GIA Ex: The Consumers Perspective and the Technologies

[seeker78]

I''m not an expert on diamonds, or a research scientist, but... I think we all need to remember that we''re not curing CANCER here... these are DIAMONDS for gods sake!!!

'');" alt="Insert smilie

" src="http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/20.gif" border="0">

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/16/2006 2:29:29 PM
Author: seeker78

I think we all need to remember that we''re not curing CANCER here... these are DIAMONDS for gods sake!!!

Ditto!

I wouldn''t be so lighthearted if it were my career at stake... but... this isn''t the case for anyone, right?

Besides, way the heat?

It seems that either of the two diamonds in the survey had some negative side relative to what has been regarded as ideal among the posters here: one stone is a bit too flat (painted), the other a bit too leaky. So, the leaky won the day. So ... is this a decisive result for the fate of ideal diamonds 100 years from now? Hm... it doesn''t look like one drop in the sea is going to make much of a difference in the GIA versus Super Ideals war either - if there is such conflict

 

[belle]

Date: 3/16/2006 2:29:29 PM
Author: seeker78
I''m not an expert on diamonds, or a research scientist, but... I think we all need to remember that we''re not curing CANCER here... these are DIAMONDS for gods sake!!!

'');'' alt=""Insert smilie

'' src="http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/images/smilies/20.gif" border=0>

right... and such observations should not be put forth as such definitive scientific evidence. none of the ''testing'' here was done in a scientific manner and it certainly cannot be considered ''research''.

i am interested in learning more about the observations of dd made by consumers, as well as those in the trade, but i hope it will be presented as the potentially flawed, unscientific information that it is and nothing more.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 3/15/2006 10:49:33 PM
Author: 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.

Folks, I have to chime in and say that Lawmax's rendition is dead spot-on consistent with the version I had heard long ago, too......and I believe that version to true absent a correction from Richard himself.

I have to say the revisionist slant is not surprising.....but disappointing still.

I think it is germane to this thread for Lawmax to have pointed out this inconsistency. It is being claimed that he dropped the line due to performance (and saying that's consistent with his findings today), and that is most assuredly contrary to the recollection of *many* here. It's a salient point, and one Rhino opened the door to himself with his assertion that he dropped that line.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/16/2006 4:06:23 PM
Author: belle


i am interested in learning more about the observations of dd made by consumers, as well as those in the trade, but i hope it will be presented as the potentially flawed, unscientific information that it is and nothing more.

Well... as long as the testing conditions are described in sufficient detail, and the data reported completely... it looks like a valid experiment to me. That the results were more or less unexpected, it doesn''t make it more or less correct. Anyway - judging from Serghey''s post and others, it looks like the results were not so unexpected or unpredictable after all. And Jonathan did disclose the conditions of the experiment off the bat.

Perhaps I missed this point: was the little experiment designed to settle the GIA/AGS grading debate? That would be tall order. It surely brings some interesting data on the table, IMO. Too bad for the ''heat'' that followed - to me, it looks like much of that came not from the data presented but some far removed extrapolation.

The small experiment looks fine to me, only... ''small'' in the context of the angry GIA related argument it dropped in the middle with. If Good Old Gold made commercial decisions consistent to this data, that is a different matter yet - most folk, scientists or not, need to use partial results and inconclusive research, and bet on it until further notice (that may or may not come).

My 2c


Hope not every technical thread around here is going to be only about how great one or another line of super ideals is.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 3/16/2006 10:54:54 AM
Author: Rhino
John Quixote: I did not name names.

No, but you did specify "a former customer now employed by Brian". Precisely how many of them do you think there are? Right....ONE. The same way that I could refer to the dropped eight-star dealer in NY......without saying your name....and it would be unilaterally understood who I was talking about.

Date: 3/16/2006 10:54:54 AM
Author: Rhino

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.

I have to say that these statements sound ominous and threatening in their nature, and that's not cool here.

Date: 3/16/2006 10:54:54 AM
Author: Rhino

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.

You've tried to keep things civil? When did the phrase "lay off the crackpipe" become deemed civil or professional?

I'd respectfully point out that you started this thread....you opened the door to agreement with or disagreement with your findings. I believe part of the motivation was directly to combat a thread Brian posted. That much was completely transparent.

