GIA Ex: The Consumers Perspective and the Technologies

[adamasgem]

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

I don''t understand your statement Rhino, DiamondCalc has a wire frame model

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I hope my almost finished 20th revision of an article will explain what Sergey does not have time to.

At least if I make mistakes - it will be easy for Sergey to make corrections

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/15/2006 6:14:51 AM
Author: 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.

Sergey:

Rhino apparently conducted his "preferential research" in environments which do not allow, and/or mask, truer distinctions between two styles of cutting to be seen. He never mentioned showing stones in dimmer, home type lighting environments where the glare effect doesn't blast out the fire and positive aspects of the two classes of cutting. That is what the science says, and my own highly critical observations support.

Furthermore, his limited TEST(s) between two stones WTH DIFFERENT CUTTING PARAMETERS IN ADDITION TO PAINTED GIRDLES, does NOT AT ALL SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION HE IS TRYNG TO PORTRAY, much like GIA's arbitrary downgrading painted girdle stones. THE TEST IS NOT IN ANYWAY SUPPORTIVE OF HIS CONCLUSION AND INFERENCES ABOUT PAINTED GIRDLES, it only, at best, states preferences between the two SPECIFIC stones, in the envirionments used. End of discussion.

Sorry Rhino, but that is my purely technical and objective opinion, and I would have state that in any court of law, as there is no other unbiased conclusion to draw.

 

[oldminer]

I would think the ideal environment for viewing diamonds in order to discriminate performance would not dummy the process down so that nearly all stones look pretty good, nor make it so highly radical and specific that only one Brand of stone excells.

Apparently the Diamond Dock is a lighting strategy that makes many diamonds look acceptably good and may not be all that useful for performance discrimination. Is this correct?

 

[Stephan]

It would be more fun to find a bad looking AGS0 and a bad looking GIA Ex to see which one looks worse...

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/15/2006 12:59:36 PM
Author: oldminer
I would think the ideal environment for viewing diamonds in order to discriminate performance would not dummy the process down so that nearly all stones look pretty good, nor make it so highly radical and specific that only one Brand of stone excells.

Dave, That is what the technical simulation data that I have done, strongly suggests.

In a binary test, the envirionment will strongly influence the perceived differentiation between any two stones, and different environments with factors such as illumination intensity, lighting position, diffuseness, point sources and their size and relative intensity to the background, as well as viewer position relative to the stone, all influence either some form of direct measurement(s) or human visual perception.

Apparently the Diamond Dock is a lighting strategy that makes many diamonds look acceptably good and may not be all that useful for performance discrimination. Is this correct?

That is what Sergey''s thread referenced in this discussion, as well as one being prepared by Garry Holloway for PS, that I have previewed, certainly suggest.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/13/2006 12:34:08 PM
Author: Serg

re:The main technical criticisms against the new GIA-system are basically two-fold. One is that the top-grade of the 5-layer-system is too broad. This point is, I believe, not the topic of this thread. Can we therefore not confuse matters by avoiding any comment on that?

The second criticism is the ''apparent'' automatic downgrading of all painted and digged lower-facets by GIA, be they intentional or unintentional, patterned or non-patterned. Here we have the case where a non-painted GIA-EX with non-super-ideal proportions is prefered over an AGS-0 with super-ideal proportions, but with painting. Interesting, indeed.


No. Main point: GIA DD light scheme is not adequate for consumer light condition.
It is reason Why GIA cut grade is wrong( Good diamond can receive wrong grade( First type mistake), bad diamond can receive good grade( Second type mistake))

AGS cut grade system has mistake too. but AGS Second type mistake is less and AGS ready to fix mistakes in future( AGS use rejection grading system. Such system allow add new rejection rules easily . GIA can not fix mistake easily .GIA system is not rejection system( except penalty for type girdle,...)

I think Second type mistake is much more danger than First type mistake

We''ll pick up this conversation in the other thread Serg, concerning the DiamondDock and it''s lighting.

