Consumer advisory: GIA Cut Grade Rounding Problems

[RockDoc]

post removed

 

[RockDoc]

Hi Sylvestri

Good luck in your pursuit of attaining attorneyship.

My take on a class action on this subject would NOT fly. Although GIA does have the lion''s share of the grading market, they are not the only lab out there.

Because the plaintiffs in this matter would have knowledge of the other labs,and be knowledgeable about diamonds and their cutting, the dealer/cutter could go to alternative labs, and as such because GIA isn''t the EXLUSIVE supplier of reports, that there would be no damages.

Plus, the affected dealers, even those who have posted here, are not all from the US. Jurisdictional issues would be at the forefront of this matter, as some of the affected people are internationally domiciled. At least at the dealer level. Serg is in Moscow.

I think it would be totally different representing a group of consumers, and if there is diversity of citizenship, and an unknowledeable group of consumers, the salient issues would be a lot more palatable to the class action type courts.

I think some of this issue is probably more appropriately addressed via Lanham Act, but even there is not "rock solid" (pardon the pun) most notably because .

Agree?
_____________________


Garry
So RocDoc what about some "How to" ideas?
And has anyone sent links to Richard Von Sternberg?
Brian??????? Where 4 art thou?
The Holloway Cut Adviser & Ideal-Scope Cut Crusader!
www.ideal-scope.com
www.preciousmetals.com.au

Hi Garry,


Richard V and Brian are only two of the cutters that would probably fall "prey" to the inconsistencies of the grading. Regretably, they do not represent the diamond trade as a whole. Perhaps some of the cutters in India that you know,as well as Paul. But I think Paul is using AGS more as well.

Brian at Whiteflash already uses AGS, and through the grapevine I hear that Richard Von will be using AGS as well.

The How TO???

If we just continue to inform consumers, it will make a dent in GIA volume. as more and more consumers will want the AGS report over that of GIA''s - especially if the methodology in determining cut grading is flawed. I am of the belief and opinion that this is the most honorable way to proceed.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/31/2006 10:11:18 PM
Author: sylvesterii

I for one would love to help in any way that I can. Even though I am not in the gemological field, I am currently finishing my law school training. While I cannot practice law yet, since I still have a year and a half, and a bar review to go, if there are any attorneys that would need clerk-type help, I''d be more than willing to throw in my hat to help out for free. (not even sure if there is any legal action that would result, but if there is, I want to help.)

on a side note, as for certification of a class action, it is quite complex as roc doc alluded to above. but it is NOT just the lawyers who make money on them. For one, they are massively complex to manage, and will often take many years to complete, taking up entire firms worth of attorneys to complete. While there are significant problems that result from this very strange system of law suits, but it is not solely ''evil lawyers'' profiting off of those who really deserve the money. In many situations the money received is a penalty in nature, and not actually due somebody for damages. The classes are quite regularly extremely large, and allow people who would normally have absolutely no access to legal services at all to get at least something (albeit maybe only $100 bucks) the more important part of class action lawsuits really relates to what they accomplish. They are less about those who are seeking retribution and more about using civil proceedings to bring about change and penalize those who may be practicing unfairly.

As for a class action suit against GIA for their grading techniques...I don''t know, it would be interesting to see if it would work out...

also, class actions would not even be an option unless you could get like 20 different cutters together (or more) that are being misgraded for their techniques, however, a regular law suit could be more in order...

Sylvesterii:

The current cut grade issue intentionally harming a certain class of diamond cutters who strive for the best and what I documented on http://www.adamasgem.com/giafluor.html are two parts of any action suit, all of which have consumer impact, that could be headed by any professor (member of the bar) at your law school using the students as a real law school class project. Take a peek at that documentation. It is all part of a general trend to loosen "standards", all of which result in consumer deception.

Just a suggestion.

 

[Regular Guy]

Sidebar to post author...

Hey JohnQ, cool movies in your tutorial at WF. But, having just and only seen the piece on cut, and in consideration of this very post, seems like -- although you did it in anticipation of the good work coming from GIA -- you may want to revise it at least slightly.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Sidebar to Ira...

Thanks for the kudos. That tutorial is not officially launched, just up discretely. There will be a separate and more visible entry page later. You assumed correctly re: anticipation. Once we get a better handle on the situation appropriate revisions will follow. Glad you like. We know time is precious. They're intended to help those 'on the go.'

