The logic of diamond grading

[oldminer]

Diamonds at the top of color have three to four grrades of color that are virtually invisible in difference to the casual observer: D-E-F and possibly G At the top of clarity diamonds have FL-IF-VVS1-VVS2 which are all very much identical visually even with a 10x loupe to less than skilled eyes.

With "Cut" we have yet to arrive at fixed, permanent, standards. I think the right approach is to have three to four levels of cut grade at the very top range so the logic remains constant across all the metrics of what constitutes the top three to four grades of finest stones.

GIA''s Excellent is faulted for being too broad. Dealers know that there are ranges of performance and beauty within this single "top" grade by GIA. The AGS 0 Ideal is a tighter product, but with testing for performance a quite wide and repeatable range of light return exists. This range could well be broken into three or four levels of top end performance. With Gemex, I think I see the top range of grades all scoring at the top end of the scales and not really being defined apart, yet they are not all the same at the Gemex top end of the scale. Rhino may explain this as he understands this device much more.

Do you think the approach in bold above makes sense or why not? Are you for grading diamonds for cut with the same logic that color and clarity grading have been using successfully for so many years or is this the time to change color and clarity grading to become more user friendly in the way GIA has reset and broadened their cut grade range? Or, do you think cut grading should develop on its own and not have a logic dictated by previous grading strategies employed with diamond color and clarity?

I think this might make for an intresesting discussion if there is anyone wishing to throw in some of their thoughts to the stew. I get calls from engineers and math whizzes all the time wanting badly to quantify grading of cut and have it be very specific, even if the differences can''t be see visually. What do you all think? THANKS.

 

[strmrdr]

I would like to see a cut grade with modifiers telling what can be seen rather than what can not be seen.


ie:
Level0 - Large VF, tuned for low light performance (oec, 8*)
Level0 - small VF, tuned for direct lighting performance (star129)
Level0 - mixed VF, directional light return. (BIC, 60/60, steeper pavilions)
Level0 - mixed VF, dispersive light return.(FIC)
Level0 - mixed VF, mixed light return.(TIC)
So on and so forth......

 

[oldminer]

Please explain the "VF" abreviation for those who are lurking.

 

[Lula]

Date: 8/28/2009 11:04:35 AM
Author:oldminer


I get calls from engineers and math whizzes all the time wanting badly to quantify grading of cut and have it be very specific, even if the differences can't be see visually. What do you all think? THANKS.

Great thread, oldminer. I pulled out this section of your thread, because I absolutely do think consumers can see even very minute differences we can't yet quantify. I think the current cut grading system does not begin to capture what we humans see when we view a diamond and live with that diamond in various lighting conditions over a period of time.

This is the point I was trying to make, albeit clumsily, in my thread on cut consistency. The differences are there and can be captured in cut; I first noticed this on the SMTR thread when I saw photos of specific brands -- they have a consistent "look" and in my experience, a specific performance level. How does achieving a consistent look relate to cut quality and diamond grading is what I want to know!

ETA: I just read Storm's thread. I believe there may be a connection between cut consistency and the performance levels he's talking about. Isn't VF "virtual facet"?

 

[oldminer]

If one studies what makes a "brand" into a really successful "BRAND" one will ALWAYS find "consistency" in the product This a consistency in the parameters of manufature, feeling, quality, size, shape,, ethos, etc. With diamonds there are just a very few real "BRANDS" and many wanna-bee''s.

There is one "brand" major chain carries which is cut to such a wide range of parameters that the only two things defining its brand are name, and facet count.

It fails the real test of branding although it has met with what I''d deem short term success due to the strength of the seller and not the qualities of the "brand". I just sat through a lecture on a different special cut diamond which is selling like crazy with its many extra facets and unique facet design, but it was revealed during their explanation that the depth ranged between 62% to as much as 90% in their round stone shape. Can anyone imagine "consistency" of brand appearance over such a ridiculously wide range? It is plain impossible. Again, the strength of the seller is what is going on, and not the formation of a long term "BRAND".