Peace,

 

[dhog]

new

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/15/2006 5:09:55 PM
Author: dhog
new

thats not new thats the 8* light box!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/13/2006 12:46:19 PM
Author: adamasgem
By the way, I wish Rhino would post dmc file for both stones as well as scans of the GIA and AGS reports... Color, clarity, fluorescence, as well as strain all effect perception tests

Can''t post .dmc files here. I gave .gem files on the comparison Serg asked for. I''ll muster up .gem files on the comparison stones we used, and as a matter of fact, thanks to Mike Cowing we have a lighting scheme within DiamCalc that accurately reflects both head and body obstruction to make the comparison in as well.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Brian,

My apologies for not being able to answer sooner.

I don’t think you can call any situation where money could change hands a ‘research’ environment.

Firstly, the folks I interviewed were not handing me money. In our store we have a waiting area for ladies or gentleman who are waiting for their spouses or family members. Most of my interviews were from these people. However there were folks in the store who were browsing and doing other things that once they heard about looking and diamonds and making comparisons were eager to volunteer. What makes my research environment any different? Nobody was paid to say one answer or another.

But, if such in-store comparisons are valid, we have numbers to offer as well. We have performed several thousand consumer comparisons between premium painted and traditional diamonds in actual daylight, filtered daylight and LED environments. They disagree with Rhino''s results. Maybe the number of test subjects is limited in his case. We have hundreds of similar superideals of both types of brillianteering at our disposal at any time - in all sizes and categories. They are compared by consumers on a daily basis. As for correlation, these consumer observations have agreed with further real world observations away from our offices, over many years. So, if you count this as valid, please add the many thousands of New Line (and Eightstar) owners who selected their diamonds over other ideal, superideal, 60/60 and steep/deeps. These people did intense research before purchase. They continue the research every day of their lives.

While most consumers end their research at the point of sale, we know of many who continue as well. strmrdr, valeria, etc are excellent examples. With regards to how many people you''ve actualy showed comparisons to I would not begin to pretent to know, however I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that since we have performed observation testing of precision cut H&A''s, one with a painted girdle and one with a classic ideal girdle, the overwhelming majority of people chose against the painted girdle hands down, just as in this experiment with the GIA steep/deep (which BTW turns out to be an AGS 1!)

I don''t know if you''ve ever taken the time to actually do a search on the folks who have testified on the Internet who have made this comparison as well but this too stands in agreement with both GIA''s and my own observation testing. It''s not even a contest. This testing which I begun back in 2000 btw even includes one of your own employees whom I cheerfully served, and while that individual did not state his final choice out of 3 stones there is one fact he did state rather clearly from the 3 stones that were selected insofar as the paper was concerned. The stone immediately eliminated by his fiance because of "visual performance" was the painted girdle and your employee said he concurred with that visual assessment. Testimonies, even very recent by those who have made the comparison concur as well, one is even in this very thread.

We should probably differentiate between casual comparisons, which we have been conducting since 2000, and a true research environment which implies unbiased feedback from observers who are not shoppers/buyers, performed on neutral ground.

Every one of our observers made their observations with "0" bias. None of them were students of our site. None were educated in diamonds. No scope views, technological data, nothing was shown to them or said to them beforehand except for the simple questions ... which diamond is brighter? Which diamond is more fiery? After viewing the diamonds in both lighting conditions which do you prefer? That was the extent of it.

Another important point is that meaningful control for observation of painted vs traditional brillianteering will require identical diamonds (in c/c/c, physical and optical symmetry) the only difference between them being that of brillianteering.

I perform this observation regularly. I have in my master set of stones a 1.18ct K VS2 and a 1.18ct K VV1. One painted one not. I''ve been showing consumers this for a long time. Both have top grade (ideal) optical symmetry as well as slope angles within .1 or .2 degrees of each other. Out of each 100 observers we have showed this comparison to, greater than 90% choose in favor of the unpainted stone. Why do you think I dropped the line when in fact I made more profit on each individual stone from the painted line?!?!?

Perhaps this thread could be “GIA EX: The perspective of some people in my store.”

No. GIA Ex: "Let the consumer be informed." would be more like it.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/13/2006 1:45:02 PM
Author: RockDoc
RE: THE RED BAG.....which I''ve suggested for years now.


