Would you like Face-Up color grading?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have started a push for face up color grading to be added to lab grading reports.
It is a key issue discussed in my new book.
There are many other issues I have with diamond grading, and I will wok my way through them until the labs put out a hit contract on me!
They do not protect consumers - they are marketing tools for the industry!

 

[jjca]

I think that would be great for consumers - especially when it comes to budget and what qualities are most important to them. Knowing a G (and maybe an H) is face up colorless might allow for a bigger or better cut stone in their price range. As of now, those colors may steer some consumers away from beautiful stones. It might also help with choosing a setting that could showcase face up colorless stones but maybe downplay/minimize the side view?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think that would be great for consumers - especially when it comes to budget and what qualities are most important to them. Knowing a G (and maybe an H) is face up colorless might allow for a bigger or better cut stone in their price range. As of now, those colors may steer some consumers away from beautiful stones. It might also help with choosing a setting that could showcase face up colorless stones but maybe downplay/minimize the side view?

You didn't vote in the poll jjca?
Don't forget size matters too - larger H shows more color face up than a smaller stone - another reason I want face up for folks.

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Yup, I'd absolutely love it if they included that! Of course there will still be subjectivity and people will argue endlessly about it but it's not like colour grades the way they are don't themselves generate plenty of discussions - more, in fact. But personally whatever diamonds I've ever picked out (for myself or someone else) I've done it based on the face up appearance of the stone; because it's irrelevant what the colour grade is when graded through the bottom.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Yes I would!!

 

[tyty333]

Why only for lab diamonds? I would like to see it for all diamonds!

I think he was saying labs as in GIA, IGI, etc. Not as in lab diamonds...unless I missed something!

 

[MissGotRocks]

I think he was saying labs as in GIA, IGI, etc. Not as in lab diamonds...unless I missed something!

Gotcha! Makes a lot more sense!!! Went back and edited my answer - thanks!

 

[tyty333]

Interesting question...

I have a 1.66 K ACA. I thought* I wanted to go higher in color (maybe I-ish). WF had an H-colored stone that fit my
budget but was only slightly bigger (I also wanted to upgrade size, if possible). I ordered it to see if it was what I wanted.
To be honest, in most* lighting I couldn't really tell much* difference. (I could see some but just not enough to make it
a major factor to me). Only if I looked at the sides of the stones, or maybe at the right angle, could I really tell my K had more tint.
I decided to make my upgrade more of a size upgrade than a color upgrade since in most* lighting they both looked similar (to me)*. YMMV. Unfortunately, I forgot about the concept that the bigger you go the more color you see in a stone. I'll post a few pics below.

So, I think your idea would be helpful to me @Garry H (Cut Nut) . I know some people will be able to look at these pics and see
major color differences. We're all so different and we all have different tolerances. Since most of us are buying stones on-line
I feel like the more info we can get (like face up color) the easier it would be for us to make better decisions.

FYI...My K is in a yellow setting (yellow prongs). The H is in the stone holder.

 

[Rfisher]

Add it to existing lab reports, sure.
Replacement of existing body color grading, no.

 

[Rfisher]

It might help someone trying to match a color grade with a wider parameter than the higher colors.

It also might help someone looking at 57/58 facet rounds vs the 66 (or whatever) facet versions,
Help them to make an informed decision of whats right for them and their parameters/wishes.
And the why.

 

[jjca]

Don't forget size matters too - larger H shows more color face up than a smaller stone - another reason I want face up for folks.

I wish every stone of a certain size had advanced imaging (at least that you could request) to help consumers. I had a jeweler (recently) tell me I didn’t need to worry about H&A or advanced imaging because it really doesn’t matter and it’s just a gimmick - that all the XXX stones they were showing me were comparable to H&A. You may be surprised to hear that they were in fact, not.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think it's a great idea Garry!
The new shape of our industry.....including lab diamonds, and changes in labs' reputation...the swallowing of AGSL by GIA...
All of these have made me - a traditionalist- far more open to newer ideas and methods.

Of course it opens up a whole new can of worms- and maybe worms are just what this industry needs!!

Don't forget size matters too - larger H shows more color face up than a smaller stone - another reason I want face up for folks.

