Author Topic: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....  (Read 6331 times)

Offline Diamondsbylauren

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9070
    • Diamonds By Lauren
A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« on: April 22, 2013, 12:45:43 PM »
This page has a cool way of showing color- I don't know if it's all that illustrative or actually helpful but it is cool.

Here's the part I take issue with
Are Zs considered fancy-color?
No. Naturally colored diamonds outside the normal color range are called fancy-color diamonds. The FTC provides no guidelines for the use of the term “fancy-color” in the US, but there is general agreement in the international trade that fancy-color diamonds are either yellow or brown diamonds that have more color than a Z masterstone or they exhibit a color other than yellow or brown.


IMO this is totally out of line, and also not true. when did GIA become the arbiter of language to this degree?

I'd love to know what you guys think!
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 12:46:27 PM by Diamondsbylauren »
David
Check out our YouTube Channel

Offline oldmancoyote

  • Member Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4355
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2013, 01:06:23 PM »
Ummm... it depends. "Commercially" you may well be right. What GIA is saying is that they reserve the word "fancy" for diamonds they don't grade on the D-Z scale, which is... deeper than Z or not yellow/brown.

Offline Diamondsbylauren

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9070
    • Diamonds By Lauren
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2013, 01:20:53 PM »
I guess self interest clouds my reading....it seems GIA is somehow endorsing terminology as an industry norm. as opposed to what they write on reports.
To bolster my position, consider this: if GIA's interest includes trade terminology, how about using the word "Radiant" on a GIA report?

What I see as an offshoot of this is the extensive use of non GIA labs to "convert" these non fancy colored U-Z diamonds into FCD's with EGL ( or whatever) reports.
David
Check out our YouTube Channel

Offline clgwli

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4486
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2013, 01:39:57 PM »
See now I read it more as the technical "Is a Y-Z colored diamond a fancy color?" and the answer for me is "No"  (says the owner of a lovely one)  So I didn't read it negatively at all.  Just in order to be considered a "Fancy Colored Diamond" it needs to be deeper in saturation of color than Z or be another color that is not brown or yellow.

To me since GIA is already using "fancy" in their color grading chart, I don't see this as an endorsement of an industry term.  I'd agree with you if they just used Z for a fancy color previously and now saying it's "fancy"

I don't worry about the EGL grades either as an example.  I personally don't trust them to label a Fancy Light Yellow to be correct to begin with, so why worry about them adding a few more grades...

that's just me and how I am reading/interpreting this statement though.  I know that people in real life consider my Y-Z radiant to be a "fancy colored diamond"  As a rule I don't correct them, but it is interesting to know my non-fancy colored diamond really is seen as one by the average person.
Elaine aka Squiggly
elaine@diamondsbylauren.com

Offline Diamondsbylauren

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9070
    • Diamonds By Lauren
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2013, 02:44:11 PM »
Interesting Squig!
So, in your mind, as an owner of such a stone, you don't consider it a "Fancy Color"?
As a consumer, that really does seem to lend weight to the GIA statement.....
This is clearly a double edged sword- although the advantage is swiftly fading away as more and more demographics embrace these "non fancy colored diamonds"- till just recently, anything in U-V through Y-Z was almost considered "scrap"
So there was a huge price advantage....slipping away.....
David
Check out our YouTube Channel

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2013, 03:04:33 PM »
D, I am confused. As far as I know, the GIA definition of "fancy" is nothing new. Are you saying that you consider low-alphabet colors "fancy?" (But, I know that you don't refer to your low-alphabets as being fancy... ). Or, are you saying that your clients believe them to be fancy?  Sorry, I must be missing what it is you're upset about.  :BangHead:

Is it that you object to GIA speaking as spokesperson for the "international trade" and calling something a "general agreement," when in your [trade] eyes this is not so?



Regarding the "conversion" of non-fancies to fancies through reports issued by non-GIA labs, don't they do that anyway, regardless of color? Meaning, don't we already see stones that would probably be GIA J-color rated as Other Lab H-color; GIA W-X, Other Lab Fancy Yellow?

Sorry, I must be particularly dense today.  :icon_scratch:

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2013, 03:30:24 PM »
 :BangHead:

Offline clgwli

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4486
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2013, 03:33:09 PM »
Interesting Squig!
So, in your mind, as an owner of such a stone, you don't consider it a "Fancy Color"?
As a consumer, that really does seem to lend weight to the GIA statement.....
This is clearly a double edged sword- although the advantage is swiftly fading away as more and more demographics embrace these "non fancy colored diamonds"- till just recently, anything in U-V through Y-Z was almost considered "scrap"
So there was a huge price advantage....slipping away.....
In my mind, no, my Y-Z is not a Fancy colored diamond, and it doesn't bother me.  I bought it because it was a beautiful stone at the right price and a very lovely shade of yellow.  It doesn't even bother me in the least that my diamond is not "fancy" colored.  