I will agree that what humans "see" is not necessarily reflected in our grading. What we see has subjective variations because we don''t all see alike. GRADING is supposed to be made of FACTUAL, repeatedly measurable components and can be segmented into grades finer than what we can see. Inside or around such fact based grading are our perceptions of appearance, color, beauty, etc. Some of this is not gradable, but it is a part of what makes the diamond market work. We might seek to understand human response to the light stimulus of faceted diamonds in some quantifiable way in order to create a fact based grading of "lovliness"... A future quest, no doubt. We see the problem, but have yet to stumble on the right solution.

Maybe more explanation of "VF", virtual facet, would play into this quest for this connection between subjective beauty and factual grade.

 

[Black Jade]

I''m very ignorant here, so I''m going to sound like an idiot, but as a consumer, what I would like to know from cut grade rankingsis what I am likely to get if I buy a different ranking.
There might be times when I don''t want top-of-the-line (because I''m not willing to pay the price) but right now, its hard to tell what the stone will be like if I don''t get the very top grade. All the stones I have bought on-line have been AGS 000, because I feel frightened to go for less (although I know that in person, I am satisfied with less, I am scared when I cant SEE them). I did try to buy one GIA ex/ex once but returned it--not because of the way the stone was cut but because it was an SI2 that wasn''t eye-clean.
I was thinking about this this past weekend, when a friend showed me her set that she had bought without Pricescope (she has found Pricescope since on her own). She was regretting that she had bought a GIA ''very good'' as opposed to ''excellent'' for her main stone, at the jewellers. Although her set looked lovely to me, she pointed out that her stone was steep/deep and that my .91 ideal cut earrings AGS 000''s with H & A were actually larger than her center stone, which was a full carat. One would like to avoid this kind of thing, obviously.
I''ll stop here--I''m not sure if I''m making any sense, or if my question even belongs on this thread. It''s just that I wish that there was a way to tell something ''satisfactory'' online without always the absolute top of the line best. I feel that I can understand this with color and with clarity--but not with cut.

 

[oldminer]

It is more challenging to find a safe bet with a less well cut diamond than it is to find a well cut diamond with some reasonable compromise in color and/or cut. Since the Internet was initially a blind way to buy, this is how buying better cuts on-line evolved. In time, this may change to some extent. Selling colored gems and fancy colored diamonds on-line is still a huge challenge due to lack of a good descriptive system and the fact that how the stone looks may not meet the erratic grading standards currently in place or standards which don''t even exist.

Your fears and problems are not yours alone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Fantastic thread David!
Clearly you and I have had a few differences of opinion based on the cut grading charts, and this conversation really give us the opportunity to discuss why.
I''m very glad because in the heat of some conversations that fact I have a lot of respect for your work, and it''s motivation can get lost.

You mentioned the engineer types who want to quantify cut- of course I''ve spoken to hundreds of folks like that as well.
The myriad of sites using terms like "Ideal" or other terms designed to purposefully mislead consumers makes this situation far worse.

Imagine the phone call:
"Hi, I''m looking at your Emerald Cut diamond on the internet. What''s the cut grade?"

A seller could simply answer- "Oh that''s one of our Signature Super Hooper Duper Excellent Ideal" emerald Cuts. I''m sure a lot of them would, and do.
The alternative is a conversation where the seller informs the consumer that no cut grade has ever been agreed upon for emerald cut diamonds, by the trade at large.

This is part of why I am against the grading of cut- particularly in fancy shapes.
The seller who does use the "Super Hooper Duper" line may very well get the consumer to pay more based on an arbitrary assessment.

Or, a seller who is honest about cut grades ( or the lack of them) may loose a sale to another who is willing to play on the consumer''s lack of knowledge.
In both cases, the consumer is in a weaker position.