Gotta remember to make holes for the eyes. <G>

I like RED better than black as with the black it is hard to tell shadowing from the angle of the stone or light, and the red sort of minimizes the additional shadowing that might not be obstruction at all.

This I think is particularly and notably important, when viewing the stone in the tilted mode.


Rockdoc


Rockdoc

Bill if you ever do this BE SURE someone takes a picture of you in the red suit and posts it here.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Elmo!

Good to cya round.

Date: 3/13/2006 3:33:24 PM
Author: elmo

Date: 3/13/2006 3:05:59 PM
Author: strmrdr
I would love to see a truly independent study done with consumers only.

The consumers need to be selected as if for a jury I think - something from the GIA technical FAQ quoted on the first page of this thread that struck me was this:

Those who did not market this type of diamond chose it as best about as often as they chose other diamonds we have placed in the top grade categories. It appears that these types of diamond could be likened to an “acquired taste” or “learned bias.”

The walk-ins at WF and GOG have already started to acquire taste, I think

.

To be clear, the folks we surveyed did not have any acquired taste Elmo. None were PS junkies.

They were wet behind the ears.

 

[Rhino]

Hi dhog,

Very interesting points and YES, your answer was closest to the truth of this survey which corellates with my own observation testing as well as GIA''s. I happen to be in contact with folks on the cut research teams of both GIA and AGS laboratories whom I have great respect for as I have come to know and become friends with folks in both labs. It is my conviction after working with and communicating with members from both teams, that they BOTH sincerely have the best interests of the consumer in mind and the gemological products that each lab has created, to better help the jeweler/gemologist serve their clients to a greater capacity.

With regards to your comments I would like to quote a portion of an article (A Comprehensive Guide to Reflector Based Technology) I have published on our new site which you may find interesting.

"Part of the 16 page handout (written by Al) used at the ISA conference talked about the eye and how it processed images (it included excerpts from Seeing the Light, by David Falk, Dieter Brill, and David Stork). After a brief discussion, the handout states, "The point of this discussion is not that our above hypotheses are right, but that how our eye operates to receive and process an image greatly impacts our perception. Regardless of how scientifically we analyze light, and compute all the best angles, if our eye doesn''t ''like'' what we see, it doesn''t matter much. DPL is dedicated to researching these areas (within our capabilities) and basing its grading criteria on this continuing research. At the present... light leakage needs to be minimized... dispersion perception is much more subjective when we think in terms of beauty... Have we explored all that the eye perceives in a diamond? Of course not, but understanding the eye''s perception is just as critical as understanding what light is doing."

and ...

GemKey (now-defunct) hosted a "round table on cut in late 1999. Al questioned some of the discussions going on when he said-"The real question is--what is being done to scientifically demonstrate what is the best overall cut for a round diamond?...Just because light doesn''t leak out the bottom of a diamond and just because that diamond shows a symmetrical pattern in a viewing device, does that mean that light is efficiently gathered from around a viewer and returned to them in it maximum potential from that diamond?" He felt that there was not enough evidence to link the two. Al explains, "What has not yet entered into the discussion is how our eye and brain work together to view these phenomena. There are many new areas related to how the eye and brain work together that should be discussed before we can arrive at such definitions. I may be able to have an instrument that quantifies the actual lumens a diamond reflects to my eye. In reality my eye may not see what that instrument says exists." He pointed out "The FireScope doesn''t tell you how effective light is gathered and returned to a viewer unless you do a lot of work with its images." He had found that "The most essential elements are that neighboring facets need to be returning light to the viewer from different entry points. The more different the entry angle the more dramatic the observation. The second critical element is that the reflections seen by the viewer be large enough to be easily distinguished from neighboring reflections. If all of the facet''s reflections are very small, the diamond will merely have a fuzzy appearance." (Quotes from various GemKey discussions-all by Al)

I didn''t know Al Gilbertson at that time but he was kind enough to share this with me during my research into the history of reflectors.

