GIA Ex: The Consumers Perspective and the Technologies

[Rhino]

Good afternoon Marty!

Date: 3/12/2006 7:01:14 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 3/12/2006 6:41:02 PM
Author: Rhino
You know what I love about you Marty ... you''re like me in many regards. A natural born skeptic.

Do you feel this phenomena is *only* observable under a GIA DiamondDock? If you recall earlier in this thread I stated rather clearly that if the DD did not emulate natural lighting I would have returned it. While I do not have a photograph on my harddrive of the 2 comparison stones in this study, here is one I took of 2 diamonds, same size, virtually identical angles and table, only difference ... one painted and one not. Attached is that photo taken in natural daylight. No ''custome designed'' or ''rigged'' environment to flatter one and not the other. I was sitting on my porch in natural daylight. The same phenomena is observable no matter what daylight conditions you commpare the diamonds in, I would note with the exception of an environment that is primarily reflective light as opposed to brighter direct light. Didn''t I also state rather clearly that I first showed observers in natural daylight coming in from our window and when the reported results were identical each and every time, only then did I stick to the DiamondDock? Come on now Marty.

All the best,
Jon

Come on now Jon
What about a dimmer lighting environment where glare isn''t overwhelming fire, like in your picture.
You know, like what you probably used to do, when you were selling EightStars?
Present both sides of the story...

Since when are external reflections not observed in normal lighting environments? Would you agree, that the total brilliance of a diamond is dependant upon both internal and external reflections? Even DiamCalc accounts for this in their lighting models. If I had taken that picture to not include the natural external reflections of the environment I was in ... I might be accused of rigging!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/12/2006 7:16:52 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 3/12/2006 6:54:04 PM
Author: Rhino

Ask the question, why does GIA allow an EX cut grade when the symmetry is only the unquantifiable VG. All in the trade always wanted GIA EX/EX (polish/symmetry) in the past, to consider it a top stone, why the change????? You explain it.

Very simple actually. GIA acknowledges the fact that there is no ''face-up'' difference between a VG and an EX grade in these arenas.

I guess people only look at diamonds in the face up position then, and that should be the only criteria.

Are you serious or are you trying to get a laugh out of me? If you are serious Marty... since when are the optical metrics of brightness, fire and scintillation determined in the face down position?!?!?

Date: 3/12/2006 7:16:52 PM
Author: adamasgem

I think it is something to be applauded and not criticized. Rather a Bronx cheer for them Why? Because its true!

I disagree, but then again I don''t always take the retailers perspectiver Remember, the EX grade is determined by factors that affect face up appearance. As I said before, I guess people only look at diamonds in the faceup position

For clarification ... to say that GIA''s entire cut grade is only based on face up appearance would be wrong. Of coures they look at the other factors (weight ratio, durability, polish & symmetry. I don''t have to tell you that. However, to say that brightness, fire and scintillation is not determined in the face up position ... lay off the crack pipe!

You know not to take my comments personally right Marty! Like I said earlier ... I LIKE YOU! I do hope you''re saying these things to get a chuckle out of me because logically they make absolutely no sense unless perhaps all the folks in your neck of the woods mount their diamonds upside down?

Peace,

 

[Stephan]

Date: 3/14/2006 3:15:29 PM
Author: Rhino
...
At that time I didn''t even know what painting and digging was. Consumer preference was so overwhelmingly in favor of one cut we dropped the painted line and have never looked back.
...

Hi Jonathan!
I''m sorry to hi-jack your topic, uncultivated as I am.
Your comment about the painted girdle is funny, when I met Brian in Houston he didn''t seem to prefer painted or un-painted girdles (Classic vs New Line ACA).
You could of course answer that he has to sell them all, but I really think he was honnest with me, and I think the same thing about you (I''m still very thankful for all the mails and answers you sent me in my many diamond quests, even if I didn''t buy anything).
I own both of them (painted and un-painted), and I just can''t choose between them.
One diamond will have my preference from a certain distance and under a certain lighting, and the other will in other conditions.
If the majority of your customers prefer the un-painted diamonds, isn''t it because of the viewing distance?
If you discount this 2 diamonds because of painted girdles, I may fly to you soon...
Diamond 1 - Diamond 2

By the way, thank you for this exciting poll!