I think a lot of folks - especially PS readers- have had experiences like Black Jades. they may have seen less than well cut stones, and made assumptions about diamonds in general.
For example there are many GIA VG cut grade round diamonds that look larger than an AGS0 of the same weight.


Sara has a great point as well- of someone wanted such consistency.
For example making a tennis bracelet- you''d want every stone to have the same make.
For me, in fancy shapes, variety is the spice of life.
Again, this puts me at odds with a system that wold automatically downgrade a stone if it''s 53% depth ( for example)

Gotta mull this over more- and handle some things going on here today- but I''m very glad for the opportunity to discus this- thanks David!

 

[elle_chris]

I like storm''s idea. Giving more info on the type of cut and how it''s tuned for specific performance so to speak.

Other than that, if I can''t see the difference between 2 ideals other than one is brighter, but the other is more firey, (and then it just becomes a matter of personal taste rather than which one is the better idea)l, i don''t really care.

 

[jet2ks]

Interesting idea and discussion. I''m still trying to get my mind around using "logic" and "diamond grading" in the same sentence.

 

[Lula]

Date: 8/28/2009 1:00:09 PM
Author: Black Jade
I''m very ignorant here, so I''m going to sound like an idiot, but as a consumer, what I would like to know from cut grade rankingsis what I am likely to get if I buy a different ranking.

Black Jade, you are not at all ignorant! Your first sentence communicates very well the difficulty consumers face when buying a diamond online, and aren''t able to see the diamond IRL before purchase.

This is what I would like to know, too, how can I be sure that the rankings represent consistent performance. I avoid GIA graded stones because I don''t like the rounding system they use. But even AGS allows for variances in a stone''s cut parameters within its highest cut grades that may impact performance.

Right now neither AGS nor GIA do a suitable job IMHO of translating cut parameters into performance levels, and performance is what we buy as diamond consumers.

However, I am not ready to go to the other extreme which is "trust your eyes." This isn''t going to work for me if I want to upgrade in size but keep the same performance. Only cut consistency will allow me to do that, right?

 

[Lula]

Date: 8/28/2009 1:49:37 PM
Author: Rockdiamond


Sara has a great point as well- of someone wanted such consistency.

For example making a tennis bracelet- you'd want every stone to have the same make.

For me, in fancy shapes, variety is the spice of life.

Again, this puts me at odds with a system that wold automatically downgrade a stone if it's 53% depth ( for example)


Gotta mull this over more- and handle some things going on here today- but I'm very glad for the opportunity to discus this- thanks David!

True, RD, when matching stones for a piece of jewelry, it would be very important to make sure the stones perform similarly.

I also agree that fancies are a whole other ball game.

But it's not just the stones in my hypothetical tennis bracelet I care about. As I mentioned above, I would value cut consistency in the case of an upgrade where I wanted to go larger in size but maintain the same "look" or the same performance. Or if my sister says to me, "Your diamond is beautiful; I'm in the market for a new stone; where can I get one like it?"

If I tell my sister that it's an AGS0 and she buys an AGS0 (let's say similar carat size, color, clarity) it's almost a sure bet that her AGS0 will look different from my AGS0 because of the variances in cut parameter allowed under the AGS0 ranking!

However, if my sister buys the same brand -- assuming we're not talking one of the brands oldminer mentioned above -- and it's a brand committed to cut consistency, such as ACA, Infinity, BGD, Eightstar, etc. -- then my sister should receive a stone that performs very much like my stone. After all, it's the appearance/performance/beauty she admired in my stone, not its specific angles! This is the craft of cutting that I've been harping about all this week.

Am I making any sense? Am I the only one who thinks this is important? Why can't this be incorporated into a grading system? It sounds like this is what Black Jade was talking about in her post as well.