Working with optical technologies on a daily basis, the key factor we examine is exactly this issue ... how it corellates to human eye observation. On our site you''ll find we teach about both the strengths and weakness of each for a balanced perspective of how they relate to human observation. It''s a pleasure to have you around.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Date: 3/13/2006 9:17:26 PM
Author: dhog


on the first page I said that 100% of the viewers would pick the GIA
stone.

This was based on research I did years ago involving light reflections in different light conditions in the manufacture and sales of fishing lures.(laugh if you want)what we came up
with was a contrast issue related directly to how humans see
light and dark spots on a reflective surface in multiply lighting
conditions.

Inhibitory reaction better known as(LATERAL INHIBITION NETWORK) is where we stopped our research.

I am not a light scientist or a diamond specialist and therefore
do not wish to pursue this but think that someone on here needs
to look at this and at least exclude it from the pack.


maybe all of this has already been explored and needs no
future reasoning, but I think others on here know what I am
talking about and will explore it further.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 3/15/2006 5:09:55 PM
Author: dhog
new

LMAO - hysterical.

Ain''t it the truth??!!

 

[lawmax]

Rhino wrote: "I don''t attempt to dictate a clients personal preferences, I prefer to let them tell me after gaining consumer input. That was the thrust of our observation testing back in 2000-2001. Except at that time it was between what was deemed as "the best reflector image" vs a diamond with "the best BrillianceScope results". 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."

Many of us remember when you "dropped the painted line". Dropped the line? It seems to me that you are referring to EightStar. For those who weren''t around then, let''s go back in history. You were EightStar''s top salesperson, still demonstrating on your site that EightStar was the ultimate, and they dropped you due to your ethics. It was an act of sheer integrity on their part as they lost their top sales producer. It was also emotional for them as Richard treated you like a son and taught you everything about cut when they were the only diamond cutters with a clue, only to feel betrayed by you and your insistence on both discounting their stones and maintaining that the entire internet was your territory, thus hurting your fellow dealers and violating the dealer agreement as well as the spirit of the agreement. Then, to add insult to injury, as you were being removed from their program, you went on diamondtalk and told the world that YOU were dropping EightStar. It was abominable! Revisionist history is not cool, but I guess your motto is "never let the truth stand in the way of a good story". I also recall vaguely that at a later date, you inquired about possibly being allowed to be an EightStar dealer again. You speak of your integrity? Nothing you have to say or prove holds any meaning in truth or integrity to those of us who watched history in the making. I highly suggest that you examine your motivations and find your heart instead of your ego.

 

[dhog]

Rhino:

In your first post it was obvious to me that you
had a axe to grind.

As a consumer I would recommend that you reread some
of these posts.

fabricating stories does nothing but hurt your company
and your integrity.

As you know- I don''t doubt your results because of reasons
mentioned earlier in this thread,but for your integity I
have my ???

for all PS members /as you can tell I don''t have a clue
about diamonds but being able to read people for what they
really are is not that hard.

If I offended anyone I am truly sorry

Date: 3/14/2006 8:51:48 PM
Author: 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]

OK so is there a groove in the tray

or are my eyes playing tricks on me again

[/quote]
[/quote]

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/15/2006 6:11:16 PM
Author: Rhino

...This testing which I begun back in 2000 btw even includes one of your own employees whom I cheerfully served, and while that individual did not state his final choice out of 3 stones there is one fact he did state rather clearly from the 3 stones that were selected insofar as the paper was concerned. The stone immediately eliminated by his fiance because of 'visual performance' was the painted girdle and your employee said he concurred with that visual assessment.

Rhino,

I’ve stayed away from this thread like the plague because I think it unscientific and not well presented, among other reasons. Now, since you have tried to make a situation where I was present fit your inquisition, I must set the record straight.

In regards to your reference to me: I was in your store as a consumer in 2001, viewing ideals and superideals side by side, some you had and some I brought. We narrowed it from 11 candidates to 3 finalists over a period of 6 hours (an Eightstar, a SC and an ACA). Those 3 were ALL works of art. Every one. My girlfriend Melissa stated previously she would be proud to own any of the final 5, nevermind the final 3. This was not some taste test with ‘yuck’ and ‘yum’ as you make it sound. It was a difficult, six-hour decision with many winners.