 

[Rhino]

Hi tarssarb,

Date: 3/12/2006 9:19:28 PM
Author: tarssarb
Hi,

Ok, I concede, I see your objective... You were addressing point 4 I believe of the original GIA critisim (painted girdles)? A moderate steep/deep polled better than the painted girdles and thus is included while a very good proportioned painted is exluded. I started a new thread (''brilliance scope of 3 eightstar diamonds'') were I think I made some ''layman'' observations on painting.

I appreciate that however I will not critcize a person or a company. I have great respect for EightStar and have friends in the industry who sell them. You will never find me downing an Eightstar and even in this very thread, I state rather plainly that the comparison was not that of a pretty stone vs an ungly stone. I hope you have not drawn that conclusion from my posts. The craftsmanship on their stones are 2nd to none and it is because of Richard that I hold super ideals and the subject of optical symmetry in the regards that I do.

Having said that, my research in this case was to attempt to understand the how''s and why''s of GIA''s system. I have known of these issues between super ideals for quite some time already and as I stated earlier in this thread, my own inventory reflected the consumer input I have received as a result of our own observation testing over the years. What I understood going into this study was the visual difference between 2 super ideal H&A''s one painted and one without ... that difference I could understand from the start. What I didn''t understand was how *any* kind of steep/deep combo could be more appealing to a consumer *in any lighting environment*. As I said when I posted the results, this threw me for a loop but it also helped me really understand the science behind GIA''s Cut Grading system. Because if this question had been asked of me only 2 months ago, my answer would have sided with the painted stone as I have always generally avoided anything close to a steep/deep combo.

I will discuss diamonds with you all day long tarssarb, but I will not criticize people or companies. That goes against the Dale Carnegie rule of the 3C''s.

Hope that helps.

 

[Rhino]

Greetings mate!

Date: 3/13/2006 1:36:55 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Rhino like me you have a lot of reading to do on this link https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-lighting-can-influence-on-grade-appearance.38583/ that Sergey sent you.

I am somewhat surprised to learn that you show consumers diamonds under any sort of desk lamp.
I believe diamopntaires consume ALMOST ALL THE WORLDS DESK LAMPS.

GIA designer Diamond Dock to replicate a dealers environment - but this envioronment evolved out of necessity for color and clarity grading.

As you will discover in Sregey''s thread above - the close proximity of fluoro lights to a diamond plays all sorts of havock with our eyesight and perception.

It might be time to stop and think.

I have studied a diamond that is is steep deep under Diamond Dock. Some people have seen the first drafts and some photo''s - but my life has been a little hectic - will try to have a late night tonight and get a copy to Leonid for a Journal articvle.

over and out

Still haven''t had the time to read that article, but Garry ... I can''t deny what my eyes see. As I sit here in my office and type this I have the same 2 stones in front of me and I can see the differences as plain as the nose on my face. I wish you were here right now to see this.

BTW ... Does the DiamCalc software, account for body obstruction as well as head obstruction? Serg?

 

[Rhino]

Hi Bill,

Mine will be in bold.

Date: 3/13/2006 1:37:57 AM
Author: RockDoc

I am a little surprised at the results from consumers that Rhino has tranmitted in this thread.

So am I.

I find it hard to believe that everyone rendering an opinion made it favoring one stone or the other.

Some folks saw the differences immediately, others it took a little time but everyone did make a choice. If they looked unsure or took a while I simply asked ... does any particular stone speak to you more?

I find that novice eyes, have a bit of understanding their preferences at first, so I am sort of surprised no one said

a) I don''t like either stone

Actually from all the observers who commented, admitted both were nice stones.

b) I like both stones they both look the same to me

I was surprised I didn''t get this either.

c) I can''t really separate which I like better

I think the seperation is actually pretty easy but then I am accustomed to looking at diamonds on a daily basis. Depending on how long I can hold onto this from the manufacturer I am not opposed to sending you both of the stones Bill.