 

[oldminer]

There are some very legitimate BRANDS which have highly consistent cutting parameters and the end results are highly dependable. If people found it advantageous to cut AGA Cut Class 1A emerald, oval, princess, marquise, ete fancy cuts they would, or could, get a lot of consistency from them in terms of performance and appearance provided no fluorescence, cloudiness or large inclusions were present. However, the value advantage is not totally there at this time. Without the acceptance of standards, there is little basis to charge a premium and yet to cut to these standards one would lose more weight from the rough creating a loss rather than an increased profit. Standards are no doubt in the formulation stages and no one truly is in charge. I've put my two cents worth in, but the major decision makers work on their own, often against one another, when making what has become rather arbitrary decisions and "quasi-standards".

There is no question that some sellers imply they have the superduper, idealish fancy stone and that it is "exclusively theirs". Completely bogus in many or most instances. "Honest sellers", so few real ones, but there must be a couple,

at least, get stung all the time by consumers who choose to believe the good liars. We know all about it and there are increasingly cautious consumers. It is best to be on guard for fraudulent statements, but it sure hurts the once pleasant atmosphere of mutual trust that once upon a time existed between sellers and consumers. It now sounds like a fairy tale.

I don't believe the any lab's job is to report subjective beauty, but the job is to report measures and facts. Let the description be given and then let the eyes do the selecting. One caveat is that any inherent physical weakness of the cut ought to be revealed in reports. An overly thin or overly thick girdle, a large culet, shallow crown angles creating increased breakage chances, too much depth making the stone look overly small are some of the "inherent" elements which are craftmanship issues and not necessarily cut grade or measured light performance issues. However, such craftmanship issues do show up in the final value or asking price. They are part of the mix and need to be included into consideration. A seller who claims there are no accepted cut grades still should be responsible to point out inherent "problems" of the way a diamond is cut. Oftentimes I see these rather simple yet important facts conveniently forgotten under the guise of "no standards excuse" No standards does not mean that natural facts are not available.

David DBL and I can have friendly discussions on this and most any other matter. I let others consume themselves with angst. The debate is more important here than finding a conclusion. None of us are bigger here than the next person and this is at least an open forum without secrecy. Different points of view are not a problem. To me, honesty is the goal of such a discussion.

Back to the subject of the thread, before it becomes totally hijacked, is the question of using the same tightness of categorization for cut as for color and clarity which are used today... I think cut needs such tightness, but I wanted to know what others were thinking about in this regard.

 

[Lula]

You can tighten up cut all you want, oldminer, but it''s not going to help the end consumer who is buying performance.

Sorry for hijacking. I''m out of here.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI all!
David, Sarah's comments really highlight the intensity of this debate.
The term "performance" in relation to a diamond's appearance is, in itself, very controversial.
Who's to say that a diamond that bounces back more light is a better diamond?

I disagree that the pleasant atmosphere between consumers and diamond sellers "sounds like a fairy tale", that is to say, does not exist. It most certainly does. I feel pretty sure many other sellers who care about quality, customer service and representation have similar experiences.

But there's no question that there are many people who refuse to place their trust in a seller.
In this, we have part of what makes this debate so interesting. Some consumers want to use visual cues, and or, find value in a relationship with a seller. Others want to be able to remove the seller from the equation, and figure out the technical aspects for themselves.
I do not believe that GIA's rounding of numbers ( for example) is perceivable by consumers- yet it is discussed here, and clearly, it's important to some.


A seller who claims there are no accepted cut grades ( other than GIA's round, and AGS round and Princess) is simply telling the truth.
You mention "craftsmanship" issues- and we do agree they exist.
We agree that the seller needs to be aware of these aspects, and convey them.
However we disagree in exactly what constitutes them.
For example, sometimes a large culet is part of the beauty of a stone's cut.
Some stones that are overly deep have no visual shortcomings- other than the perceived size for weight- therefore would not be considered a "craftsmanship" issue. The fact the stone may seem small for it's weight should certainly be discussed though.