I was clear that the final 3 were a tie. My public post reported of the Eightstar; “I would have had a hard time dismissing it” but I agreed with Melissa’s assessment - which went according to the only tests you performed (below).

Here is what was reported back in 2001:




"VISUAL PERFORMANCE

Now that observation of static qualities was finished, the last test relied on the frailty of human judgment: Which stone appealed the most to Melissa’s individual taste: A measure of scintillation, sparkle, twinkle, flash, pizzazz... Call it what you will.

She held the three finalists a foot away, then at arms length. She scrutinized them from every angle, individually and together. It was dazzling to watch the effervescent performance at her fingertips; an eruption of white hot sparks and dancing fire. The best of the best, performing together. Sovereign musicians in a chorus of prismatic beauty, demanding attention. All of us were grinning ear to ear. It was really something. We moved from spotlights to fluorescent light to natural outside light. In all circumstances we were transfixed by the glittering, hypnotic show of fireworks on her hand.

Finally Melissa made a decision. She proclaimed that one stone did not scintillate as intensely as the others. She could see its colored flashes, but thought it did not share as much incendiary fire when moved back and forth. It was a personal choice, made entirely on imperfect human inclination.

To be certain, we mixed the stones and asked her to decide again.

So how does one compare Mozart to Beethoven? Beethoven to Chopin? Personal taste is the deciding factor. Three different people can have three separate favorites. At such a high level the decision becomes a vote, not an outcome. “Bias is reduced to a matter of personal taste, which by it's individualistic nature is eminently fallible.”

So we set the Eightstar aside, based on Melissa’s personal taste. She preferred the scintillation she saw in the other two diamonds to the lucid purity and dynamic fire she observed in the Eightstar.

+ Note: It’s fitting to note that on the Brilliancescope this particular Eightstar had received the lowest scintillation mark of the finalists (the others tied at 1.5 higher on Jonathan’s Brilliancescope scale). I still contend the machine has difficulty judging scintillation. In this case however, Melissa’s eyes agreed precisely with the GemEx results.

+ Note2: Observation: The Eightstar appeared larger than its carat weight implied. The cut was exquisite. I would have had a hard time dismissing it, but visually agreed with Melissa’s assessment."





5 years later I realize none of those lighting conditions were best suited to Eightstar, all tests were at arms-length or closer and the Brilliancescope metric emulates spotlight scenarios. 5 years later I also realize the Eightstar’s lower halves were shorter than the other candidates, which plays into all of the above just as much as painting. I don’t question what we saw, but it may have been even harder to make the decision (if make it we could) with proper testing. We did see the final 2 under a street lamp at dusk, but the Eightstar was no longer involved.

The important thing is that we all agreed in 2001, for purposes of overall beauty, that the comparison was deadlocked. Frankly, if you're treating your other ‘comparisons’ like this one they are distortions of the truth too.

In my time with Brian Gavin I have learned the value of showing diamonds away from overhead jeweler’s lights (there are none in Brian’s office). Indirect light is a typical human illumination scenario and plays a part in most peoples’ lives. The observations of our customers support precisely what Brian reported to you in this thread, which you dismissed.

I am disappointed that you misrepresented my observations as a consumer. I am also disappointed by your lack of respect for real scientists and actual diamontaires in this thread, your dismissal of their scientific research and testing, the apparent need to ‘one-up’ your competitors every time (as with your reply to Brian) and your rejection of some of the consumers who have put their observations forward.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/15/2006 9:10:59 PM
Author: lawmax


Rhino wrote: 'I don't attempt to dictate a clients personal preferences, I prefer to let them tell me after gaining consumer input. That was the thrust of our observation testing back in 2000-2001. Except at that time it was between what was deemed as 'the best reflector image' vs a diamond with 'the best BrillianceScope results'. 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.'