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/31/2006 2:30:03 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
For those present at the first Diamond Cut Conference in 2004, and for those following up on the special section, do you remember my initial suggestion directly after the Conference that our first goal should be to criticize the GIA-system (even with the little information that we had about it then) in order to avoid a clearly bad system to emerge.

Now, we have a bigger problem. The system is there, it is operational, and it is probably even worse than we expected.

Can we now form an united front, maybe starting with those present at the first Diamond Cut Conference, together with some others who clearly know their stuff and agree that this system is incorrect, and form some kind of committee or even organisation, which stands for the importance of cut-quality in diamonds, and who immediately issue a press-release containing founded criticism on the GIA-system?

Our company, for one, is willing to co-fund such an organisation.

Live long,

Paul,

Part1 (is for extreme optimists).

I would like to present my apologies beforehand that I will express a little sharply my attitude to your suggestions. I do not doubt in value of your goals. I just criticize the form which you want to use to achieve these goals. I do it exactly in such way because I share your goals and wish to achieve them.

I didn't support the organization of criticism of GIA Cut Grade System two years ago because such system was absent. GIA articles were present and I criticized them. Since recent time GIA Cut Grade System has been started working, so we can get facts, so we can criticize GIA Cut Grade System. Criticism is not criticism without facts. It is either abuse or yapping depending on status of person who criticizes. I was not going to spend my time on yapping early and will not do it in future.

To create effectively working organization is extremely difficult. I didn't find the center of force which can do it. Payments and even large payments are not enough. It is necessary that professionals of very good level will spend their time to create such organization and support of its work at high level.

To awake interest of professionals (not random people and not professional careerist) to work in this organization is necessary to formulate great strategic goals of this organization. The goals should be alluring and reachable so as professionals will turn off their fannies from current work and will find time for this organization but not draw a cheque only. It is vain plan to joint the people who just don't agree with some system. This mob hasn't common goal for motion and isn't able to do joint work.

I see following goals. They are already claimed or can be claimed on the market.

1) The protection of cutters from the Lab's arbitrary rules in the area of "standards".
• The protection of cutters from "concealed of standards" (May Marti forgive me for this abusive words?)
• The protection of cutters from Arbitrary rules and sometimes stagnation in the area of "standardization"
At present moment Labs exploit the idea of secret standards. It allows to do business only due to "confidence". They are not charged with their mistakes and unprofessional work. (some Lab: "Do you consider that should be VVS2 not VVS1. Or vice versa. Another color or cut quality? Will you bring the suit against us for wrong grade? Ha-ha-ha!!! You prove nothing! It is our standard of grade. Only we know how to grade. You can't prove something in principle. Did angry consumer come to you because you sold him the stone with highest grade of another Lab but we gave him our grading report with Poor grade? It is your problem. No need to send the stone to another Lab. You must cut by our standards and get certificates only in our lab. Don't you know our standards? Don't you know how to cut? Really? Well.. We train everybody! We give free software on web-site! We sell software for cutters via preferred providers. You need to study and work with us in more intimate contact! We put so much in your education but haven't you been learning work properly yet???!!! Give us more money and we will train you better and better".).

Everybody or almost everybody Lab exploits this business idea more or less. I don't know labs which don't do it. If you know tell me. Just some of them do it in the limits of decency. But some of them are so far out from these limits (although business ethics strongly depends on subculture in space, time and community of people. Here all is very vague and relative).

2) The introduction of standards ISO in the area of certification. About 10 years ago there was attempt to carry out this idea actively. Exactly GIA blocked the acceptance of these standards in spite of fact that after long discussion and agreement these standards were vain hopelessly.
It is almost hopelessly (the goal is adequate but unachievable in the real time. There will be very strong opposition) because it will kill business a lot of current labs. This business is founded on the trust not on the technologies of increasing of work quality and decreasing of charges.

3) Overall support of "innovative cutters" which try to improve cut and create new cut.
These cutters are ready to put up money and time in research and improvement of cut. These cutters create cuttings with greater additional profit (from the point of view of performance). Their work are blocking by labs.

4) Court of arbitration of cut grade. (but without ISO grading standard It can not be legitimate)

I can't imagine more alluring goals and reachable goals at the same time that claimed on the market.

It is possible to execute third item but very small niche of cutters needs it. 3-5 years ago it can save Antwerp cutting manufacturing but now even it can't help them. They can save some craftsmen's at the most (like in New York). Let's hope me to be mistaken. Indeed the cookery in Antwerp is very-very good!

