Standardizing subjectivity

The lack of standardization is the underlying issue to the grading dilemma, and subjectiveness is the result. That said, I am unable to see a solution that would bring standardization to grading policies and procedures. I say this because although GIA established the grading terminology most labs use, the actual scale used to differentiate grades varies amongst labs. Each institution has a market it caters to, clients that have grown accustomed to its grading scale, and subjectiveness that allows a certain profit margin. As these labs carve out their niche in the marketplace, they may become more and more unwilling to give up their grading methodologies and practices to a governing body for fear they will lose market share. Standardizing a subjective endeavour doesn’t sound so easy, does it?

In addition, as laboratories grow bigger and gain a broader reach by opening grading facilities in more places, there is a natural decline in standards. No matter how subjective, gemmological standards are maintained by setting up systems and procedures that self-monitor grading protocols and results. As laboratories open new grading facilities, they work to gain traction as quickly as possible in their new market. And although systems are put in place for business procedures, setting up monitoring systems to track grading accuracy is difficult to do while bringing new diamond graders up to speed on the lab’s standards. It’s a matter of how do you divide your attention and resources. In effect, the subjectiveness of grading becomes more apparent as you compare the standards at the parent laboratory to its extensions. It’s not unusual for members of the diamond trade to prefer getting diamond reports from the parent laboratory, rather than their extension.