Many of us remember when you 'dropped the painted line'. Dropped the line? It seems to me that you are referring to EightStar. For those who weren't around then, let's go back in history. You were EightStar's top salesperson, still demonstrating on your site that EightStar was the ultimate, and they dropped you due to your ethics. It was an act of sheer integrity on their part as they lost their top sales producer. It was also emotional for them as Richard treated you like a son and taught you everything about cut when they were the only diamond cutters with a clue, only to feel betrayed by you and your insistence on both discounting their stones and maintaining that the entire internet was your territory, thus hurting your fellow dealers and violating the dealer agreement as well as the spirit of the agreement. Then, to add insult to injury, as you were being removed from their program, you went on diamondtalk and told the world that YOU were dropping EightStar. It was abominable! Revisionist history is not cool, but I guess your motto is 'never let the truth stand in the way of a good story'. I also recall vaguely that at a later date, you inquired about possibly being allowed to be an EightStar dealer again. You speak of your integrity? Nothing you have to say or prove holds any meaning in truth or integrity to those of us who watched history in the making. I highly suggest that you examine your motivations and find your heart instead of your ego.

Will respond as time permits to everyone.

Lawmax... I don't know what you heard and who you heard it from but you were not told the facts. I was not dropped because of ethics. Richard himself, and his family knows till this day that I am a man of my word and never break integrity on that. If you doubt me ask Richard himself. As to wanting the entire internet for myself ... that couldn't be further from the truth and the same applies to me wanting to discount. That is false information plain and simple. I was a team player with them from day one and not once broke integrity with any of the rules they laid upon me as a distributor. Not once. Richard will also vouch for that. I have not come onto this thread to talk about EightStar. I am not here to stoop to the level of criticizing people, business' or organizations. What I see here are people who are taking this personal and I understand why too. I empathize with you and all these people.

You have never heard lawmax what had happened to me during that ordeal. If you knew you would be outraged. However I have kept silent about it all these years and till this day have no desire to drag anyone through the mud. That is not my style and is not how I conduct myself or my business. If you want to speak with me personally about this my phone is always open and I have nothing to hide.

Peace,

 

[belle]

Date: 3/15/2006 10:26:44 PM
Author: Rhino

Lawmax... I don''t know what you heard and who you heard it from but you were lied to. I was not dropped because of ethics.

what were you dropped for?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/15/2006 9:10:59 PM
Author: lawmax

Rhino wrote: ''I don''t attempt to dictate a clients personal preferences, I prefer to let them tell me after gaining consumer input. That was the thrust of our observation testing back in 2000-2001. Except at that time it was between what was deemed as ''the best reflector image'' vs a diamond with ''the best BrillianceScope results''. 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.''

Many of us remember when you ''dropped the painted line''. Dropped the line? It seems to me that you are referring to EightStar. For those who weren''t around then, let''s go back in history. You were EightStar''s top salesperson, still demonstrating on your site that EightStar was the ultimate, and they dropped you due to your ethics. It was an act of sheer integrity on their part as they lost their top sales producer. It was also emotional for them as Richard treated you like a son and taught you everything about cut when they were the only diamond cutters with a clue, only to feel betrayed by you and your insistence on both discounting their stones and maintaining that the entire internet was your territory, thus hurting your fellow dealers and violating the dealer agreement as well as the spirit of the agreement. Then, to add insult to injury, as you were being removed from their program, you went on diamondtalk and told the world that YOU were dropping EightStar. It was abominable! Revisionist history is not cool, but I guess your motto is ''never let the truth stand in the way of a good story''. I also recall vaguely that at a later date, you inquired about possibly being allowed to be an EightStar dealer again. You speak of your integrity? Nothing you have to say or prove holds any meaning in truth or integrity to those of us who watched history in the making. I highly suggest that you examine your motivations and find your heart instead of your ego.

Lawmax: This is consistent with what I had heard a long time ago regarding poaching, which made me wonder how Rhino jumped to the conclusions he made, so I checked again and got the same answers. Haven''t called the brick and mortar retailers yet.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/15/2006 5:09:55 PM
Author: dhog
new

Fantastic idea dhog, intimate lighting like this, somewhat like that in a fine restuarant, will ACTUALLY really show the effects of broadflash fire from optically symmetric stones with painted girdles...

 

[pricescope]

From the Policies: Don’t start flaming or personal attacks. One way to guard against misunderstandings is to read over your response before you post it.