Part 2 (is useful and easy).

The Lab is reseller between producer and customer of product. If industrialist understands the product better than labs then producer can satisfy the customer better. If Lab doesn't understand and kick this product then lab will win because it get grading fee. But both industrialist and customer will lose. That is why market needs mechanism to stimulate Labs learning from both industrialist and customer.

We can do project MSLB without formal organization and with minimal charges (Master stone Lab Bug - this name hasn't special meaning. We needs it just to not mix with project MSS that was suggested in IDDC-1. MSS has other goals and MSS is more difficult in some times).

It is suggested to start collecting of public data base of labs mistakes during grade of concrete stones.
The mistakes of more than 2 gradations are interesting by the opinion of person who observe the mistake. The mistakes are interesting where good stones are graded as bad and other way the bad stones are graded as good. In general I suggest to start work that John already have started in this topic. If the topic of cut grade is most actual then let's start with it. But in general I suggest to not limit ourselves by cut quality and enlarge the topic to Color and Clarity. Of course we should accept the mistakes of all main Labs. This project shouldn't be directed to one of Labs. It can be directed to improvement of cut quality and to protection of somebody who grade his stones. In future this data base can be used by any organizations in any goals.


The stage 1 (no need in funds).
We create the special forum. Everybody who find examples of mistakes in certification publishes to this forum following data (any non-technical comments will deleted and passed to another forum).

The format of obligatory data (for simplifying I want to write only format for CutGrade).

1) The readable image of certificate.
2) The photos allow to explain the reason of disagreement with grade. For example the photos in FS, IS, ASET, H&A. Or reports BS, Isee2. The photos of stone beauty are possible (not only symmetry). It would be very interesting to see who can do it.
a. It is better to provide any 3D model.
3) Comments about doubts in big mistake of grade.
4) The link where it is possible to see and analyze the stone. What price of stone?
5) Do owner agree to forward the stone for additional tests in the case of compensation of charges? What are terms?

The stage 2 (needs small funds).
The group of experts selects more perspective stones and does additional research of them.
1. Scan the stone to get exact 3D model.
2. Analyze the stone in different real and virtual lightings.
3. Create short report for each stone (in another topic).

The stage 3 (needs large funds).

The stones that received positive conclusion of expert group are redeemed for storing and detailed study (as examples of labs mistake). The results of research are published both in PS and in prints.

The stage 4 (needs very large funds and political will).
If Lab that have many cases of inadequate grades refuses to change its grade system for exclusion of similar grades in future (for example the introduction of type of grade as "Such type of stone will be not graded by our Lab") or publish standards and basis of understanding of concrete grade then data will be passed to juridical service of protection of consumers.

 

[sylvesterii]

Date: 1/31/2006 10:51:13 PM
Author: RockDoc
Hi Sylvestri


Good luck in your pursuit of attaining attorneyship.


My take on a class action on this subject would NOT fly. Although GIA does have the lion''s share of the grading market, they are not the only lab out there.


Because the plaintiffs in this matter would have knowledge of the other labs,and be knowledgeable about diamonds and their cutting, the dealer/cutter could go to alternative labs, and as such because GIA isn''t the EXLUSIVE supplier of reports, that there would be no damages.


Plus, the affected dealers, even those who have posted here, are not all from the US. Jurisdictional issues would be at the forefront of this matter, as some of the affected people are internationally domiciled. At least at the dealer level. Serg is in Moscow.


I think it would be totally different representing a group of consumers, and if there is diversity of citizenship, and an unknowledeable group of consumers, the salient issues would be a lot more palatable to the class action type courts.


I think some of this issue is probably more appropriately addressed via Lanham Act, but even there is not ''rock solid'' (pardon the pun) most notably because .


Agree?

_____________________

Lanham Act perhaps, although my understanding of unfair competition is pretty limited outside the scope of trademark law, since I haven''t had classes that really focused on it. I think it would be a better possibility for finding some type of liability, since it really does come down to consumer confusion, but i think they may be a little slippery in that they don''t *certify* diamonds necessarily, and disclaim a lot of stuff. Now not that all of the terms would hold up in court (in fact several it seems to me may not, but then again what do I know?)

but perhaps there could be some type of consumer misrepresentaion action that could be developed. but, there are no actual PROVEN facts that an EightStar or an ACA truly scientifically is "better" than one of the stones that slides into top grade by accident and is a real stinker of a stone. yeah, i completely beleive that EightStar is the absolute most perfect things i have ever seen, but can that be a documented fact? If it could, then we wouldn''t have nearly half of the super ideal v. super ideal discussions that we do... It is so subjective...

very interesting idea though. I think i will drum around school a bit to see if I can find anyone who would be interested in pursuing something of this sort.

