward: In the video synopsis (at 1:25) you will hear the word proportions "qualification" emphasized. That qualifier was developed looking back in time, correlating human observation with sets of data compiled from all of the world's producers. The IGI "guidelines" for Excellent are designed to help producers who want or need more intel when trying to cut traditional shapes. They establish boundaries, but those with experience will quickly realize they are not a guarantee. In this system steps 3 and 4 are the deciding factors.

An introduction, the min-max boundaries and additional requirements by shape will come available soon. I don't know how much intel can be provided about the CVEs right away.

Before anyone gets turned into a newt or burns a witch (Monty Python anyone?) more info will be coming.

John, I have received your message so I wanted to reiterate on here...

Out of norm or completely new cuts are not my only concern. This I managed to personally tackle after AGSL send me to patent such cuts in order to be able to get them to issue personalized cut grades. The main reason I don't have any business nor academic relations with AGSL anymore. (+ the fact that they believe lights comes from above only

I am talking inside the norms generics here...

Until now, all qualified proportions (by all institutions) are limiting to historical numbers and ranges (aka Tolkowsky/Morse).

I suppose we will need to wait and see what the min-max boundaries for the new IGI scheme but for some reason I doubt freedom of design will be part and parcel of such boundaries.

I think its time to understand that locking in historical boundaries doesn't do this industry any service..., I believe the last two decades are pure evidence to this claim.

When you got on board with IGI 8 months ago I wrote the following words:

"I am not so familiar with IGI and their services but am very familiar with John Pollard and his educational roots & capabilities. It is no doubt in my mind that IGI just put themselves at the forefront of diamond education! If this will flow onto their grading services as well its a huge win-win for IGI and the industry. Will be definitely interesting to follow. Congrats Sir John! "

https://www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/igi-pollard-education-director/

John..., all I can say is I hope the IGI boundaries & requirements will have better news than what has been served upon this industry errored for decades..., all that is left to do is wait and see!!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Having now viewed the tutorial videos (nicely done @John Pollard !), it appears to me that other than the proportion analysis this is essentially a human grader call.

The training required to get consistent results from the graders will be a big challenge. However, it will be made easier by the fact that only brightness will be assessed, as opposed to a comprehensive analysis of light performance factors. (apparently the grader will also assess things like bow tie).

Perhaps it is to be expected that so much of this grading will fall to human observation considering that parameter based grading of fancies is universally considered problematic, if not impossible - that's why GIA has never done it.

My question is that with such a high degree of subjectivity in the process, will IGI be able to make this consistently reliable? Both GIA and AGS remove almost all subjectivity from their process. In the case of GIA the 3D scan establishes the parameters for the grade based upon their knowledge of what parameters make for the best looking diamonds (similar to what IGI is stating). The AGS system actually ray traces the 3D model created by the scan and measures individual components of light performance; brightness, fire, leakage and contrast. But in both cases human grading is limited to polish and minor symmetry issues within the tolerance of the scan, making for highly repeatable results.

Consistency and reliability count almost as much as the the fundamentals of any cut grade system. For instance, even though GIA is criticized for having a very broad range in the Excellent category which includes some diamonds with obvious light performance deficits, it is possible for consumers to select their own preferences from within this category (i.e. table, crown, pavilion). While rounds are much more amenable to this type of filtering, the point is that there is a consistent and repeatable structure to be able to learn and rely upon because there is very little subjective assessment done in the process.

 

[Karl_K]

I keep coming back to this issue...
Put myself, Yoram, Garry, Wink, Bryan, Dave A, David, and John in a room and pass out a bunch of diamonds and have use sort them into groups of ex,vg so on based on how well we think they are cut. no scopes no loupes.
With rounds there would be a lot of overlap in how we would sort them.
With fancies I predict there would be much less overlap and much more discussion and in the end much less agreement.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I keep coming back to this issue...
Put myself, Yoram, Garry, Wink, Bryan, Dave A, David, and John in a room and pass out a bunch of diamonds and have use sort them into groups of ex,vg so on based on how well we think they are cut. no scopes no loupes.
With rounds there would be a lot of overlap in how we would sort them.
With fancies I predict there would be much less overlap and much more discussion and in the end much less agreement.