Peace,
Jon

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/13/2006 1:40:15 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 3/12/2006 8:02:15 PM
Author: Rhino

GIA does not own me Marty. I resent you saying and suggesting that my opinion can be bought or that I am trying to kiss butt. I guess I''m trying to kiss AGS''s butt too because I am seeking membership in their organization?

Gee, they ''own'' most of the rest of the industry, whatever GIA says is the gospel according to Saint GIA. Here is our cut grading system and here is our patented $1.6K light source that ''proves'' it, what ever ''it'' is.

And you apparently bought right into it.

You know me, I call it like I see it, based on what has been said now and in the past on other threads, point out and question the inconsistencies of which their are many when one is ''learning'', and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes my sarcasm is wrongly placed, if it is, I appologise.

As to AGS membership, maybe it would be very informative to you..

By the way, regarding painted girdles and optical symmetry, you are aware of course, that both contribute to less internal light absorption so that the overall faceup bodycolor of a well cut stone seems to be apparently better than what the ''color grade'' would suggest. By the way, what were the color grades of the two stones you used in your test. I''ll check back on the first pages and edit this if I can find it.

Still like ya though... I''ll ask Todd what he thinks since you quoted him..

One was a D and the other was an F. Both colorless.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Shay!

Okay, here is where I have to split hairs with you. This muddies the water a bit for people who might be just scannning and think that the pic is the two stones in the survey. BTW, why not post a pic of the two stone just like that mounted (fake mount) and obviously not in the DD. It may not be the best way to judge a stone, but you thought this pic was good enough for comparison.

The pic you posted does not help it only confuses cause I know darn good and well your ring is not a steep/deep.

shay

LOL... you guessed right Shay.

I used that picture only because I was responding from home and had that shot on my harddrive of a painted vs unpainted super ideals in natural daylight. I think I made that clear when I posted that picture. As per your request though here are the 2 stones used in the comparison of this survey taken just moments ago outside of my store in natural daylight.

I can observe the differences there just as easily as I can in the DiamondDock. And while this thread may be focusing on the subject of painted girdles vs classic ideal girdles, the difference in dug out girdles we can see as well.

What I think is funny about this thread is everyone is attacking the GIA DiamondDock, when in fact nobody making these criticisms has taken the time to actually buy one and experiement with it and compare the view with actual natural daylight environment observations. I approach research into a system entirely different from many here. I do not believe in criticising a diamond, organization, etc. until I have examined and studied the facts that go into determing the outcome. Only then will I draw a conclusion. To be clear, the steps I have taken in my research have been...

1. Purchasing the DiamondDock and comparing its views with the existing spot lighting and daylighting views I was currently showing clients (under our 5800 degree Gesswein lighting).
2. Comparing those views in natural daylight and spot lighting conditions.
3. I purchased the newly released GIA Diamond Grading Lab Manual to study it and the charts they provide as a result of their observation testing (which, very interestingly last year I had made observations before any of this material was released and concluded about shallow/shallow combinations pointing to the 40.6 pavilion angle as a cut off. Any regular on this forum will testify. Interestingly GIA''s observation reasearch concurs with my own findings ... again!) 40.6 is the last angle within many of their thresholds for their top grade.

4. I took the time to seek out a GIA Ex steep/deep and not only show the comparisons to our staff (I have roughly 15-20 employees total but only showed about 10 of them), then garnered consumer input. The response in favor of the GIA Ex was overwhelming.

I would ask of the critics here ... who has actually taken the time to do this? I doubt not one. I am serious about my work and the conclusions I draw because people trust my word and I would never, in my life, put my integrity at risk. While my research is still and always ongoing, all the evidence so far demonstrates both the logic and science behind the GIA system.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/13/2006 7:04:39 AM
Author: Serg
re:While I do not have a photograph on my harddrive of the 2 comparison stones in this study, here is one I took of 2 diamonds, same size, virtually identical angles and table, only difference ... one painted and one not. Attached is that photo taken in natural daylight. No ''custome designed'' or ''rigged'' environment to flatter one and not the other. I was sitting on my porch in natural daylight.


