“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” This phrase captures the fortunes of GIA over the past decade or so.

A Storied Past

Years ago, the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) operated only two laboratories, one in California and one in New York. Their grading was reliable and trusted as the gold standard in the diamond industry. However, rapid expansion led GIA to open labs worldwide—in India, Thailand, Hong Kong, Botswana, South Africa, Japan, and Israel. With nine labs and hundreds of employees, maintaining consistent grading accuracy became a challenge. It became crucial to know where a diamond was graded, but GIA’s random report numbering made this impossible. Today, many rely on GIA Reports for remote diamond buying, rather than the traditional method of examining diamonds in person and under magnification. This shift increases the risk of inconsistencies. Comparing diamonds based solely on GIA Reports may not be as reliable as it once was.

The Reliability Question

Does this mean GIA reports are inaccurate? Not necessarily, but there’s a risk. Like a broken watch that’s accurate twice a day, inconsistent grading can be problematic. GIA’s global advertising touts their reliability, but recognition doesn’t equate to accuracy.

Industry Transparency

In an era of “total transparency,” it’s time to critically assess GIA reports. While we respect GIA and continue to use their reports, we uphold our own stringent standards when examining diamonds. Following President Reagan’s advice, “Trust, but verify,” we recommend the same caution when dealing with any lab report.

(Note: This is an updated version of my post from August 7, 2017)