As part of this discussion...personally, I refrain from generalities like this.
I mean, part of your point in this thread is that face up and "normal" color grading sometimes differ. Therefore it's quite possible a 5ct diamond graded H shows less face up color than a 2ct diamond graded H using the same methods.....

 

[Karl_K]

Not if it uses a D-Z scale.
To much room for fraud if it did.

Getting transparency graded in a meaningful way is more important.

 

[Bron357]

To me, as a diamond noob, what I see with my eyes when admiring a diamond is what counts.
I appreciate that assessing colour culet up is the norm, but no one (almost never though a few may choose to set their diamond that way) sees a diamond that way so why should it matter.
Likewise clarity at x 10. I understand that it’s important to compare quality by way of imperfections but again, who at polite viewing distance, is ever going to pick up the nuance between VVS and VVS1?
Which is why the other two C s matter to me.
Cut because if a diamond isn’t doing what it does best why bother and
Carat because I can readily see the size difference between a 1 carat and a 2 carat.
So to me as a noob, a system of colour like 1 being D and E, 2 being F, G and 3 being H and I is easier to appreciate and likewise clarity IF being a seperate class and then the VVS group being 1, the S group being 2 and the P being group 3.

 

[oncrutchesrightnow]

As a consumer who cares about color, I want to know how does it face up? And how does it look from the side?

Not if it uses a D-Z scale.
To much room for fraud if it did.

Getting transparency graded in a meaningful way is more important.

Agree, although some of us might not want the discount to go away on stones with fluorescence.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Interesting question...

I have a 1.66 K ACA. I thought* I wanted to go higher in color (maybe I-ish). WF had an H-colored stone that fit my
budget but was only slightly bigger (I also wanted to upgrade size, if possible). I ordered it to see if it was what I wanted.
To be honest, in most* lighting I couldn't really tell much* difference. (I could see some but just not enough to make it
a major factor to me). Only if I looked at the sides of the stones, or maybe at the right angle, could I really tell my K had more tint.
I decided to make my upgrade more of a size upgrade than a color upgrade since in most* lighting they both looked similar (to me)*. YMMV. Unfortunately, I forgot about the concept that the bigger you go the more color you see in a stone. I'll post a few pics below.

So, I think your idea would be helpful to me @Garry H (Cut Nut) . I know some people will be able to look at these pics and see
major color differences. We're all so different and we all have different tolerances. Since most of us are buying stones on-line
I feel like the more info we can get (like face up color) the easier it would be for us to make better decisions.

FYI...My K is in a yellow setting (yellow prongs). The H is in the stone holder.

Great photos.
I can see the difference only in some photos

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Add it to existing lab reports, sure.
Replacement of existing body color grading, no.

Removing traditional upside down would create billion dollars legal cases!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think it's a great idea Garry I

t's quite possible a 5ct diamond graded H shows less face up color than a 2ct diamond graded H using the same methods.....

Other way around David.
5ct same same will appear a slight lower tinted color

 

[Rockdiamond]

Other way around David.
5ct same same will appear a slight lower tinted color

We both agree that there’s a range within each GIA color grades.
If we take a poorly cut “Low H” to a larger , well cut “just missed getting graded G” it’s entirely within the range of possibilities that the larger stone faces up whiter

 

[diamonddaddy]

I wish every stone of a certain size had advanced imaging (at least that you could request) to help consumers. I had a jeweler (recently) tell me I didn’t need to worry about H&A or advanced imaging because it really doesn’t matter and it’s just a gimmick - that all the XXX stones they were showing me were comparable to H&A. You may be surprised to hear that they were in fact, not.

I recently went through this and it was exceptionally frustrating - I'm not usually one to outright side with a forum or a subset of ideals but in this case, I'm genuinely yet to see a jeweller prove otherwise when they say 'it doesn't matter'.

There are one or two videos on YouTube with simple verbal hypotheses as to why ASET / IS / H&A images don't matter but they don't actually provide any firm and empirical evidence as to why it is the case. All they do is put it down to "well, most professionals don't use them so why would you".

In my opinion, a lot of jewellers have gotten away with selling consumers potentially underperforming stones simply by relying on the XXX rating and to me that is a travesty considering the $ spend on diamonds, esp for an engagement ring.