While I'm not a huge fan of the caustic way Marty refutes things, I DO believe that he's not attacking you personally....he's disagreeing with your findings. As usual, anytime someone disagrees with your view of things, you choose to interpret it as a personal attack, and that's a crying shame. He didn't say you were an idiot.....he said *he believes* your findings are questionable and why.

I've said it before a thousand times.....you're enthusiasm and passion is commendable, but the way you go about things is disgraceful....and continues to be.

And, again as usual, when things don't go the way you hope, your response is to cry foul and ask for the thread to be locked. Pattern of behavior is a marvelous predictor.

Date: 3/16/2006 10:54:54 AM
Author: Rhino
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.

The point of this thread, I personally believe, was to deflect attention away from the other thread, as well as for your stated intentions.

You still.....after all this time.....cannot grasp that people disagreeing with a system or methodology isn't "ridiculing or mocking" them individually.......that it's an *intellectual* disagreement based of various points of view. We've talked about this on the phone previously, Rhino....when I thought there was still hope for you. Great minds CAN disagree without it being personal, and disagreeing isn't tantamount to dismissing another's credentials. It's too bad that you choose to see intellectual discourse and disagreement as a hindrance instead of as a path to greater understanding by all and potential consensus.

 

[mepearl53]

As a B&M store that sells designer jewelry I can say that each customer interrupts their own taste in design. What I might like they may not and visa versa. I believe there are many schools of thought and in the end who is correct with what is the best? Can''t figure it out. Obviously there are differences of opinion on what makes one product better than another and my opt on it is beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I believe many of the long time diamond people understand there is a personality to a diamond. And like all of us each has a difference in appearance and that''s a good thing.

I also believe that defending each opinion is a good thing for that brings up the eternal questions of what is beauty. How the eye and brain translates a thing of beauty is individual and I believe that those opinions voiced on this thread are just that. I have said on countless thousands of occasions you cannot judge the beauty of a diamond from what was then paper to what is now computer models. The science of diamond grading is subjective to me and until proved other wise will remain so but open discussion is good. GIA has it''s drawback as does the AGS labs. I believe my eyes!

But, I think the criticism of Rhino is very unfair and harsh. He is my competitor, my friend, and a highly ethical man that I would defend to the end. In another thread the GIA was cast off as a sell out business. I don''t know and would be curious as to how this assessment was made. If we are naming names let''s name them. We will continue to buy diamonds with certs from both labs for I really don''t give a rip what the paper says. If it assures the consumers that my opinions are correct that is fine with me.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 3/16/2006 10:54:54 AM
Author: Rhino
Leonid,

I will post my last responses in this thread and then ... please lock it.

Don''t develop a thin skin Jonathon. This is a technical issue and there are those of us who do not give a tinkers cuss about the commercial he said she said history.

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.
I have a great respect for Al Gilbertson and his contribution to diamond cut, both before and after his GIA appointment. Others and I have tried hard over the past year to make sense of their findings Jonathon and understand why they did what they did. I have mentioned elsewhere that I will review HCA and make allowance for stereo vision and the possability of slightly deeper diamonds having good experiance - both from considerations of GIA''s study - and because of the reasons why Sergey removed Leakage from DiamCalc.

You too have a contribution to make - so please try to rise above the personal issues and stick to topic. There are plenty of people here who may disagree with GIA, but use their brains to argue with logic - and that is called the peer review process. You want to argue that they are correct - and you are offended by the politics of disagreement - not a problem you should take personally though.

The arguements, at least in my opinion that I have seen leveled at them at this point are shallow.
I hope you will take the time to read my journal article, which i have tried to present based on fair reproductions of what people saw. And Sergey''s comments and suggested experiment that you could conduct just in a few minutes by your self jonathon - that would be enough to show if he is on the right track or not.

I know that there is also more at stake here and that the issues run deeper than most realize. Sure there is plenty of politics - it is normal.


Kind regards,
Jonathan Weingarten

 

[belle]

Date: 3/16/2006 4:31:27 PM
Author: valeria101


Well... as long as the testing conditions are described in sufficient detail, and the data reported completely... it looks like a valid experiment to me. That the results were more or less unexpected, it doesn''t make it more or less correct.

agreed.
sufficient detail about the conditions and complete reporting are important factors necessary to draw more meaningful conclusions.
the expectation of results in and of itself does not represent the correctness, but unusual extremes can make cause for further testing and observation.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 3/16/2006 5:38:38 PM
Author: mepearl53
As a B&M store that sells designer jewelry I can say that each customer interrupts their own taste in design. What I might like they may not and visa versa. I believe there are many schools of thought and in the end who is correct with what is the best? Can''t figure it out. Obviously there are differences of opinion on what makes one product better than another and my opt on it is beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I believe many of the long time diamond people understand there is a personality to a diamond. And like all of us each has a difference in appearance and that''s a good thing.