So back to the main issue, no. I do not believe that there should be ( or will be) a tighter cut grade for rounds- and I also feel strongly that no such grades for fancy shapes will ever find wide acceptance. ( thankfully)
If we look at AGS over the past five years, it relates to this subject.
The AGS0 cut grade is quite a bit wider today than it was in 2005.
Used as an example, we can see that assigning grades to cut is nothing like color or clarity grades- which have basically not changed over the years.
Is a 60% table better today than it was in 2005, or is it just that AGS decided their old cut grade was too restrictive?

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/28/2009 11:04:35 AM
Author:oldminer
Diamonds at the top of color have three to four grrades of color that are virtually invisible in difference to the casual observer: D-E-F and possibly G At the top of clarity diamonds have FL-IF-VVS1-VVS2 which are all very much identical visually even with a 10x loupe to less than skilled eyes.

With ''Cut'' we have yet to arrive at fixed, permanent, standards. I think the right approach is to have three to four levels of cut grade at the very top range so the logic remains constant across all the metrics of what constitutes the top three to four grades of finest stones.

GIA''s Excellent is faulted for being too broad. Dealers know that there are ranges of performance and beauty within this single ''top'' grade by GIA. The AGS 0 Ideal is a tighter product, but with testing for performance a quite wide and repeatable range of light return exists. This range could well be broken into three or four levels of top end performance.

David, frankly I''m a bit confused about what the common thinking about all this is. I think the discussion maps reasonably well on to what was explored in this thread, without wide interest.

For AGS0, I thought the constraints are pretty tight as is, thanks very much, such that comparing AGS to GIA...and you have your tight zones in the first few numbers already, in their system vs GIA.

But, you say 0 is broad, and I didn''t think so.

But, maybe your sentiment is consistent with what was presented in the linked thread, explaining why a minority of 0s presented in the interlinked thread received a good IS.

But, it''s generally thought a zero trumps an HCA score of 0 - 2, which is very wide, in and of itself. Yet, the HCA favorable score provided consistently good IS images.

If there''s a range of thought on this, I''d be interested in hearing.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Ira- if you compare AGS cut grade parameters of 2005 with those currently used you''ll see why I say they are wide- I meant in relation to how narrow they used to be.

In terms of the other thread- HCA is also controversial.

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 8/28/2009 4:30:05 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Ira- if you compare AGS cut grade parameters of 2005 with those currently used you''ll see why I say they are wide- I meant in relation to how narrow they used to be.

In terms of the other thread- HCA is also controversial.

Specifically comparing them to 05, I understand they are more elongated, less rectangular, and...I understand...better tuned to performance. This...more similar to HCA. I''m guessing the total number of crown/pavilion combinations are either similar, or slightly less.

Back to Dave''s original supposition...I could guess, but could only guess...that he would associated, one to one...enhanced performance with crown/pavilion combinations...but this could be completely spurious.

I do like to think this is pretty linear...again...consistent with what I imagined the AGS metric to be. After all, if they''re not going to be observationally based, they may as well follow the physics....

 

[oldminer]

I do NOT say that more light equals better, prettier or more valuable. That is totally up to the market. Please do NOT put words into my mouth. We agree on this, not disagree.

"Who's to say that a diamond that bounces back more light is a better diamond?" Not me and no one else, I believe. This is up to the consumer and the free market to decide. However, a diamond at some point toward the lesser light return side does become less desirable. At what exact point? We do not have a handle on that. There are many variables. A diamond which does not bounce light back is not a pretty diamond. Somewhere in between lies the truth.

If a diamond looks small for its weight and it is not craftmanship, then what is it? The craft of cutting kept the diamond deep and visually small for weight. What but "craft" in handling that piece of rough is the issue. Financial interest, love of lumpy diamonds, selling weight rather than appearance? What good thing can you think of other than craftmanship? I'm open. It is something consumers must understand since dealers certainly understand it. It needs to be discussed and we agree on this point. What to call it? Call it the "Jenny Craig factor" maybe. It is part of making an informed choice no matter what we call it. I can defend calling it craftsmanship, but if there is a better name, let's hear it. I believe such a very important aspect of looks and value needs a name and it relates to a basket of considerations which I lump together as craftsmanship. If you have no name for it, but agree that depth and visual size are important facts, then I suppose keeping it external to a basket of related things still works, but defies the logical approach I have suggested previously. I'm not married to my way or nothing else.