If the imaging truly were a gimmick then it would be effectively denying actual physics - it has been empirically proven that the angles, symmetry and depth all matter. I just genuinely yet to see any proof stating otherwise.

I think the major push back from jewellers when it comes to advanced imaging is that it would give consumers greater insight into the stone they're buying, and if you're savvy enough to interpret what you're seeing and correlate it back to reference images, you'd likely reject the majority of what is in their inventory.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I think the major push back from jewellers when it comes to advanced imaging is that it would give consumers greater insight into the stone they're buying, and if you're savvy enough to interpret what you're seeing and correlate it back to reference images, you'd likely reject the majority of what is in their inventory.

@jjca and @diamonddaddy I think you're dreaming. The industry does so many despicable things.
I am writing a paper based on a single stone to identify half a dozen travesties that this one stone exhibits (X cut 63.4% depth, GIA missed obvious internal graining, the stone is milky hazy, the face up color would be lower than the pavilion grade) and how the good videos get thrown out so spark-a-larkle ones are shared:

 

[diamonddaddy]

@jjca and @diamonddaddy I think you're dreaming. The industry does so many despicable things.
I am writing a paper based on a single stone to identify half a dozen travesties that this one stone exhibits (X cut 63.4% depth, GIA missed obvious internal graining, the stone is milky hazy, the face up color would be lower than the pavilion grade) and how the good videos get thrown out so spark-a-larkle ones are shared:

This is quite a fundamental issue and I'm seriously glad you're speaking about it because a lot of jewellers will have you select a stone from virtual inventory by leaning on the 'XXX' grade and then the video.

They then ask you, "Do you like it?" - if you're none the wiser when it comes to lighting, inclusions, photography angles etc... what are you going to say? "yeah sure I suppose it looks good?".

 

[oldminer]

My take on this hot topic is that there should be a respectable scientific study by neutral parties of existing freshly graded GIA certed diamonds of a full range of color, outline shapes, clarity, fluorescence level and color, and cut quality. They should be graded by human graders and also by AI machine grading in a face-up position to see where there are variations caused by using this viewing position to see if the grading would greatly alter color grading without throwing a huge error and adjustment factor into an already challenged business model. Scientific knowledge is great in a vacuum, but making such a drastic change casually could be a devastating choice without a very good understanding of how well this would work and what would happen with hundreds of thousands of existing documents and the valuable stones each document attaches to.

As it stands now, judging color from the side is a convention that can be taught and understood reasonably well. With fancy color diamonds, grading from the top view seems acceptable, but dealers know there is subjectivity and inconsistency in the process although the free market functions well for dealers who understand. It is less functional for consumers, but hardly a failure in the overall. Since "cut" can vastly effect color from the top, how would tap grading report such cut caused color? Would that be fair for the D to Z or the D to K stones? Would L to Z be treated differently? Just giving an example of the potential of complexity that will pop up.

A well constructed examination of grading color face-up would be a big endeavor and should be protected from those who seek the status quo simply to retain money and power. It also should be protected from those who want change so much that they would create huge needless controversy over the 1 or 2 percent of diamonds that might not fit perfectly into a face-up grading scheme. We live nicely with those types of diamonds under our current model and they are not the reason to change an entire well developed system of business and trade. Having small exceptions in any gemstone grading structure is not unusual or highly dangerous.

I'd love to see such a test conducted on a small scale to understand how complex the actual problems would become in a full scale environment. Possibly adding a face-up grade to Lab reports would suffice, if it made good sense and was accurate and repeatable.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

My take on this hot topic is that there should be a respectable scientific study by neutral parties of existing freshly graded GIA certed diamonds of a full range of color, outline shapes, clarity, fluorescence level and color, and cut quality. They should be graded by human graders and also by AI machine grading in a face-up position to see where there are variations caused by using this viewing position to see if the grading would greatly alter color grading without throwing a huge error and adjustment factor into an already challenged business model. Scientific knowledge is great in a vacuum, but making such a drastic change casually could be a devastating choice without a very good understanding of how well this would work and what would happen with hundreds of thousands of existing documents and the valuable stones each document attaches to.