Thank you.

 

[Serg]

re:I perform this observation regularly. I have in my master set of stones a 1.18ct K VS2 and a 1.18ct K VV1. One painted one not. I''ve been showing consumers this for a long time. Both have top grade (ideal) optical symmetry as well as slope angles within .1 or .2 degrees of each other. Out of each 100 observers we have showed this comparison to, greater than 90% choose in favor of the unpainted stone. Why do you think I dropped the line when in fact I made more profit on each individual stone from the painted line?!?!?

Rhino,
Please read my posts.
I publish summary for you.


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.
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)
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.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

FYI there is an article at http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/37/1/GIA-Excellent-Cut-Grade-Case-Study.aspx reviewing Diamond Dock(r) that has just been published

 

[Rhino]

Leonid,

I will post my last responses in this thread and then ... please lock it. If you want to know why call me because it is in the best interests of those who are now making this personal even though I have made every attempt to avoid any kind of personal issues.

John Quixote: I did not name names. Yours is one of many consumer observations recorded on the Internet of folks who have compared painted with unpainted girdles. As "Cupid", not working for any diamond company, your unbiased input plus that of your fiance''s was in the majority of observers. It made no difference wheter you observed in natural daylight, store lighting, etc. Your conclusions that day were in alignment with the hundreds of times we have sent the same types of comparisons to folks all over the globe who wanted to make that comparison. If all of a sudden you deem our lighting, plus the fact that both Melissa and you stood by our large front window to examine the diamonds in natural daylight is all of a sudden "unscientific"? I refuse to get personal although Brian and now you have suggested that my motives are insincere and misleading.

Please take off the corporate coat for a second John. Listen to me carefully ... you do not want to pursue this arguement with me. Sincerely, from the bottom of my heart, it is in your best interest not to. I have no beef with WF and there is plenty of biz to go around for everyone. I''m having Leo close this thread to avoid what I know will happen and I have no desire to see it happen to you or the company you work for. Please trust me on this. In the future you will thank me.

QueenMum: I was approaching your post to answer. You are a dear. Wait ... Stephan... are you a male or a female?!? Assuming you are a seasoned gal like the picture suggests of course I will.

Marty: I am convinced after reading everything in this thread, plus what you have written in other threads that your opinions are strongly biased. As a researcher I find that at the heart of requests for information, there are 2 motives. One is the researcher who is looking to attain greater understand of the subject at hand. Thirst for truth and the quest for knowledge lies at the heart of that request and I am more than happy to share it with any who ask for it. Then I see there are those who ask for information, not for the above reasons but for reasons to drag down, attack, and twist to use for the destruction of others. I believe yours is of the latter so I am through sharing any other information in this thread on the subject. I have attempted at every turn to keep this conversation civil and informative. You have turned this into a personal attack on me and I refuse to continue in such a vein.

lawmax: Your post made me think back last night. Do not think for one moment that I was not hurt by the breaking of my relationship with Richard. Within this trade, and during that time he was like a father to me in a sense and in case I have never stated so publicly, let me make it clear now. I value tremendously the times we shared together. He shared with me insights I would have never gained otherwise and for that I am truly grateful and thankful. I mean that from the bottom of my heart. I can think of many nights up at my computer waking my family up because I was laughing so loud because of the dam funny things we shared. Although I left 8* before they were going to let me go, let me say that neither of us wished to see it happen and before I had left I had even requested of Richard to follow me down the path my research was taking me. I had asked for alterations in the cutting which I saw consumers turning to but Richard refused. The path I was following was led by the observation testing we were conducting and comparing technological results with human observation and reaction. Till this day I still hold no ill will toward Richard and having become acquainted with his son in more recent years, in our hearts we also share a mutual respect whether they talk with me or not. How do I know this? Because we are both driven by the same thing I believe ... a deep passion for our work. I will leave it at that. If you care to discuss this further with me lawmax drop me an email as I will not discuss personal things publicly. I respect Richard and his family too much to do that.

The point of this thread: I have shared what I have in this thread for one reason and one reason only.