The tightness of cut grades is definitely an open book at this point. I understand your perspective and see that it will be a popular point of view among many sellers. I don't have any problems with well cut 60/60 diamonds myself. My wife has a big one she absolutely loves and I selected it for her. Diamond dealers can make choices such as this in spite of market pressure and hype. Some of the things we read about ideal cuts are marketing and hype, but some are real and actual, too. It is a blend and difficult to separate the necessary facts from the marketing nonsense. Consumers want valid advice and not negativity. Beauty is not the entire story when it comes to selection of a diamond no more than an intense discussion of parameters or performance scales. However, what is more reliable; facts or romance? I go with facts.

 

[elle_chris]

As the topic of the thread is "logic in diamond grading", i''m going to rant about color/clarity as there doesn''t seem to be any "fixed permanent standards" either.

Personally, I think before labs "tighten" up on cut grades, there needs to be accountability for color and clarity grading. Consumers know about these two c''s but still don''t understand why an EGL F, is selling for thousands less than a GIA F. For me as a consumer, that makes a huge difference in cost, in fact, more so than cut. There''s no such thing as a leniant lab if they''re constantly over grading stones. It''s just fraud, no matter which way you look at it.

I know that grading is subjective, but for labs to be off as much as three grades (and in some cases 4) is just unacceptable . And yet, I don''t see an outcry over this in the jewelry world.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/28/2009 5:09:52 PM
Author: elle_chris

As the topic of the thread is ''logic in diamond grading'', i''m going to rant about color/clarity as there doesn''t seem to be any ''fixed permanent standards'' either.

Personally, I think before labs ''tighten'' up on cut grades, there needs to be accountability for color and clarity grading. Consumers know about these two c''s but still don''t understand why an EGL F, is selling for thousands less than a GIA F. For me as a consumer, that makes a huge difference in cost, in fact, more so than cut. There''s no such thing as a leniant lab if they''re constantly over grading stones. It''s just fraud, no matter which way you look at it.

I know that grading is subjective, but for labs to be off as much as three grades (and in some cases 4) is just unacceptable . And yet, I don''t see an outcry over this in the jewelry world.

I am in accordance with you here, but those overgrading labs will look you straight in the eye and tell you that they are consistent and accurate in their grading and the market is just wrong to discount their goods.

Of course, it is a lie, but that is what they will tell you. Reality is, they grade loose and charge less for their services as that is what gets them in the door, just like some vendors sell diamonds for less and skip any of the extras that are important to some clients.

The problem is getting any law enforcement agency to even care enough about the issue to so much as listen to our complaints, let alone think about thinking about maybe some day doing something about it. They will not move on the complaints of jewelers and the public has not made enough of a fuss to get their attention.

Wink

P.S. Many of us have outcried, it just has fallen on closed ears.

 

[Rockdiamond]

David- sorry for any confusion. Sara used the word "performance" - I was referring to that comment.
In terms of depth: I believe this is integral to the conversation.
I'm quite sure you've seen "lumpy" stones.
Deep stones that suffer visual detriment due to the depth. Let's put those aside for a moment.

Have you ever seen an emerald cut of 80%+ depth that was drop dead gorgeous?
I have. My wife wears one of those.
It happens to be a square emerald ( Asscher) and it happens to be Fancy Intense Yellow.
Granted, if it was a G color, we likely would have never considered it.
But it's a good example of why setting parameters, then using them to create grades misses the point.
Some stones are cut deep for only one reason- to save weight. In many cases such stones suffer visual deficiencies other than perceived size. Such as a dark center. I have seen many stones of unusually high depths that did not suffer the dark center of some of the poorly cut "lumpy" stones I've seen.

