Establishing a protocol for an independent study of diamond cut.

[strmrdr]

Lets pretend for a bit that the funds were raised for an independent observation study of diamond cut.
The study is to be conducted by an independent testing lab.
What would be the protocol that should be used.
including but not limited to:
observer selection - age, eyesight, trade allowed?
lighting and viewing environment? - remember it has to be repeatable and consistent.
number and types/specs of diamonds?
What information would be gathered and what questions would they be asked?
How many viewings would be required to get usable results?
Anything else you can think of.

edit: The diamonds would be various makes of RB's for the study.
Thank you f0rbidden for bringing the need to clarify that to my attention :}

 

[f0rbidden]

I''ve worked with medical studies, but never diamond studies..so this poses an interesting question.

I''d have to say that the study would have to get a cross-cultural group in order to be reasonably accurate. the problem being, as with other things, that which we find attractive in the US may or may not be what other countries find attractive - every culture has it''s own ideals. which makes this a difficult process.

so, it would need to be, ideally, an international study. groups from every country would need to be included - and those groups would need to include people from each different age group in the ''diamond buying'' range - so in my opinion, anyone 18 and over - of course, there''s that US idea again. not every country believes a person needs to be 18 to be ''independent'' still, some controls would be needed.

you''d need groups of men and of women
with varying eyesight, as that really shouldn''t be a deciding factor
within each age group
and crossing socio-economic boundaries. i don''t believe having professionals in the trade would be advantageous, it seems to me that having regular people would be the way to go. of course, this depends on what results you''re trying to obtain.

i think that viewing the diamonds in natural sunlight would be best, but since that isn''t really duplicable (is that a word?) some sort of controlled ''artificial'' sunlight would do the trick. that way every ''researcher'' in every ''lab'' around the world could have the same lighting.

from there, i would have to ask what results are being sought after - are you trying to find out which shape is the most attractive? what percentages are most attractive in RB''s? etc...
then you could figure out the rest. you can''t show people too many diamonds at once, it would become overwhelming.

 

[valeria101]

On thing I''d like to hear... is how to escape the super hair splitting high tech setup that makes diamond cut studies these days orders of magnitude more expensive and involved than than famous Tolkowsky paper.

With 1000 variables and 100 light settings to test, good luck. Ever wondered if those are needed to tell what type of diamond cut is likely to be preferred from a batch? Clearly, the sort of expense put in cut studies reflects how much cash there is available in the industry - good for them, but beyond the point?


Find a diamond hater to design the study, that should make things interesting.

 

[pricescope]

We discussed this idea with some experts quite a while ago. It depends very much upon the goals of this study.

1. to develop more advanced cut grading system. this was discussed on the International Diamond Cut conference and should involved creation Master Stone Set and several millions of dollars spent and months of many people''s work.

2. just to show that neither of existing system is accurate... is it worth money and time?

 

[oldminer]

All ideas that concern how to get along and make progress are worthy of discussion. I would suggest that we can get a lot of information from personally observing diamonds in controlled lighting conditions, but we must admit a ton of this has already been done, and the results are not giving us great assurance.

I'd suggest that the eyes are not capable of truly making the distinction from Excellent Light Behavior to Very Good Light Behavior. Diamonds are properly graded way beyond what the eyes can appreciate. Why do we want IF VVS1 and VVS2 except that is how the world has decided to value diamonds. No one can see the difference without tools, yet it is a very workable marketing and grading system. The same distinctions ought to apply with performance. This can ONLY be accomplished by technology, a machine, that never tires, never is distracted and always gives reasonably repeatable numerical results.

You can make some rough assessments with the eyes, but you won't get repeatability or accuracy with human judgment grading. You also won't get accurate or repeatable grading assessment from measuring certain parameters of cut with devices. These devices just don't measure all the details and any rounding off or machine error further decreases their accuracy, repeatability and ultimate usefulness. Parameters will guide cutters in perfecting their work, but the grading of diamonds will come from a combination of technology and human assessment of the portion our eyes may appreciate.

There are broad characteristics of what all humankind think are most beautiful. The cultural biases, while important, do not run counter to the generalizations about what makes beauty. Beauty transcends cultural lines as it is part of human physiology. The finer points that determine what one person or one culture like best is not the issue. One must arrive at the broad generalizations about what makes all diamonds arrive in the most beautiful category. This will give us the "Ideal Range". If marketers and Branders want to fine tune it more, that's their issue, but the lab grading of performance should go only up to the broad category of what range is best and not try to select what is best for any particular individual. That's left to marketing, hype and personal taste.

 

[valeria101]

Cheaper idea:

How do you get a bit of work proposed for the Ig Nobel awards ?

 

[belle]

Date: 3/14/2006 1:23:57 PM
Author: Pricescope
We discussed this idea with some experts quite a while ago. It depends very much upon the goals of this study.

exactly. what is the purpose of the study? unless you have the purpose outlined, you can''t continue with the protocol. it''s too broad.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 3/14/2006 1:44:27 PM
Author: valeria101


Cheaper idea:

How do you get a bit of work proposed for the Ig Nobel awards ?

Val, it reminds me of a famous quote "I would kill for the Nobel Peace prize."

 

[valeria101]

Seriously...

The least that could be 'tested' with the loads of GIA reports posted online or otherwise available is if indeed the system encourages the worse proportions allowed in the top grade. A decent sample should get around the imperfections of data reporting (that rounding and what not battered to death).

AGS can't be perfect either. Or at least not for everyone - taking Jonathan's sample as evidence for that.