Rhino,

1)PLease published 3D models for exactly this 2 stones( from your photo).
2) PLease confirm : It are not stones from your tests 23 consumers

Shay, Thank you.

For your convenience and for the convenience of all on this forum here are the .gem files as a result from Helium scans of the stones you request. So the readers are not confused, these modeled files are of 2 Hearts & Arrows diamonds, one with a painted girdle and one without. They are both 1.18ct in weight and K in color. One being a VS2 and the other a VVS1.

The first file is the classic ideal girdle.

Sergey ... it would be wise to mimic these daylight views of both digging and painting in the DiamCalc software. I can provide you with accurate photography of this phenomena which my clients and I can observe in daylight. Let''s work together on this in email. You know I love your products and I only seek to help improve the data that can be shared via it, especially in the models.

 

[Rhino]

Here''s the painted girdle. In case someone is just reading this and wondering what these files are ... go to this link on PriceScope, read and download the free software. It does show alot of good information about the 2 stones in question.

Serg ... you may want to consider including a wire model view as it easily shows painting and digging on modeled files too. Upon launch of our new site we are teaching consumers how to detect this with the tools available online.

Peace,
Jon

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/13/2006 10:20:29 AM
Author: Lynn B
Very interesting discussion.

Is there any way for a layperson to know if their AGS-0 stone has a painted girdle?

Thanks,
Lynn

Hi Lynn!!!

Yes. There are certain and definite characteristics which can be determined with one of the following tools examined by a trained professional.

1. An accurately taken reflector image which I would recommend least.
2. Even better, an ASET image.
3. A 3d file generated via Sarin or Helium.
4. A girdle graph from an OGI MegaScope or Helium.
5. The relationship between upper girdle and lower girdle facets.

An area of study this has caused me to study deeper is the last. Some of my peers are familiar with the crown/pavilion angle relationship which I''ve about studied to death, an area of study I have been currently researching are the effects and optical results of the upper and lower half angles which relate directly to this subject at hand. It is an exciting study for me. If you have any of the data above Lynn and forward it to my email I''ll share my thoughts with ya.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Hi Paul,

Thank you for keeping things on course and remaining in focus. In answer to your questions...

Date: 3/13/2006 11:07:46 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

My first question: did the GIA-EX receive a second grading by AGS, and what are the results?

I had submitted the file of this stone to a friend of mine in the AGS lab but never received a response yet. I think it might get a 3 or so though.

Did the AGS-0 get a second grading by GIA, and what are the results?

I just had 2 of our painted test stones returned from GIA. One got a good and the other "Very Good". The stone used in this example, comparing the girdle cutting appears it would fall in the Very Good classification.

 

[Lynn B]

Date: 3/14/2006 6:14:53 PM
Author: Rhino



Hi Lynn!!!

Yes. There are certain and definite characteristics which can be determined with one of the following tools examined by a trained professional.


1. An accurately taken reflector image which I would recommend least.

2. Even better, an ASET image.

3. A 3d file generated via Sarin or Helium.

4. A girdle graph from an OGI MegaScope or Helium.

5. The relationship between upper girdle and lower girdle facets.


An area of study this has caused me to study deeper is the last. Some of my peers are familiar with the crown/pavilion angle relationship which I've about studied to death, an area of study I have been currently researching are the effects and optical results of the upper and lower half angles which relate directly to this subject at hand. It is an exciting study for me. If you have any of the data above Lynn and forward it to my email I'll share my thoughts with ya.


Kind regards,

Thanks for the reply, Jon! I appreciate your time - I know it's in short supply these days!

Lynn

 

[Rhino]

oops... hit send prematurely.

Sorry Paul.

Second question: I am absolutely convinced that Jonathan performed this testing in the most equitable way. Now, could there have been a mistake? This might be interesting, since we tend to learn more from our mistakes, than from what we do correctly.