This is likely true. Which is really my point about the subjectivity that will seemingly be inherent in the IGI system. And how difficult it will be to train graders to consistently assess a range of shapes, and facet configurations within shapes.

I think it is important not to be too judgmental before we see the system in practice. Kudos to IGI for taking this on. It is a monumental undertaking. @John Pollard will have job security for a long time in education around this one project alone!!!

 

[Wink]

I keep coming back to this issue...
Put myself, Yoram, Garry, Wink, Bryan, Dave A, David, and John in a room and pass out a bunch of diamonds and have use sort them into groups of ex,vg so on based on how well we think they are cut. no scopes no loupes.
With rounds there would be a lot of overlap in how we would sort them.
With fancies I predict there would be much less overlap and much more discussion and in the end much less agreement.

I agree with @Texas Leaguer, we need to see the system before we start tearing it apart.

RE: Put myself, Yoram, Garry, Wink, Bryan, Dave A, David, and John in a room and pass out a bunch of diamonds and have use sort them into groups of ex,vg so on based on how well we think they are cut. no scopes no loupes.

I will sit this exercise in futility out. It reeks of how the very poor cut grading system of GIA was determined. For years, they put lots of people in rooms with lighting that made everything look good and asked them what they thought looked good. Then they codified measurements that allowed for cutters to cut steeper and deeper in order to yield more weight. If you are cutting thousands of carats per month, yielding 3 to 5% or more adds up to a heck of an extra paycheck.

This was developed in response to the excellent light performance based system that AGS spend millions of dollars developing, along with the ASET and other scopes that allows an educated seller to show and explain exactly why certain diamonds look better than other diamonds under multiple lighting situations.

Given the proven utility of the various scopes and light performance tools, I suspect I will not be the only one choosing to sit out your hypothetical exercise.

I have been a long time critic of the old IGI. I am seeing much that I like about the new IGI and I, for one, will wait until I see what they have to offer for cut grading before I make any decisions. Knowing John Pollard as well as I do, I suspect I am going to be seeing more and more to like. I am for sure going to wait until I have something to look at before I make any more derogatory comments. John would not be there if he did not believe in the new management and direction of the company.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Wink: For years, GIA put lots of people in rooms with lighting that made everything look good and asked them what they thought looked good. Then they codified measurements that allowed for cutters to cut steeper and deeper in order to yield more weight. If you are cutting thousands of carats per month, yielding 3 to 5% or more adds up to a heck of an extra paycheck.

Correction (slight) Wink.
For years they took a lightbox that favored slightly deeper cut round diamonds to dealers offices and asked them which diamonds they preferred. They found (correctly) that consumers preferred a wider range of proportions so discarded their views.
The foxes won the hen house. The rest is history.
AGS made similar but different structural errors by rejecting diamonds that perform badly with a 10 inch 25cm vieweing distance which may work for many under 30 year olds when they are buying a diamond - but once purchased, diamonds are viewed from much further distances.
What I hope is that IGI can gradually improve and develop a system for fancy shapes and maybe even then work back to fix the above errors in the second and third cut grading systems.

 

[yssie]

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.

I know I'm a broken record on this, but I'd submit that size isn't AGS' sticky wicket - it's how they're using what they've got. The smorgasbord of report types, the brand customizations of those reports, the fact that measurements for non-rounds may be reported in non-“traditional” fashion without further explication, the different flavours of cut assessment that use tools or charts or both, it all leads to one end and one end only: Consumer confusion.

I'm confident they'd do much much better if they scrapped 75% of what they offered and focused on building an easily-recognizable brand. It's too bad, because they've got fantastic people doing fantastic things.

 

[Karl_K]

I know I'm a broken record on this, but I'd submit that size isn't AGS' sticky wicket - it's how they're using what they've got. The smorgasbord of report types, the brand customizations of those reports, the fact that measurements for non-rounds may be reported in non-“traditional” fashion without further explication, the different flavours of cut assessment that use tools or charts or both, it all leads to one end and one end only: Consumer confusion.

I'm confident they'd do much much better if they scrapped 75% of what they offered and focused on building an easily-recognizable brand. It's too bad, because they've got fantastic people doing fantastic things.

Yes! 10000000 times yes!