Like I said in the practical world (ie outside of those who work or love colored diamonds) most consider it a fancy colored diamond.  I never correct them really (I mean who wants to be that person? LOL) unless they ask me specifically what color it is.  

So it's this crazy kind of place to own.  Yes, it isn't technically a fancy colored diamond, but most people out there, they assume and call it one.  Even jewelers or real colored diamond lovers do think it is at least a FLY or a FY set which is even a bigger bonus.

I am a bit "sad" that so many are into the whole Natural Light Yellow range of diamonds only because it can drive up the price.  Personally my favorite shade falls right around U-V to FLY anyway.  Maybe a "soft" FY, but I'm not as drawn to the more saturated yellows.  
Elaine aka Squiggly
elaine@diamondsbylauren.com

Offline Diamondsbylauren

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9070
    • Diamonds By Lauren
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #8 on: April 22, 2013, 04:01:39 PM »
Here's the rub:
Consumer education needs transparency- and it's particularly true in the case of diamonds.
Ill give you an example:
A common consumer request:
"I want a VVS diamond"

"Can I ask why?" silly me.
"Because I don't want to see any spots- I read online you have to buy VVS to make sure it's eye clean"

Today someone told me they wanted VVS as the diamonds were going too be used for spiritual purposes- and about that, I have ZERO qualms. We're looking for a stone for the call.
But I do think it' not in a consumer's best interest to be sold a VVS for the first reason, without an explanation of the ramifications.

Same for the color of a diamond.
This goes just as much for K color ( also known as "off color)
We've made a very strong business utilizing transparent advertising, and capitalizing for a decade and a half on the shortsighted thinking of others in this regard....so I am not really "complaining" as much as noting that GIA is taking a more active role- more than I personally think they should, in the use of language to affect perceptions.
David
Check out our YouTube Channel

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #9 on: April 22, 2013, 04:41:17 PM »
So, D, is your problem with GIA more about the fact that they post the question "Are Zs considered fancy-color?" in the first place? As opposed to the answer they provide to the question? Ie, you are cringing that by asking the question, they bring up some sort of issue that might not otherwise be considered at all?
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 04:42:26 PM by Trinkette »

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #10 on: April 22, 2013, 04:49:04 PM »
Over the years I've learned to appreciate the language GIA uses (excluding, of course, some of their odd-ball color descriptions that we've discussed elsewhere). As long as the overall descriptions seem relatively consistent, report after report, I'm content.

For me, the issue is more about changing public perception regarding the value of "off-colored" stones. And, considering the efforts the diamond industry itself has put behind boosting values of certain stones based upon a system that rewards some colors more than others (as well as other factors) this is not an easy task.

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #11 on: April 22, 2013, 04:50:15 PM »
Am I still not getting it? (Entirely possible).  ::)

Offline Diamondsbylauren

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9070
    • Diamonds By Lauren
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #12 on: April 22, 2013, 05:00:43 PM »
Sorry for the slow replies Trink
So, D, is your problem with GIA more about the fact that they post the question "Are Zs considered fancy-color?" in the first place? As opposed to the answer they provide to the question? Ie, you are cringing that by asking the question, they bring up some sort of issue that might not otherwise be considered at all?
Bingo!
I think you nailed what I find frustrating.
Much of what I experience as a problem is information published online that may have value- however without context all it is is misleading.

GIA's consumer education section should be held to the highest bar.
David
Check out our YouTube Channel

Offline Diamondsbylauren

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9070
    • Diamonds By Lauren
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #13 on: April 22, 2013, 05:09:37 PM »
For example: Maybe GIA could have written about how trade labels may have limited value to consumers who have not had the opportunity to see what different colors- or clarities- look like in person.
Instead they seemed to re-enforce the misconception
David
Check out our YouTube Channel

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #14 on: April 22, 2013, 05:10:42 PM »
WRITTEN BEFORE YOUR POST ABOVE:

 :faintthud: Ok. Got it!

I imagine the definition of what makes a diamond "fancy" is a fairly common question, or source of confusion. So, D, if you were the consumer education section at GIA, how would you add context to address the issue? I'm asking because I think the text that GIA published was out of the best intentions... the text just doesn't go far enough, perhaps? for them, it is black and white, for Big D, it is shades of grey!

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #15 on: April 22, 2013, 05:11:39 PM »
But, D, isn't this the problem with valuing the paper over the stone in ALL diamond exchanges?

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #16 on: April 22, 2013, 05:14:20 PM »
Now I've made this thread even more confusing than I made it before! I wrote my reply #14 as D was posting his reply #13. I decided to post mine anyway. Sorry for taking this around and around...

Offline Diamondsbylauren

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9070
    • Diamonds By Lauren
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #17 on: April 22, 2013, 05:28:00 PM »
Actually it's really been helpful to me Trink.