As it stands now, judging color from the side is a convention that can be taught and understood reasonably well. With fancy color diamonds, grading from the top view seems acceptable, but dealers know there is subjectivity and inconsistency in the process although the free market functions well for dealers who understand. It is less functional for consumers, but hardly a failure in the overall. Since "cut" can vastly effect color from the top, how would tap grading report such cut caused color? Would that be fair for the D to Z or the D to K stones? Would L to Z be treated differently? Just giving an example of the potential of complexity that will pop up.

A well constructed examination of grading color face-up would be a big endeavor and should be protected from those who seek the status quo simply to retain money and power. It also should be protected from those who want change so much that they would create huge needless controversy over the 1 or 2 percent of diamonds that might not fit perfectly into a face-up grading scheme. We live nicely with those types of diamonds under our current model and they are not the reason to change an entire well developed system of business and trade. Having small exceptions in any gemstone grading structure is not unusual or highly dangerous.

I'd love to see such a test conducted on a small scale to understand how complex the actual problems would become in a full scale environment. Possibly adding a face-up grade to Lab reports would suffice, if it made good sense and was accurate and repeatable.

Well considered response Dave. From a consumer protection vs a trade protection point of view - I am pumping for consumers

 

[oldminer]

The test needs to be honestly done. Whatever consumers demand will be heard by the industry and forced into the Lab process. Consumers are the real force behind change. Labs and diamond dealers prefer no changes unless they must make them to sustain their business and profits. Labs do what keeps up their finances and their volume of work.

Garry, you're right to encourage consumers since they are the true driving force. It is far easier for labs and dealers to cooperate to secure the volume of diamonds and the technology to make testing of a novel color grading scheme into a practical process, but not one loaded with new and still unforeseen problems.

When I worked on the Imagem.com project in the 90's and early 2000's, I was pushing for using the existing standard color coordinates to be on every document for each diamond being color graded. That resolved many tough borderline calls of color to a numerical result showing what color a particular diamond was, and will always be, a borderline color, not a pure single grade. It would be a small percentage of stones, but easily understood by dealers and consumers. Doing similar with face-up grading might well be reported in the same way. Admitting some diamonds are borderline between two colors is not misleading or dishonest, but accurate once you have a system with sufficiently accurate and repeatable color grading capabilities.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The test needs to be honestly done. Whatever consumers demand will be heard by the industry and forced into the Lab process. Consumers are the real force behind change. Labs and diamond dealers prefer no changes unless they must make them to sustain their business and profits. Labs do what keeps up their finances and their volume of work.

Garry, you're right to encourage consumers since they are the true driving force. It is far easier for labs and dealers to cooperate to secure the volume of diamonds and the technology to make testing of a novel color grading scheme into a practical process, but not one loaded with new and still unforeseen problems.

When I worked on the Imagem.com project in the 90's and early 2000's, I was pushing for using the existing standard color coordinates to be on every document for each diamond being color graded. That resolved many tough borderline calls of color to a numerical result showing what color a particular diamond was, and will always be, a borderline color, not a pure single grade. It would be a small percentage of stones, but easily understood by dealers and consumers. Doing similar with face-up grading might well be reported in the same way. Admitting some diamonds are borderline between two colors is not misleading or dishonest, but accurate once you have a system with sufficiently accurate and repeatable color grading capabilities.

Again Dave - your experience and calm wisdom are on the money.
Meanwhile my bull at the gate approach, spring boarding off my new book, are working the trade side as well.

Let's Rethink Diamond Grading, Starting with Color - IDEX's Memo

 

[oldminer]

Since we are communicating on the same wavelengths, how about these question for Garry and others who have interest?

For those of you who have experience grading D-E-F-G and H color diamonds either when mounted or especially when loose, do you think you can successfully grade these narrowly divided grades reliably and repeatedly from their top view alone?

I think such a group of diamond graders might like to grade I/J to Z colors with a top view strategy, but they might feel differently about the top four to five colors. Do you think grading from the side should be a part of top colorless stone grading or be retained for all diamond grading from D to Z? Do you see it another way?

Do we have the right equipment technology at hand now for grading color from the top view or is this a tool that must be created? What kind of a tool can tell you the color of a diamond when there are areas of intensification of color due to the cut? Is average perceived color what we think applies? That would be a terrifically different approach than our current grading model.