Paul... I made this comparison as fool proof as I knew how. I was careful to show the observers in natural daylight first, then the Gesswein lighting for comparison, then the DiamondDock. My *primary* concern was the corellation to natural daylighting more than anything since this view is perhaps the most common to human observation. I think I did a pretty decent job of capturing the phenomena via the last photograph I posted here.

Third question: Is the difference between the two kinds of stones big enough to warrant one to be downgraded one or two layers in a 5-layer-system? If that is the case, since I do not know the answers to question 1.

Just trying to bring us back to the basics.

While I am seeking to purchase one of these GIA Ex steep/deeps as part of our master set, I did do some observation testing with that stone and one of our signature stones which we typically stock. The consumers we showed this comparison to thus far have picked our classic but after making the first comparison said the 2nd was a little harder. A funny comment one observer made today was "I see more patterning in the diamond on the right" ... that stone was the GIA Ex steep!!! LMAO I''m having fun with it! BTW, diamonds weren''t the only beautiful things I was looking at today.

Enjoy!

See ya''ll later tonight or tomorow!

 

[Shay37]

Okay, after seeing the stones, I see the problems. They are not the same size. Most people will be spoken to by the "bigger" stone when they don''t have a preference. The one on the left has more prominent arrows. The one on the right is not as dark in the middle ergo the arrows tend to be a bit silvery. It is also white rather than clear to its edge. Does that make any sense?

The one on the left is not a nailhead type steep/deep. In other words, it is the best of the worst allowed into the top GIA Ex, correct?

The other problem is that people are highly suggestable. Since you have a self-admitted bias against painted girdles extending back from 2000-2001, do you think your bias unduly influenced people observing the two stones in question? That is why researchers conduct double-blind studies for scientific purposes. This way no one can pick up on their vibes (placebo vs. meds).

I just think that the jury must be out still on this whole issue because of these factors. While I appreciate your efforts at research, I am struck by how if a person had a suspicious mind, they might wonder at the results of two diamonds (nice diamonds) using a tool that has many questions that surround it that lead to a result which favors the type stones you sell as opposed to the ones you don''t sell. Keep in mind that I did my own personal "research" limited though it was, and the results were just the opposite from yours. Of course, for each person involved, your research was limited as well. They probably knew as much about diamonds as the people I polled did. There was only one person at a time, and we each showed them only two diamonds. Things that make you go hmmm.

Have a good one.

shay

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/14/2006 3:32:38 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/12/2006 7:16:52 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 3/12/2006 6:54:04 PM
Author: Rhino

Ask the question, why does GIA allow an EX cut grade when the symmetry is only the unquantifiable VG. All in the trade always wanted GIA EX/EX (polish/symmetry) in the past, to consider it a top stone, why the change????? You explain it.

Very simple actually. GIA acknowledges the fact that there is no ''face-up'' difference between a VG and an EX grade in these arenas.

I guess people only look at diamonds in the face up position then, and that should be the only criteria.

Are you serious or are you trying to get a laugh out of me? If you are serious Marty... since when are the optical metrics of brightness, fire and scintillation determined in the face down position?!?!?

You know damn well what I meant about "face up", A NOT TILTED perspective, like what GIA says their final brightness metric is based on, versus how you would be typically looking at a stone if you were wearing it and wanted to admire it, at some angle.

Date: 3/12/2006 7:16:52 PM
Author: adamasgem

I think it is something to be applauded and not criticized. Rather a Bronx cheer for them Why? Because its true!

I disagree, but then again I don''t always take the retailers perspectiver Remember, the EX grade is determined by factors that affect face up appearance. As I said before, I guess people only look at diamonds in the faceup position

For clarification ... to say that GIA''s entire cut grade is only based on face up appearance would be wrong. Of coures they look at the other factors (weight ratio, durability, polish & symmetry. I don''t have to tell you that. However, to say that brightness, fire and scintillation is not determined in the face up position ... lay off the crack pipe!

And for GIA to arbitrarily downgrade painted girdles because of their so called "science" it literally criminal. And you have bought into it, hook line and sinker..