Yes, if I were writing it, I'd have it be far more "pedestrian"- I mean to say reality based as opposed to furthering trade "norms" that seem to ignore physical reality in some cases.

that's one aspect of GIA's reports I've always liked.
They really don't say "this is a good diamond"- instead, it's clinical.

Is the word "Fancy" applicable to this diamond?

Not if you consider GIA grades- however if you consider reality, how is it not?
David
Check out our YouTube Channel

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #18 on: April 22, 2013, 05:52:04 PM »
I'm finding this thread surprising, D. I never knew you felt this way about "fancy" vs. "not fancy" monikers. So, the rub is that it seems to you the GIA gives more cachet to something with "fancy" in front of it?

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #19 on: April 22, 2013, 05:52:37 PM »
Because you pose the question: the diamond in the photo does not appear "fancy" to me. However, that does not necessarily make it less desirable to ME. I have my own set of prioritized criteria that I use to judge whether a particular diamond is desirable; certainly, whether it is fancy or non-fancy is a consideration. However, that characteristic is not usually at the top of my list. OTOH, I can envision a case where it could be, it just depends upon what I am shopping for at the time.

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #20 on: April 22, 2013, 05:54:35 PM »
 :dontknow:
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 06:21:15 PM by Trinkette »

Offline oldmancoyote

  • Member Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4355
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2013, 06:23:50 PM »
Or... to take a slightly different tack: is an IF (or FL) diamond "flawless"? NO, IT ISN'T. It is only flawless at 10x, which is a totally arbitrary magnification. But technically, "we" call them flawless. Not a much greater sin (nor a less abused term by a ton of second, third and seventh-rank labs) than calling a Y-Z "not fancy"...

You (or anyone else) is welcome to call a VVS1 "flawless" (not that you would), or a Y-Z "fancy". GIA does not do that precisely in the name of a clinical, precise description. Just like they call "very good" cut a diamond that is "excellent" in every respect other than a thick girdle over more than 5% of the stone circumference. Is it really "less excellent"? Not to the eye... but there is a grading system and it is applied consistently.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 06:26:54 PM by oldmancoyote »

Offline Trinkette

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7796
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2013, 06:33:59 PM »
Actually, if David, or another professional, called a VVS1 "flawless" he would be in trouble FTC-wise.

(BTW, D, if you tell me the cushion in the photo you posted is GIA FLY or FY,  that'd be fine, but probably would not change my overall opinion of the stone in terms of how I feel about it, one way or another).
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 06:37:46 PM by Trinkette »

Offline Diamondsbylauren

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9070
    • Diamonds By Lauren
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2013, 07:02:23 PM »
All really good points- and I agree that there's no clear cut "answer"
OMC's point is well taken- it's an arbitrary decision to use a 10 power magnification to determine "flawless".
In many ways this is like the decision to calibrate the scale so that Y-Z does not fall under the "Fancy" umbrella, while FLY does.
Having gotten so used to this calibration overall, I do find it works relatively well- as well as could be hoped for quantifying something which is in many ways, "un-quantifiable"

Maybe what got my goat about this is how GIA's  website education section used to be more clinical ( iirc)

What is the clinical definition of "Fancy"?

Let's look at the fact that GIA specifically limited this to Yellow and Brown.
So a "Faint Pink" diamond- that in many cases looks almost exactly like a colorless, IS an FCD?
David
Check out our YouTube Channel

Offline clgwli

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4486
Re: A cool page on the GIA site....but I do disagree.....
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2013, 07:40:25 PM »
Okay now that I've finally had a chance to eat dinner and read through all of these, I totally get the point.

Personally I think GIA would be wiser to stick to a more sterile answer.  They could have simply said "For grading purposes, no, we do not classify any stone in the D-Z range to be a 'Fancy' colored diamond" blah blah blah.  That way it is referring to the naming convention more than "What is a Fancy Colored Diamond" If they wanted to expand on it, then they could go into how the lower ranges do show a considerable amount of tint, but only for grading purposes they do not carry the name "fancy" anywhere.  They could easily talk about the light pinks and that for their naming conventions only those with a "Fancy" would be named so.  That they have to have a certain amount of visible tint. 

Again as someone who has a Light Pink diamond, do people call it a fancy colored diamond in person?  Yep, they do.  Do they care it is technically only "Natural Light Pink"?  Nope.

For the average consumer, a Y-Z will be very obviously yellow or brown IMO and I think as a seller we would be wise to let people know that.  A name is just a name to me.  I know to some it does matter (as does clarity) but to many a Y-Z would be perfect.

In real life my FY pendant and my Y-Z ring are looked at exactly the same by my friends.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 07:42:38 PM by clgwli »
Elaine aka Squiggly
elaine@diamondsbylauren.com