I see the GIA cut research team mocked and ridiculed at every turn here lately and it is making me sick. The arguements, at least in my opinion that I have seen leveled at them at this point are shallow. I know that there is also more at stake here and that the issues run deeper than most realize. Since my late teens/early twenties I have been a researcher (not always of diamonds) but when I do something I go all out. No holds barred. If I have the funds I am not afraid to spend it to get the answers to questions I am seeking. I am thankful to God for allowing me to get as far as I have. During the course of my studies I have found that members of both GIA and AGS cut research teams to be most cooperative with me and I have developed friendships within both labs that I truly cherish. I would equally defend the science of AGS'' research as I would GIA''s so that the reader knows, as do my peers, I hold no favorites and on our site publish criticisms of both systems. When I see my friends being attacked/slandered/misaligned and the soundness of the logic behind thier systems being derailed, I would speak up for any of my friends, if it is indeed a truth to be defended. If there was no truth or logic to the system, I''m not going to attempt defend something that is not defendable.

Having conducted this most recent study, even amongst the many voices criticizing, condeming and complaining against GIA ... all I want to make known to the general public is that there is a professional gemologist out here who not only understands the logic and science behind the GIA Cut Grading system, but would not fault anyone who agrees with that logic either because I, for one do.

You can close this thread now Leo.

If anyone would like to discuss more details of this study, and the lighting environment of the DiamondDock, I''ll be participating in the new thread Leo has created as time allows and have some interesting photography to share with the readers.

If anyone has any questions for me on a personal level, email me and I will respond as time allows.

If I did not address anyone''s post here, please forgive and email me the question and I''ll be happy to respond there as well.

Kind regards,
Jonathan Weingarten

 

[kenny]

So a paying advertiser can direct the Forum owner to lock a thread after getting in the last word?

I'm not taking sides here, and making things personal is not good, but legitimate issues are being discussed here.

It would be alarming if this thread gets locked.
It would be against what I thought Pricescope stood for.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 3/16/2006 7:41:57 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
FYI there is an article at http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/37/1/GIA-Excellent-Cut-Grade-Case-Study.aspx reviewing Diamond Dock(r) that has just been published

Gary,

Thank you for this incredible article. It is just the type of thing I was hoping for, actual pictures to show what I have been seeing said, that the diamond dock does in fact make badly cut diamonds, or CZ''s in the case of your pictures, look pretty good.

I especially appreciated the series of photos taken on the white, grey and skin background, as they aptly verified my suspicions of how such stones would look. While I am still looking forward to seeing an officially graded GIA Ex steep/deep, your pictures match my observations of such stones that are not having the official designation yet.

Frankly, I was surprised to see that the stone in your photo was only an AGS 2 rather than a 3 or 4, but if a 2 can show this much skin, then an even deeper/steeper stone will certainly look only worse, with or without the GIA Ex grade.

Jon, personally I hope this thread will not be closed, there is much yet to be discussed about the issues involving the stones and the results. I love my painted stones and I love my non painted stones. I am curious what a comparrison with your steep/deep and an AGS 0 non painted stone with our without opticle symmetry would bring for results. I am curious how a steeper/deeper stone would fare. One comparrison set does not a valid data stream make, get back there and do some more research. Please keep sharing the results. When and if I get access to some of these stones I will ask some folks my own self. I am betting with my walk through the office, the hallway, and the street (especially the standing facing into the corner in the darkest part of the hall) that my results may not match yours, but if they do I will swallow my disbelief and admit it.

Wink

 

[pricescope]

Date: 3/16/2006 11:04:41 AM
Author: kenny
So a paying advertiser can direct the Forum owner to lock the thread after getting in the last word?

Yo!

what''s the deal with paid advertiser

Paid advertisers don''t have any privilege with last word here

Thread can be locked, however, if it goes far off topic or if there is breaching of the policies (e.g. personal attacks, etc)

 

[lawmax]

I''ve spoken on the phone to Jonathan and it was an interesting and peaceful conversation. We all have our own understanding of things we perceive based on our own senses, cognitive processes, and emotions and now I know Jonathan''s take on things. Wishing peace to all of us...

lawmax