***kicking myself for not taking the Unfair competition and Trade Secret Seminar in which i could have choosen my own project to do a major research paper on***

maybe i will check into some type of independent study project...hmmmmm

 

[sylvesterii]

Date: 2/1/2006 12:05:18 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 1/31/2006 10:11:18 PM

Author: sylvesterii


Sylvesterii:


The current cut grade issue intentionally harming a certain class of diamond cutters who strive for the best and what I documented on http://www.adamasgem.com/giafluor.html are two parts of any action suit, all of which have consumer impact, that could be headed by any professor (member of the bar) at your law school using the students as a real law school class project. Take a peek at that documentation. It is all part of a general trend to loosen ''standards'', all of which result in consumer deception.


Just a suggestion.

Very interesting. I had no idea about the change in color grading as well.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/1/2006 12:16:59 PM
Author: Serg




At present moment Labs exploit the idea of secret standards. It allows to do business only due to 'confidence'.

....

Everybody or almost everybody Lab exploits this business idea more or less. I don't know labs which don't do it. If you know tell me. Just some of them do it in the limits of decency. But some of them are so far out from these limits (although business ethics strongly depends on subculture in space, time and community of people. Here all is very vague and relative).

Not meaning to break expert conversation... but this is one good jolly bit of wisdom that turns my stomach upside down every time I get reminded of it. The first time was way before Pricescope.

Even if a hoard of top diamond gurus cannot be summoned to straighten up standards, it may be relatively easy to find a few to give an acceptable estimate of how and how well ($$$) this sort of 'banking on fuzzy standards' works. To start with, your saying that the grading business is cashing on confidence and uncertainty, it may well follow that the same institutions would not survive if uncertainty is taken out of their standards - something that runs perfectly contrary to their mission. This, I would think... should be quite a striking message for buyers at least.

 

[rstillin]

is this part of the rounding issue? FYI this a stone listed under the "select ideal" category of Uniondiamond.

Look up the GIA cert and it says "excellent" cut.. HCA 4.8. I''m not sure what to think of GIA''s cut grading?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Rstilin,

No, that is not part of the rounding problem. This is part of the general wideness of the top-grade towards one side.

Live long,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/2/2006 9:59:16 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Rstilin,

No, that is not part of the rounding problem. This is part of the general wideness of the top-grade towards one side.

Live long,

I''ve color coded the table size, crown and pavilion angle axes on the attached tables of GIA(EX) vs AGS(Ideal) to correspond with the "original" parameter ranges in the GIA cut classifications of the 1990''s, to give people a reference as to how cut classification thought patterns have changed, based either on science (whether it be "correct" or otherwise) and/or "political" influence.

In the pre ray-tracing and Helium/Sarin/OGI days, it was taught that each parameter, independently had to fall within a certain range, for the diamond to be considered in that cut class. We all knew that that was a fallacy, in that the table, crown and pavilion angles (along with the stars, etc) all interact to influence diamond performance, but that was the best we had at that time.

Now we are at a crossroads, where some organizations are being more open with their research data and results, and others not, for fear of being wrong.

If you are wrong, admit it, and move on, learn from your experiance. Only open discourse and peer review will allow progress.

The BLACK HOLE of tax exempt research and proprietary "standards" is no more acceptable than internal coverups of corruption.

 

[Serg]

Date: 2/2/2006 12:37:09 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 2/2/2006 9:59:16 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Rstilin,

No, that is not part of the rounding problem. This is part of the general wideness of the top-grade towards one side.

Live long,

I've color coded the table size, crown and pavilion angle axes on the attached tables of GIA(EX) vs AGS(Ideal) to correspond with the 'original' parameter ranges in the GIA cut classifications of the 1990's, to give people a reference as to how cut classification thought patterns have changed, based either on science (whether it be 'correct' or otherwise) and/or 'political' influence.