 

[Regular Guy]

Nice to see this perky discussion. For about a week I understood I was a candidate for a low level job locally at WD Lab Grown Diamonds, but that did not come forward. I had to search for the described video. I gather Serg knows what underlies the systems. Interesting to see in the video what seems to be the example Garry has seemingly made famous comparing 2 diamonds on a black background. Good to see old friends communicating in a lively way....

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

#Yoram you know that no manufacturer is obliged to send a diamond to IGI - so if a stone fails that standard - its a VG or a G - it probably will go to GIA or anothr lab.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

As a related item to new cut grading of fancies, I notice that GSI is now grading ovals and princess cuts. They are using a form of 'direct assessment' according to their website info.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Written from an "American perspective"....IGI's growth is based on Lab Grown Diamonds.
IGI reports are widely accepted for Lab Growns.
I can't say the same for Naturals graded by IGI.
By my unofficial count, that market is still 98% GIA, 2% AGSL. I can't recall seeing a natural diamond graded by IGI for quite some time. Scads of Lab Grown IGI graded stones though.
My perceptions aren't indicative of IGI's overall picture, as I do know that IGI's natural diamond business is much larger than its US presence might indicate.
The bulk of all IGI users will benefit from a good system. Hopefully, it will raise the bar.
So much of the Fancy Shaped Lab Grown material we see is poorly cut. We're all excited to see how good the system is- it's such a complex task.

Boutique sellers can easily sell against it- or find ways to add value when a consumer wants more than a "generic" cut assessment - no matter how good that cut grade might be.
IMO it's not going to affect boutique cutters or force "Lab Shopping" to get a better grade.
Based on my experience with IGI (we go back more than 20 years) they're flexible and easy to work with. I'm sure that if Yoram or other boutique cutters approached IGI, they'd find a way to grade any boutique cut.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Written from an "American perspective"....IGI's growth is based on Lab Grown Diamonds.
IGI reports are widely accepted for Lab Growns.
I can't say the same for Naturals graded by IGI.
By my unofficial count, that market is still 98% GIA, 2% AGSL. I can't recall seeing a natural diamond graded by IGI for quite some time. Scads of Lab Grown IGI graded stones though.
My perceptions aren't indicative of IGI's overall picture, as I do know that IGI's natural diamond business is much larger than its US presence might indicate.
The bulk of all IGI users will benefit from a good system. Hopefully, it will raise the bar.
So much of the Fancy Shaped Lab Grown material we see is poorly cut. We're all excited to see how good the system is- it's such a complex task.

Boutique sellers can easily sell against it- or find ways to add value when a consumer wants more than a "generic" cut assessment - no matter how good that cut grade might be.
IMO it's not going to affect boutique cutters or force "Lab Shopping" to get a better grade.
Based on my experience with IGI (we go back more than 20 years) they're flexible and easy to work with. I'm sure that if Yoram or other boutique cutters approached IGI, they'd find a way to grade any boutique cut.

I believe IGI grades a lot of natural diamonds sold in countries and markets where sealed credit cards and retail store branding are popular. So you will not see these listed on B2B's David.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

As a related item to new cut grading of fancies, I notice that GSI is now grading ovals and princess cuts. They are using a form of 'direct assessment' according to their website info.

Correction. I meant to say GCAL, (not GSI).

 

[Rockdiamond]

I believe IGI grades a lot of natural diamonds sold in countries and markets where sealed credit cards and retail store branding are popular. So you will not see these listed on B2B's David.

I was aware of the non US markets and IGI.
Still- in the US, we just don’t hear about a lot of IGI natural diamond reports/ cards. For example- I don’t recall a PS thread about IGI natural diamond grading. Maybe that will change.

 

[Wink]

I, like many dealers in the US, liked to knock IGI for decades.

@John Pollard used to smack me alongside the head and tell me they are a highly respected Lab in other areas in the world.

Now the US lab is under new leadership and they have hired John Pollard. You can rest assured they will be doing more and more natural diamond grading in the US. When they have demonstrated they are doing it correctly, and it is shown to Pricescope, I believe you will no longer be able to say there are not IGI grading natural diamond threads here.

What? You say I act like John Pollard is a force of nature? Well, Duh!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

@John Pollard used to smack me alongside the head

What? You say I act like John Pollard is a force of nature? Well, Duh!