I also believe that defending each opinion is a good thing for that brings up the eternal questions of what is beauty. How the eye and brain translates a thing of beauty is individual and I believe that those opinions voiced on this thread are just that. I have said on countless thousands of occasions you cannot judge the beauty of a diamond from what was then paper to what is now computer models. The science of diamond grading is subjective to me and until proved other wise will remain so but open discussion is good. GIA has it''s drawback as does the AGS labs. I believe my eyes!

But, I think the criticism of Rhino is very unfair and harsh. He is my competitor, my friend, and a highly ethical man that I would defend to the end. In another thread the GIA was cast off as a sell out business. I don''t know and would be curious as to how this assessment was made. If we are naming names let''s name them. We will continue to buy diamonds with certs from both labs for I really don''t give a rip what the paper says. If it assures the consumers that my opinions are correct that is fine with me.

Bill I hope my GIA bashing is considered more politely.
would you like to take 15 minutes to read this http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/37/1/GIA-Excellent-Cut-Grade-Case-Study.aspx article that discusses the basis of their grading system and where I feel they went off the rails.

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 3/16/2006 6:02:54 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Bill I hope my GIA bashing is considered more politely.
would you like to take 15 minutes to read this http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/37/1/GIA-Excellent-Cut-Grade-Case-Study.aspx article that discusses the basis of their grading system and where I feel they went off the rails.

I''ll read the article Gary. And your GIA remarks are extremely tasteful

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 3/16/2006 5:38:38 PM
Author: mepearl53

But, I think the criticism of Rhino is very unfair and harsh.

The criticisms.....at least initially.....weren't of Rhino. What I saw was critical disagreements with the validity of the results based on several posters' differing opinions about what constitutes a "scientific" environment. The critiicisms disagreed with the premise that the information/photos he presented actually did or did not support his contentions. That is not personal.

I can say why I think ice cream melts faster on a cold day than a hot day, and you can disagree with that *assertion* without criticising me personally or my critical thinking abilities. Differing opinions doesn't mean personal or professional disrespect. You can disagree on issues and still respect someone's credentials.

Date: 3/16/2006 5:38:38 PM
Author: mepearl53

He is my competitor, my friend, and a highly ethical man that I would defend to the end.

I respect that's your experience with him; sadly, my experiences with him have been very different and I cannot defend his ethics. He has disparaged me to other PSers and lied behind the scenes, and I can't honestly say I find that ethical. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Date: 3/16/2006 5:38:38 PM
Author: mepearl53
In another thread the GIA was cast off as a sell out business. I don't know and would be curious as to how this assessment was made. If we are naming names let's name them.

I honestly think part of the "sell-out" perception surrounding GIA has been driven more by customer distrust than by vendors. I think GIA's recent scandals regarding grading reports have done more to fuel this distrust than disagreement from tradespeople. I'm sure you can appreciate the "herd mentality" that goes along with such disclosures.....it's the same phenomena that occurs in making the public suspicious of *all* jewelers when one lackie is exposed on 60 minutes for shady behavior.

Having said that, any system put forth as a model for how things should be should be able to withstand trade criticism and challenge. If it does, it's on the right track, and if it doesn't, then it wasn't worthy of holding as a standard.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Serg,

Date: 3/16/2006 3:30:22 AM
Author: Serg

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.

Then we are in agreement with this comparison Serg. Let me also make note and one correction to your statement. It has been said that GIA gives hits to all painted stones. According to our research into this matter, this is indeed not the case. To my knowledge it is only to the point where it impacts face up appearance.

2) Your painted diamond has big variation Pavilion angles( min 40.5 max=40.9) It is not correct for your type tests too

While I agree the variance is a little much for us anal retentive folk, this was the comparison I wanted to draw from and represented 2 different flavors of super ideals we had/have in our store. If I had my choice there would be no variance.

3) Diamcalc LR is bigger for second diamond( not painted), specially under table.