In the pre ray-tracing and Helium/Sarin/OGI days, it was taught that each parameter, independently had to fall within a certain range, for the diamond to be considered in that cut class. We all knew that that was a fallacy, in that the table, crown and pavilion angles (along with the stars, etc) all interact to influence diamond performance, but that was the best we had at that time.

Now we are at a crossroads, where some organizations are being more open with their research data and results, and others not, for fear of being wrong.

If you are wrong, admit it, and move on, learn from your experiance. Only open discourse and peer review will allow progress.

The BLACK HOLE of tax exempt research and proprietary 'standards' is no more acceptable than internal coverups of corruption.

re: If you are wrong, admit it, and move on, learn from your experiance. Only open discourse and peer review will allow progress.

Marty, I know GIA answer on your statement. See below ""GIA voice" from March 2002"


"...In science, different researchers working on the same topic disagree with each other often. As you noted, it is good for the quality of one's own work to have some worthy competitors. I don't know how scientific debate is carried out in Russia, but in the US and western Europe, such debate is generally published in peer-reviewed journals. In his own papers, each researcher (or group) compares and contrasts his work with that of other researchers, so that all reading the papers can evaluate the results presented in that particular paper in the broader context of all the work being done on that topic. More focussed debate typically takes the form of a Letter to the Editor about a particular paper, with a reply from the paper's author(s). The goal of the process is to provide information for the community interested in the topic, for it is that community as a whole that will accept (or reject) the hypotheses and conclusions presented in each paper. ..."

The WALL or ivory tower

 

[He Scores]

Date: 1/29/2006 8:47:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Before we throw 2 much mud - it would be good to have .gem files or Sarin srn''s to check that the girdles are not too thin at 1 spot.
But i expect the reason is the upper girdle facet painting

GIA has made it clear for a long time that they do not like it.

Or perhaps we should say the conventional trade elements that participated in the survey probably did not like anything that looked too different (or better) than their own goods.

While the pasting of the upper girdle facets may enhance the way the stone is photographed or viewed through a viewer in the face up position in regards to various marketing avenues, they do diminish the facet-to-facet bouncing of reflected light when viewed from most any other angle because there is in fact less definition between the mains and the halves.

IMHO, they create the same lack of definition from brilliandeering facets to main facets as normally occurs in stones with very shallow crown angles (read 30 degree range) where the defintion between the mains/stars/table is diminished due to the main crown height. This particular example can possibly show extremely well as a patterning stone through a viewing device.

BrayScore cut anaylysis performed on a few of these high performance stones recently indicated that deductions for the pasting of BOTH upper and lower girdle facets so that the girdle is un-even under the half riblines accounted for only a 2-3 percent range in cut scores.

Certainly not enough to bump a stone from one grading rubric to another.

Bill

BrayScore....because looks can be decieving.

 

[Serg]

Bill,

re:Certainly not enough to bump a stone from one grading rubric to another

I see reasons(pro et contra) to move such diamond on one grade( in both directions)
But 2-3 grades is too much,for 5 steps grade system.

It is not question about one grade .

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/2/2006 1:19:43 PM
Author: Serg

Bill,

re:Certainly not enough to bump a stone from one grading rubric to another

I see reasons(pro et contra) to move such diamond on one grade( in both directions)
But 2-3 grades is too much,for 5 steps grade system.


It is not question about one grade .

I think you would agree with Sergey Bill?

Bill this is an example the other way - dug out upper girdles - a stone that passed AGS in the old system - but one Peter Yantzer''s new approach would bump down 1 or 2 grades out of 10.
Would GIA drop this stone to Good or Fair?
I think not.

 

[He Scores]

Date: 2/2/2006 1:56:43 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 2/2/2006 1:19:43 PM
Author: Serg


Bill,

re:Certainly not enough to bump a stone from one grading rubric to another

I see reasons(pro et contra) to move such diamond on one grade( in both directions)
But 2-3 grades is too much,for 5 steps grade system.



It is not question about one grade .

I think you would agree with Sergey Bill?

Bill this is an example the other way - dug out upper girdles - a stone that passed AGS in the old system - but one Peter Yantzer''s new approach would bump down 1 or 2 grades out of 10.
Would GIA drop this stone to Good or Fair?
I think not.

Yes Gary....I do agree with Sergey. Actually the broad range of the "grades" is what really is the problem IMHO, and that''s why my system is reported in such small gradients. There can be too much difference between say an excellet and a Very Good. Actually, there can be a big difference in just the Excellent grade.