You know not to take my comments personally right Marty! Like I said earlier ... I LIKE YOU! I do hope you''re saying these things to get a chuckle out of me because logically they make absolutely no sense unless perhaps all the folks in your neck of the woods mount their diamonds upside down?

Well, keeping a smile on, there is a class of consumer who believe in that sort of thing, and I''ve actually seen it done because of supposed so called "healing" properties, but I believe it was with a yellow sapphire (I can''t remember exactly what the stone was)

Peace,

 

[tarssarb]

Date: 3/14/2006 6:51:26 PM
Author: Shay37
Okay, after seeing the stones, I see the problems. They are not the same size. Most people will be spoken to by the ''bigger'' stone when they don''t have a preference. The one on the left has more prominent arrows. The one on the right is not as dark in the middle ergo the arrows tend to be a bit silvery. It is also white rather than clear to its edge. Does that make any sense?

The one on the left is not a nailhead type steep/deep. In other words, it is the best of the worst allowed into the top GIA Ex, correct?

The other problem is that people are highly suggestable. Since you have a self-admitted bias against painted girdles extending back from 2000-2001, do you think your bias unduly influenced people observing the two stones in question? That is why researchers conduct double-blind studies for scientific purposes. This way no one can pick up on their vibes (placebo vs. meds).

I just think that the jury must be out still on this whole issue because of these factors. While I appreciate your efforts at research, I am struck by how if a person had a suspicious mind, they might wonder at the results of two diamonds (nice diamonds) using a tool that has many questions that surround it that lead to a result which favors the type stones you sell as opposed to the ones you don''t sell. Keep in mind that I did my own personal ''research'' limited though it was, and the results were just the opposite from yours. Of course, for each person involved, your research was limited as well. They probably knew as much about diamonds as the people I polled did. There was only one person at a time, and we each showed them only two diamonds. Things that make you go hmmm.

Have a good one.

shay

Your post is too funny because you have the stones mixed up. The bigger one is the painted girdle with the good angles of 34.8/40.7. So you picked with the majority of Rhino''s poll against your previous findings.

 

[Shay37]

Date: 3/14/2006 7:14:03 PM
Author: tarssarb

Date: 3/14/2006 6:51:26 PM
Author: Shay37
Okay, after seeing the stones, I see the problems. They are not the same size. Most people will be spoken to by the ''bigger'' stone when they don''t have a preference. The one on the left has more prominent arrows. The one on the right is not as dark in the middle ergo the arrows tend to be a bit silvery. It is also white rather than clear to its edge. Does that make any sense?

The one on the left is not a nailhead type steep/deep. In other words, it is the best of the worst allowed into the top GIA Ex, correct?

The other problem is that people are highly suggestable. Since you have a self-admitted bias against painted girdles extending back from 2000-2001, do you think your bias unduly influenced people observing the two stones in question? That is why researchers conduct double-blind studies for scientific purposes. This way no one can pick up on their vibes (placebo vs. meds).

I just think that the jury must be out still on this whole issue because of these factors. While I appreciate your efforts at research, I am struck by how if a person had a suspicious mind, they might wonder at the results of two diamonds (nice diamonds) using a tool that has many questions that surround it that lead to a result which favors the type stones you sell as opposed to the ones you don''t sell. Keep in mind that I did my own personal ''research'' limited though it was, and the results were just the opposite from yours. Of course, for each person involved, your research was limited as well. They probably knew as much about diamonds as the people I polled did. There was only one person at a time, and we each showed them only two diamonds. Things that make you go hmmm.

Have a good one.

shay

Your post is too funny because you have the stones mixed up. The bigger one is the painted girdle with the good angles of 34.8/40.7. So you picked with the majority of Rhino''s poll against your previous findings.