When cutting a fancy color, in many cases the added depth allows color in a shape of stone that would look washed out in a lesser depth. Step cuts are a perfect example.
You see far less fancy colors in emerald cut versus radiant cuts for this reason.

This is also why using your "basket" theory, and considering aspects of the cut in such a way that takes into account many factors makes more sense than trying to lump these together into one grade.
Let's consider a stone of unusual proportions that happens to work well. Incredibly well.
Should we eliminate it because it falls outside the parameters that are "acceptable" on a chart.

David, just as you rightfully asked not to have words put in your mouth, I respectfully ask the same thing.
I am not writing as a seller.
I am writing this as a buyer of diamonds.
Something I do almost every day.
Yes, I can certainly identify with a seller's perspective- but also from a consumer's perspective- as I am one.

We agree on many things.
For sure there are poorly cut diamonds with visual shortfalls clear to any observer who's ever seen a well cut diamond.
However there is a wide range of proportions that a diamond can be cut to achieve an appearance that many observers will find lovely.

No matter how nice your wife's stone is- and I have no doubt it's stunning- it could not have gotten an AGS0 cut grade prior to 2005.
Unlike a stone which is clearly "off made",, these are subtle differences. Differences that might seem like night and day on an ASET, in real life my appear quite subtle. Meaning that if we show these diamonds to interested observers, it won't be clear cut as to which is the "better" diamond.
Cut grading makes it seem as though there's some visual concrete difference.
Some GIA VG cut grade stones are prettier to a fair percentage of observers than other GIA EX cut grade stones.
I'm sure the same holds true for AGS 0 and 1
This is not romance- it's a fact.

That's why my position is that there's too many variables in the cut of a diamond ( other than traditional RBC) for standardization of cut grading.


Although I get there a different way, I'm agreeing with Sara.
Branding is important- however it's a store or seller that is the brand.
If a seller has proven to offer diamonds consumers find attractive- they will be able to develop an eye for that type of diamond.
Tiffany's is the perfect example.
Many Tiffany's shoppers choose to trust Tiffany instead of a cut grade.


ETA- elle, I scream about that all day long. It is important, however I do not believe it can be legislated.
Carat weight? Yes, you can enforce standards.
Color and clarity are also subjective- and will always be.
For this reason theses send tier labs can't be prosecuted.

 

[elle_chris]

Wink- I don''t think the public''s made enough of an issue because people that bought these stones have no idea. They take the appraisal the store gives them with their ring or whatnot, and think they got the deal of the century. Most don''t get an independant appraisal unless it''s a high value item so they have no way of knowing.

I still think it''s up to the legititmate jewelers to do something at this point.

David- I get that grading is subjective- but grading standards do exist. These labs that are constantly performing below standards should be penalized somehow.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/28/2009 5:49:06 PM
Author: elle_chris
Wink- I don''t think the public''s made enough of an issue because people that bought these stones have no idea. They take the appraisal the store gives them with their ring or whatnot, and think they got the deal of the century. Most don''t get an independant appraisal unless it''s a high value item so they have no way of knowing.

I still think it''s up to the legititmate jewelers to do something at this point.

David- I get that grading is subjective- but grading standards do exist. These labs that are constantly performing below standards should be penalized somehow.

We have tried. Legitimate jewelers formed the AGS, The JVC and other organizations. None of them have been able to get anyone off the dime and into the fray. The feds believe it is just a bunch of stupid rich people buying jewelry and that they have more important things to worry about. Until the public starts to raise hell and make demands on their congressional and senatorial delegations, nothing will ever happen.

Wink''s disgusting but true department

 

[elle_chris]

It''s just such a damn shame.

To this day when I walk into a jewlery store and ask to see stones they push these noname certs on me and say "oh, oh, it''s just as good (and sometimes i hear better) than GIA. Just outright lies. Makes my skin crawl. Just such blatant fraud.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 8/28/2009 6:01:18 PM
Author: elle_chris
It''s just such a damn shame.

