JCK sent a single diamond to a quartet of industry labs to gauge their consistency (or lack thereof). The results were surprising—provoking a look into how the trade views the inherently subjective process of certification.
In 1955, the Gemological Institute of America’s lab issued the first diamond grading report, meant to serve as a third-party verifier that would increase public confidence in the diamond industry. Yet in the years since, not everyone has maintained confidence in the system of grading labs and reports.
While there are still many respected diamond-grading labs, others have earned reputations for being overly generous in their evaluations. (And even within that subgroup, there are those with reputations for being somewhat generous, and others—one overseas lab, in particular—with a reputation for being really generous.) Within the gem trade, talk abounds of varying lab standards; sometimes a branch of one lab will be considered looser than another branch.
“The problem is as bad as I’ve ever seen it, and it’s not getting better,” complains Donald A. Palmieri, president of the Gem Certification and Assurance Laboratory (GCAL), a New York City–based lab.
Palmieri, a frequent critic of his competitors, says he’s regularly asked by dealers to evaluate diamonds a certain way to win their patronage. He doesn’t take them up on it, but he believes that other labs do. “There are a lot of labs out there that do what they have to do to get business,” he says.
Mark Moeller, president of R.F. Moeller jeweler, a three-store chain based in Minneapolis, says, “Diamond grading is all over the map these days and it’s across-the-board.
“Everyone is fighting over what the standard is,” he says. “How can you be consistent with so many labs? The labs are just reacting to their customers by being more lenient. It’s become a standing joke in the industry: If you don’t like the grade, shave a point off and resubmit it.” […]