Actually, I didn''t pick either stone. I merely pointed out the differences between. I did think that I remembered from the first Jonathan said he would post all of the GIA stone first or on the left, and the AGS stone on the right. I merely assumed that he had continued in that vein. I still say that the steep/deep is the best of the worst, and not a bad stone at all. So then the taste test comes down to preference types and lighting environment. Again, his approach not all that scientific, just a taste test after all and one that he has performed before when he chose to stop selling the painted girdle stone.

shay

 

[belle]

Date: 3/14/2006 6:00:26 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/13/2006 7:04:39 AM
Author: Serg
re:While I do not have a photograph on my harddrive of the 2 comparison stones in this study, here is one I took of 2 diamonds, same size, virtually identical angles and table, only difference ... one painted and one not. Attached is that photo taken in natural daylight. No ''custome designed'' or ''rigged'' environment to flatter one and not the other. I was sitting on my porch in natural daylight.


Rhino,

1)PLease published 3D models for exactly this 2 stones( from your photo).
2) PLease confirm : It are not stones from your tests 23 consumers

Shay, Thank you.

For your convenience and for the convenience of all on this forum here are the .gem files as a result from Helium scans of the stones you request. So the readers are not confused, these modeled files are of 2 Hearts & Arrows diamonds, one with a painted girdle and one without. They are both 1.18ct in weight and K in color. One being a VS2 and the other a VVS1.

The first file is the classic ideal girdle.

Sergey ... it would be wise to mimic these daylight views of both digging and painting in the DiamCalc software. I can provide you with accurate photography of this phenomena which my clients and I can observe in daylight. Let''s work together on this in email. You know I love your products and I only seek to help improve the data that can be shared via it, especially in the models.

your links don''t work

 

[Shay37]

Sorry for the hasty replies, had to give the kids baths. Let me clarify my previous posts.

According to the new cut grade for GIA, the top is a little broader than AGS. The AGS makes room for well cut stones with painted girdles. GIA does not. GIA makes room for some steep/deep combos, and the AGS does not. What I was trying to explain in my previous posts was that from the pic maybe neither stone deserved to be down-graded by the other, which is what I thought the purpose of the whole discussion was about. If that is the case, and the photos are true to life (you know how hard that is to capture), then it just becomes a case of preference, which has always been the case with well cut stones. You like the painted or the classic based on whatever.

I also wonder if someone's suggestion that it is a regional thing could have a valid point or it's a full moon or whatever. Maybe they didn't see them in the light where a painted girdle with broadflash really shines. The lower light. It was there that the painted girdle kicked the crap out of the other superideal. In most other lights it became about nuances and did I like this more or that more. Hence, the outcome of Jonathan's taste test as well as mine. Hope this clarifies my points above.

shay

Edited for clarity

 

[RockDoc]

Shay wrote:

I did think that I remembered from the first Jonathan said he would post all of the GIA stone first or on the left, and the AGS stone on the right.

______________________________________________________________________

When examining gemstones, or SIMILAR characteristics ( i.e two diamonds . etc) the human eye has an affect called the MASTER EYE EFFECT.

The master eye effect dictates that the stone on the left will look more colorless and potentially "better" than the stone on the right. so in order to do this type of "test" fairly, each stone need to be viewed on the left and additionally on the right.

Rockdoc

 

[dhog]

Date: 3/14/2006 5:47:00 PM
Author: Rhino

QUOTE]Date: 3/12/2006 8:14:29 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/11/2006 11:29:08 PM

In jewelry stores, insurance companies will not cover the jeweler if he takes merchandise out of their store, therefore we are prevented from bringing diamonds outside. Showing diamonds under l.e.d. lighting produces a similar effect however a general rule of thumbs when observing diaimonds ... the stronger the light source the more intense the reflections will be.


Regards,

LOL... you guessed right Shay.

I used that picture only because I was responding from home and had that shot on my harddrive of a painted vs unpainted super ideals in natural daylight. I think I made that clear when I posted that picture. As per your request though here are the 2 stones used in the comparison of this survey taken just moments ago outside of my store in natural daylight.

because people trust my word and I would never, in my life, put my integrity at risk. While my research is still and always ongoing, all the evidence so far demonstrates both the logic and science behind the GIA system. [/b]

[/quote]

OK so is there a groove in the tray
or are my eyes playing tricks on me again
[/quote]

 

[pricescope]

Date: 3/14/2006 7:49:52 PM
Author: belle

...your links don''t work

You should be able to download GEM files now, Belle. Let me know if there is a problem still.