 

[jjca]

I’m not an expert by any sense of the word - but when I placed my 3 loose stones (center E and sides G) on their crowns, from the side, I could see that the center was colorless but the sides had a very slight tinge to them. Once they were set - there’s no way I can tell they aren’t all colorless. That being said, the sides are mostly covered by their baskets from the side view and they are only ⅓ ct - maybe if they were larger it would be noticeable?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Since we are communicating on the same wavelengths, how about these question for Garry and others who have interest?

For those of you who have experience grading D-E-F-G and H color diamonds either when mounted or especially when loose, do you think you can successfully grade these narrowly divided grades reliably and repeatedly from their top view alone?

I think such a group of diamond graders might like to grade I/J to Z colors with a top view strategy, but they might feel differently about the top four to five colors. Do you think grading from the side should be a part of top colorless stone grading or be retained for all diamond grading from D to Z? Do you see it another way?

Do we have the right equipment technology at hand now for grading color from the top view or is this a tool that must be created? What kind of a tool can tell you the color of a diamond when there are areas of intensification of color due to the cut? Is average perceived color what we think applies? That would be a terrifically different approach than our current grading model.

Dave we now have digital colorimeter instruments and I imagine programming a device to measure the pavilion color could be harder than grading face up.

I had experience with GIA on a 1.73ct diamond with a different grade to its original +2ct after it had been recut. The grade was entirely based on a colorimeter. This is covered in my book.
GIA used colorimeters since 2000.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

My take on this hot topic is that there should be a respectable scientific study by neutral parties of existing freshly graded GIA certed diamonds of a full range of color, outline shapes, clarity, fluorescence level and color, and cut quality. They should be graded by human graders and also by AI machine grading in a face-up position to see where there are variations caused by using this viewing position to see if the grading would greatly alter color grading without throwing a huge error and adjustment factor into an already challenged business model. Scientific knowledge is great in a vacuum, but making such a drastic change casually could be a devastating choice without a very good understanding of how well this would work and what would happen with hundreds of thousands of existing documents and the valuable stones each document attaches to.

As it stands now, judging color from the side is a convention that can be taught and understood reasonably well. With fancy color diamonds, grading from the top view seems acceptable, but dealers know there is subjectivity and inconsistency in the process although the free market functions well for dealers who understand. It is less functional for consumers, but hardly a failure in the overall. Since "cut" can vastly effect color from the top, how would tap grading report such cut caused color? Would that be fair for the D to Z or the D to K stones? Would L to Z be treated differently? Just giving an example of the potential of complexity that will pop up.

A well constructed examination of grading color face-up would be a big endeavor and should be protected from those who seek the status quo simply to retain money and power. It also should be protected from those who want change so much that they would create huge needless controversy over the 1 or 2 percent of diamonds that might not fit perfectly into a face-up grading scheme. We live nicely with those types of diamonds under our current model and they are not the reason to change an entire well developed system of business and trade. Having small exceptions in any gemstone grading structure is not unusual or highly dangerous.

I'd love to see such a test conducted on a small scale to understand how complex the actual problems would become in a full scale environment. Possibly adding a face-up grade to Lab reports would suffice, if it made good sense and was accurate and repeatable.

Dave - going back to your first longer post and the first question regarding "respectable scientific proof". It would be interesting, but hardly a necessity INMHO. Here is why:
Consider the crushed ice appearance of most of today’s fancy-colored diamonds. Fancy colored diamonds are graded face-up because cut has such a pronounced effect. Through the pavilion a face-up Vivid Yellow cushion may appear the same grade as a Fancy Yellow round brilliant cut (RBC). That two grade difference doubles or trebles the selling price. Cut really makes a difference to face up color.

The reason that crushed ice diamond cuts exaggerate face-up color is that light is captured for a longer path, bouncing around inside the stone. Even though a crushed ice cushion cut usually has only a few more facets than an RBC, you see around three times as many tiny virtual facets. (They are hard to photograph, they are effectively three times as deep and many facets appear out of focus).

For the first two decades of the Argyle diamond mine dealers bought pinks and recut them to improve the grades. Argyle lost billions of dollars creating emerald cuts that got upgraded to crushed ice Radiants and Cushions.
Dealers buy old cut cape O-P stones and recut them to Fancy and Fancy Light.

To be clear - I am not ever suggesting to drop the traditional upside-down color grade!