This goes for any system that has only 5-10 grades. Just like a "A" student at Harvard is different than an "A" student at Long Island Community college.

To identify the better student....look at their S.A.T. SCORE! Same with batting averages in baseball and credit report scores.

The industry''s job is only to relate the quality of the cut (which is different than the quality of the look). There''s a need to report both. But only report the facts and let others determine the rubrics of what is good, better and best.

One seller''s top stones may only be in the 800-850 range, while another premium seller may only sell stones "over 900".
When prices finally are affected by the accuracy of the cut, then there will be value also to know of stones with lower scores....just as there is value to knowing SI''s and Imps in the clarity grading and Q-R-S in color.

People erroneously fear that every buyer will only want the higher score stones....Do people only want D colors? Of course not. Like Old Timer said earlier...the main determinant in what a person buys is how much he has to spend.

The consumer is by and large smarter than most of us in the trade give them credit for.

Everyone in the industry (and that means the consumer too) wants "consistant and accurate" information. It does us all a disservice to do otherwise.

Give the buyer more confidence to buy and they will buy more diamonds. That''s what we all want.


Bill

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/2/2006 1:01:21 PM
Author: Serg

re: If you are wrong, admit it, and move on, learn from your experiance. Only open discourse and peer review will allow progress.

Marty, I know GIA answer on your statement. See below 'GIA voice' from March 2002'


'...In science, different researchers working on the same topic disagree with each other often. As you noted, it is good for the quality of one's own work to have some worthy competitors. I don't know how scientific debate is carried out in Russia, but in the US and western Europe, such debate is generally published in peer-reviewed journals. In his own papers, each researcher (or group) compares and contrasts his work with that of other researchers, so that all reading the papers can evaluate the results presented in that particular paper in the broader context of all the work being done on that topic. More focussed debate typically takes the form of a Letter to the Editor about a particular paper, with a reply from the paper's author(s). The goal of the process is to provide information for the community interested in the topic, for it is that community as a whole that will accept (or reject) the hypotheses and conclusions presented in each paper. ...'

The WALL or ivory tower

I have written two letters to Gems & Gemology, and true to their word and credit, G&G published my criticism in the G&G issue after the fall 1998 study, and the author's reply. The first such letter was in regard to GIA's 'briillance" study, where I commented on the inappropriate theoretical lighting model used in their study, one which had a black hole at the girdle plane.

As typical, I was rebuffed, with arrogant comments from the GIA authors, in effect saying, who the hell am I, I've never published anything. Well, I never got a chance to reply to that particular GIA author, that I had published plenty of technical reports in my lifetime, only they would never have the level of security clearance to read them.

At that time I neglected to comment on the uniform intensity hemispherical illlumination used, as a unrealistic model in ANY physical environment, ANYONE is likely to see.

There are two generally accepted general models for an outdoor environment that are in Wyszecki and Stiles "Color Science"

The Clear Blue Sky Irradiance model with the solar disk at some defined angle from the zenith and the cloud covered sky, the basis for the definition of D6500K, where there is a factor of three difference in the intensity from the zenith to the horizon.

GIA apparently settled on a singular face up viewpoint with a +/-23 degree obscuation and a black hole at the girdle plane with uniform diffise illumination to define the "brillance" part of their metric. see the fall 2004 G&G. To me, all this does is overweight the influence of diamonds in their study which REQUIRE low angle lighting from the side to return it to the viewer.. WRONG.. You can develop a metric to meet any artificial envirionment you want to, but I ask, shouldn't that envirionment reflect the typical viewpoints and lighting envirionments a consumer would encounter outside the jewelry store, in everyday life, and not some singular artifical model created to match or correlate with trade viewpoints in atypical viewing envirionments?
The Brilliance envirionment they used smears the difference between diamonds because it uses unrealistic lighting environments, overweighting the influence of low angle lighting and eliminating high angle lighting. And adding the glare component, especially in a static viewpoint model, is a GLARING error, as all it does is further smear the differentiation between diamond performance, especially with uniform illuminated and obscured hemisphere model. And that is what we got, a smearing and broadening of the ranges.


Their work was not peer reviewed, it was pure edict and WRONG for the consumer to place any reliance on..

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

GIA cut study team

Where are you''all.
When you get back from Tuscon?
Maybe it is time for some open and transperant discussion?

 

[Serg]

Date: 2/3/2006 3:03:10 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
GIA cut study team

Where are you''all.
When you get back from Tuscon?
Maybe it is time for some open and transperant discussion?

Non realistic. They can not do it.

But we can publish joint( I am invite Garry, Marty, other) article in real scientific journal.

What is best journal for our task?

Is below good?

http://journals.iucr.org/j/journalhomepage.html

 

[Serg]

Date: 2/3/2006 3:32:54 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 2/3/2006 3:03:10 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
GIA cut study team

Where are you'all.
When you get back from Tuscon?
Maybe it is time for some open and transperant discussion?

Non realistic. They can not do it.

But we can publish joint( I am invite Garry, Marty, other) article in real scientific journal.

What is best journal for our task?

Is below good?

http://journals.iucr.org/j/journalhomepage.html

re: other

I need clarify.
My suggestion to try combine method open developing Lunix and Wikipedia + something more.
Leonid we need you technical support too.

We can use Octonus-GC-Garry-Marty-Michael articles like first rough data( first source code or first information, like start point).

 

[Yuri]

Information about a regulation practice of Japan labs.

As I have told there are about 30 grading labs in Japan. They have an Association that has bought the first color masterstones set, probably from GIA, and keep it. Any lab can receive a color master set from this Association and do its grading job. But the Association occasionally takes diamonds on market and check if color grading is correct with the first color master set. If the Association find one mistake of two color grades it issues a letter to this lab sating that color grading is not correct. After finding the second two grades-off diamond the Association publish information that the master set of this lab is not correct. It means that this particular lab can not grade diamonds anymore.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 2/3/2006 5:41:02 AM
Author: Yuri
Information about a regulation practice of Japan labs.

As I have told there are about 30 grading labs in Japan. They have an Association that has bought the first color masterstones set, probably from GIA, and keep it. Any lab can receive a color master set from this Association and do its grading job. But the Association occasionally takes diamonds on market and check if color grading is correct with the first color master set. If the Association find one mistake of two color grades it issues a letter to this lab sating that color grading is not correct. After finding the second two grades-off diamond the Association publish information that the master set of this lab is not correct. It means that this particular lab can not grade diamonds anymore.

Thank you for this info, Yuri. I knew that there was some control on Japanese labs, in which each lab could loose its license, if a number of incorrectly graded diamonds were found.

Thank you for explaining the complete organisation.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/3/2006 3:32:54 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 2/3/2006 3:03:10 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
GIA cut study team

Where are you''all.
When you get back from Tuscon?
Maybe it is time for some open and transperant discussion?

Non realistic. They can not do it.

But we can publish joint( I am invite Garry, Marty, other) article in real scientific journal.

What is best journal for our task?

Is below good?

http://journals.iucr.org/j/journalhomepage.html

No sergey - not main stream enough.
These two
http://www.nature.com/index.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/
Unfortunately we do not feel the confidence that we should with this Journal
http://www.gia.edu/gemsandgemology/70/section_main_page.cfm

http://www.economist.com/index.html has a good consultant journalist who understands our industry well. It is not a science journal, but I will invite him to consider the situation.

 

[He Scores]

Marty reported that GIA told him: "As typical, I was rebuffed, with arrogant comments from the GIA authors, in effect saying, who the hell am I, I''ve never published anything."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


This seems a typical response from the academic ivory tower. It seems to me that some of the "researchers" and should spend a little time in the diamond community and see how diamonds are bought and sold.

The connection to the real world shouldn''t be lost in minutia.


Bill

p.s. I could write an article and submit it for publication tomorrow; but tomorrow, could they cut a stone and submit
it for grading?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/3/2006 6:27:42 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 2/3/2006 3:32:54 AM

Author: Serg

Date: 2/3/2006 3:03:10 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

GIA cut study team

Where are you'all.

When you get back from Tuscon?

Maybe it is time for some open and transperant discussion?

Non realistic. They can not do it.


But we can publish joint( I am invite Garry, Marty, other) article in real scientific journal.


What is best journal for our task?


Is below good?


http://journals.iucr.org/j/journalhomepage.html

No sergey - not main stream enough.

These two

http://www.nature.com/index.html

http://www.sciencemag.org/

Unfortunately we do not feel the confidence that we should with this Journal

http://www.gia.edu/gemsandgemology/70/section_main_page.cfm


http://www.economist.com/index.html has a good consultant journalist who understands our industry well. It is not a science journal, but I will invite him to consider the situation.