 

[Dancing Fire]

i have seen both styles. inside the bar lights "dim" i'll take teh 8* painted

outside the bar lights,i'll take the non-painted ones.

.

the link below....both the 8* and the Infinity cut are I color stones.they're approx the same diameter.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ideal-cut-solitaires-or-should-i-say-triple-ideals.39421/

 

[Serg]

Date: 3/14/2006 6:04:40 PM
Author: Rhino
Here's the painted girdle. In case someone is just reading this and wondering what these files are ... go to this link on PriceScope, read and download the free software. It does show alot of good information about the 2 stones in question.

Serg ... you may want to consider including a wire model view as it easily shows painting and digging on modeled files too. Upon launch of our new site we are teaching consumers how to detect this with the tools available online.

Peace,
Jon

Thanks Rhino.

Just download.
Fast remark
1)Your Painted diamond has very strong( near 2 click) crown painted( 2 times more than usual brand diamonds). It is not correct for your type tests. Of course it is possible to do ugly diamonds with very big painted, but it is not proof what normal painted ( 1 click) is bad( Or GIA cut grade( which penalty any painted) system is correct.

2) Your painted diamond has big variation Pavilion angles( min 40.5 max=40.9) It is not correct for your type tests too
3) Diamcalc LR is bigger for second diamond( not painted), specially under table.

Rhino please be carefully with test condition.

re:What I think is funny about this thread is everyone is attacking the GIA DiamondDock, when in fact nobody making these criticisms has taken the time to actually buy one and experiement with it

You are wrong here. We did not buy , but we have possibility for tests DD.

 

[Serg]

Re: Do you feel this phenomena is *only* observable under a GIA DiamondDock? If you recall earlier in this thread I stated rather clearly that if the DD did not emulate natural lighting I would have returned it. While I do not have a photograph on my harddrive of the 2 comparison stones in this study, here is one I took of 2 diamonds, same size, virtually identical angles and table, only difference ... one painted and one not.

Rhino,


4) Painted diamonds has too short star facet. Combination very big painted and too short star fact decreasing slope angle crown girdle facets too much. Difference between slope main crown facet and slope crown girdle facets is near 1.5 degree( it is to small). For second diamond this difference is near 6 degree( 4 times bigger)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rhino perhaps you should post the gem files for the original 2 stones in your mini survey?
Perhaps you could email the full DiamCalc from Helium to those of us with full DiamCalc?
(then we can read the full stone data)

I also notiiced that the recent gem file stone has less than 7 degrees azimuth shift between main and upper girdle facets, and is also slightly shallower than the non painted stone.

 

[Serg]

Rhino,

You have done perfect demonstration that method of GIA research on the base of PARAMETRICAL diamond model and on the base of direct measurement method can easily mislead any researcher. You came to the same snare of method like GIA researchers.

Do you already understand mistake or do you need detailed explanations and proofs? (now it is easy to understand the level of mistake but it is necessary to spend 2-3 hours to prove it and measure the value of mistake). I hope that somebody will finish this work instead of me. Sorry but now I have to come back to my main work,

*I doubt whether I could do this better even in case if I would very try and spend whole month to find stones for experiment.

 

[lawmax]

Thank you Sergey! When one''s research is "proving" that the obvious is suddenly wrong, much to the delight of the average-performing massess and to the detriment of those who go the extra mile, one must sit back and figure out where he/she is being an a**! Hooray for the sheep who are so easily manipulated by their greed. Baaaaa....

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/15/2006 5:53:31 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Rhino perhaps you should post the gem files for the original 2 stones in your mini survey?
Perhaps you could email the full DiamCalc from Helium to those of us with full DiamCalc?
(then we can read the full stone data)

I also notiiced that the recent gem file stone has less than 7 degrees azimuth shift between main and upper girdle facets, and is also slightly shallower than the non painted stone.

I''d like to see the full Helium Scans also