To this day when I walk into a jewlery store and ask to see stones they push these noname certs on me and say ''oh, oh, it''s just as good (and sometimes i hear better) than GIA. Just outright lies. Makes my skin crawl. Just such blatant fraud.

Yes, and when enough of you start laughing in their faces and speaking loudly about it being fraud it will finally trickle to a halt. Until then it is going to be feast on the uneducated day at the mall...

Wink

 

[Rockdiamond]

Interesting point elle that deserves it''s own thread- what penalty should egl pay?
Now it''s offically a threadjack.

David- come back!

 

[Black Jade]

Date: 8/28/2009 6:01:18 PM
Author: elle_chris
It''s just such a damn shame.

To this day when I walk into a jewlery store and ask to see stones they push these noname certs on me and say ''oh, oh, it''s just as good (and sometimes i hear better) than GIA. Just outright lies. Makes my skin crawl. Just such blatant fraud.

You''re right SaraP but I guess I see this issue as a little different because when the consumer does some research before shopping (not even that much research) they are likely to realize this.

I was in my neighborhood jewelry store recently and saw an example of how some people still shop for diamonds. A guy came in and wanted an engagement ring, which he bought, with cash, within 20 minutes of arriving in the store. It was obviously his first and only time shopping for this. He had no information on what he wanted other than that he and his (hopefully) future fiancee rode motorcycles a lot and therefore he did not want a ring that would get in her way. The jeweller just showed him several styles and talked to him along the lines of ''this one has a flaw, but you can''t see it with your eyes can you, so that''s okay'' and ''this is princess cut, this is popular right now.'' the customer asked the female shop assistant if she thought the ring was ''pretty'' and then was out of the shop to the ATM and back to make to make the purchase, that was it.

I happen to know that this particular jeweler does not do returns, either. He''ll do one sizing for free after the purchase and that''s it.

But he''s not a dishonest man. He''s been well-regarded in my little community for many years and his prices are in line with what B& M''s charge. He will get you a GIA diamond if you ask for it, and he has EGL diamonds available but most customers around here are not interested in that kind of knowledge.

I realize that not everybody has time to deeply study everything, but I think you''d look in cosumer reports or something before you buy a washing machine--if you come into a jewelry store as unprepared as the customer I saw was, it''s really not the jewellers fault if you don''t get the best deal you could have got with your $$$$$.

I guess this is a threadjack, sorry.

 

[elle_chris]

Date: 8/28/2009 6:13:39 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Interesting point elle that deserves it''s own thread- what penalty should egl pay?
Now it''s offically a threadjack.

David- come back!

How about the obvious, fines? I''m not only talking about EGL. There''s a ton of labs springing up everyday. You know this david, you work on 47th. I''ve been to enough places there to see their "appraisals".

BlackJade- That''s just it, consumers put their trust in these jewelers and reports. They don''t know that there''s no governing body that prevents over grading. They believe they get what they pay for. I don''t put the fault on them, if I''m paying for something, i expect it to be as represented.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 8/28/2009 12:38:08 PM
Author: oldminer
If one studies what makes a ''brand'' into a really successful ''BRAND'' one will ALWAYS find ''consistency'' in the product This a consistency in the parameters of manufature, feeling, quality, size, shape,, ethos, etc. With diamonds there are just a very few real ''BRANDS'' and many wanna-bee''s.

David,

There are some long standing and very successful brands in diamonds. The biggest and most prominent one these days is GIA but others that come to mind are Tiffany, AGS as well as AGSL (they are different), Whiteflash’s ACA, Hearts on Fire, Eightstar and even EGL and Yehuda. All of these names are used to define some of the nebulous properties of a diamond and/or a diamond deal. Not everyone cares for what each brand may stand for but the fact that they stand for something is what makes them brands and in every case SOME people assign value to it. In some cases it’s quite a bit of value.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver