Sylvesterii: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...
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.
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).
4) Court of arbitration of cut grade. (but without ISO grading standard It can not be legitimate)
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).
The format of obligatory data (for simplifying I want to write only format for CutGrade).
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.
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?
_____________________
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.
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).
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.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,
Date: 2/2/2006 12:37:09 PM
Author: adamasgem
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.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,
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.
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.
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.
BrayScore....because looks can be decieving.
I think you would agree with Sergey Bill?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 .
Date: 2/2/2006 1:56:43 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
I think you would agree with Sergey Bill?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 .
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.
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.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
Non realistic. They can not do it.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?
re: otherDate: 2/3/2006 3:32:54 AM
Author: Serg
Non realistic. They can not do it.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?
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
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.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.
No sergey - not main stream enough.Date: 2/3/2006 3:32:54 AM
Author: Serg
Non realistic. They can not do it.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?
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
Date: 2/3/2006 6:27:42 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Date: 2/3/2006 3:32:54 AM
Author: Serg
Non realistic. They can not do it.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?
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.
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
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.Date: 1/31/2006 2:01:40 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Brian??????? Where 4 art thou?
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