My question is would it be a hit on GIA or would it be a truly scientific study of the issues.
......
My own position is that the GIA EX grade is on the wide side, we know how to handle that because we have been living with the old AGS too wide cut grade for a long time. They should have done a lot better.

knocking down non-standard girdles - Id like to see a scientific and independent study of the situation listing both the good and the bad points of that type of cutting under real world light conditions
I haven't seen much that I recall beyond the marketing talk of its just different.
Until iv seen such a study im not inclined to take a firm stand on the issue.
I do however feel bad for Brian and crew for getting caught up in this mess.

 

[Serg]

re:My question is would it be a hit on GIA or would it be a truly scientific study of the issues.

1) It should be "truly scientific study of the issues" only
2) "truly scientific study of the issues" is hit on GIA study and GIA grading

re:My question is would it be a hit on GIA or would it be a truly scientific study of the issues.


DO you remember Topic "How lighting can influence on grade appearance"

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-lighting-can-influence-on-grade-appearance.38583/

What is it : "a hit on GIA or would it be a truly scientific study of the issues" ?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/3/2006 7:59:49 AM
Author: Serg
re:My question is would it be a hit on GIA or would it be a truly scientific study of the issues.


1) It should be 'truly scientific study of the issues' only

2) 'truly scientific study of the issues' is hit on GIA study and GIA grading

1: kewl :}
2: that may be the case and then the facts will speak for themselves. Im looking for letting the facts speak for themselves vs opinions.

I would like to read such a study and am looking forward too it.

Im not sure if I should really answer the second part:
Studying the lighting envirement in that box was science.
Saying the gia box had the same problem is a hit in my opinion unless there is proof the gia box has the problem.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/31/2006 2:01:40 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Brian??????? Where 4 art thou?

Brian was in South Africa and Chicago this past week, but he saw your comment and asked me to pass on that he is back and will contribute Garry.

 

[sylvesterii]

Date: 2/2/2006 10:15:47 PM
Author: He Scores

Yes Gary....I do agree with Sergey. Actually the broad range of the ''grades'' is what really is the problem IMHO, and that''s why my system is reported in such small gradients. There can be too much difference between say an excellet and a Very Good. Actually, there can be a big difference in just the Excellent grade.

This goes for any system that has only 5-10 grades. Just like a ''A'' student at Harvard is different than an ''A'' student at Long Island Community college.


To identify the better student....look at their S.A.T. SCORE! Same with batting averages in baseball and credit report scores.

The industry''s job is only to relate the quality of the cut (which is different than the quality of the look). There''s a need to report both. But only report the facts and let others determine the rubrics of what is good, better and best.

One seller''s top stones may only be in the 800-850 range, while another premium seller may only sell stones ''over 900''.

When prices finally are affected by the accuracy of the cut, then there will be value also to know of stones with lower scores....just as there is value to knowing SI''s and Imps in the clarity grading and Q-R-S in color.

People erroneously fear that every buyer will only want the higher score stones....Do people only want D colors? Of course not. Like Old Timer said earlier...the main determinant in what a person buys is how much he has to spend.

The consumer is by and large smarter than most of us in the trade give them credit for.

Everyone in the industry (and that means the consumer too) wants ''consistant and accurate'' information. It does us all a disservice to do otherwise.

Give the buyer more confidence to buy and they will buy more diamonds. That''s what we all want.

Bill

THis is an interesting concept. Different grading for quality of cut, and quality of look, rather than trying to put them both together in 1. However, there is always going to be a desire, and need, of the public to have an answer as to what is better. If we were just told the yellow saturation and tone of yellow in a diamond, we would have no where to go with that, without a lot of technical knowledge. (some of us would love to look it up, discuss it, disect it, and make our own judgement about what is best, but that is a small amount of the general public.) tell me it is a G, on a scale of D-Z, then I can work with that right off the bat. Easier to do with cut quality, not so easy with appearance quality. I think there is a good point here, GIA is failing the exteremely well performing diamonds that use non-standard techniques, because "cut quality" has always included our understanding of light return. If it is graded a very good because of non-standard girdle widths, and an excellent light return as a result, then I could live with that. getting a "fair" cut grade because of the one factor is compeletely inaccurate.

I disagree that the SAT is a true measure of how competent one is, and that an A at harvard is better than an A at a different institution, but there are a lot of issues within that not related to the comparison with which you were making it.