I agree! So did our observers. So far it appears we are on the same page Serg. Perhaps you now understand why people consistently chose one diamond over the other in this comparison.

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.

I don''t understand your last comment Serg because I stand in full agreement with everything you state here including your last comments regarding the stars in combination with the painting. It appears we are very much on the same page. My research into the GIA system regarding these issues also concurs.

I''ve printed out Garry''s article to read as well when I have some spare time tonight. I enjoy conversing with you on this subject.

Kind regards,
Jonathan

 

[Rhino]

Hi Dave,

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.

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?

Let me say this so far. The observations I''ve been able to make in both natural daylight and office environments and in the DD concur. I have some standard steep/deeps in the store that I use as test stones to show consumers the visual differences between a common stone vs what we handpick. The DD as well as the Gesswein lighting both display the same phenomena as well as observing in natural daylight. We have large windows in the front of our store which capture natural ambient to strong sunlight during sun down. Makes for a nice viewing environment for natural vs man made daylighting conditions.

While this topic has primarily focused around the painted stone I used in this study, I would also point out that the DiamondDock, shows me quite nicely the optical effects of digging as well. I''ll answer some things here, then I''ll hop over to the other thread to post some photography I''ve taken of this phenomena.

Also ... while the GIA has released and manufactured the DD, they don''t emphasize that this is the only environment in which to base comparisons on as well. Just about any good overhead fluorescent source is fine. They are not adamant that this is the *only* grading environment. Just wanted to clarify that.

Peace,
Jon

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 3/16/2006 7:09:59 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 3/16/2006 5:38:38 PM
Author: mepearl53

But, I think the criticism of Rhino is very unfair and harsh.

The criticisms.....at least initially.....weren''t of Rhino. What I saw was critical disagreements with the validity of the results based on several posters'' differing opinions about what constitutes a ''scientific'' environment. The critiicisms disagreed with the premise that the information/photos he presented actually did or did not support his contentions. That is not personal.

I can say why I think ice cream melts faster on a cold day than a hot day, and you can disagree with that *assertion* without criticising me personally or my critical thinking abilities. Differing opinions doesn''t mean personal or professional disrespect. You can disagree on issues and still respect someone''s credentials.

Can I call you Al? I agree totally that one can disagree on personal opinions and what constitutes a scientific evaluation. I have enormous respect for Martin and would defend him also. Brilliant man and respect him enormously! But, I also feel that science has it''s flaws also and what has sounded like a opinion to the contrary can in the end have validity in context. I''ve seen too much, "my expert is better than your expert" over the years and the point is never resolved.

Date: 3/16/2006 5:38:38 PM
Author: mepearl53

He is my competitor, my friend, and a highly ethical man that I would defend to the end.

I respect that''s your experience with him; sadly, my experiences with him have been very different and I cannot defend his ethics. He has disparaged me to other PSers and lied behind the scenes, and I can''t honestly say I find that ethical. We''ll have to agree to disagree on that one.

I am sorry if your experiences have not been the best. 34 years in the business and I suspect not everyone has had the best things to say about me. He has been a ethical person with me and I understand the business through eyes most won''t see. I do not know of the behind the scenes you refer but in my limited amount of time here I think I have seen multiple hidden agendas from many a contributor. I''ll agree to disagree with you here.

Date: 3/16/2006 5:38:38 PM
Author: mepearl53
In another thread the GIA was cast off as a sell out business. I don''t know and would be curious as to how this assessment was made. If we are naming names let''s name them.

I honestly think part of the ''sell-out'' perception surrounding GIA has been driven more by customer distrust than by vendors. I think GIA''s recent scandals regarding grading reports have done more to fuel this distrust than disagreement from tradespeople. I''m sure you can appreciate the ''herd mentality'' that goes along with such disclosures.....it''s the same phenomena that occurs in making the public suspicious of *all* jewelers when one lackie is exposed on 60 minutes for shady behavior.

Having said that, any system put forth as a model for how things should be should be able to withstand trade criticism and challenge. If it does, it''s on the right track, and if it doesn''t, then it wasn''t worthy of holding as a standard.

I think that customer distrust is why many people are here and lurking on the site. Media, personal experience, and horror stories abound within my trade. And I personally do not blame the consumer. I am embarrassed by what goes on in my trade. Our business is a blind business and this, wonderful site, hopefully, for those that can read between the line, is the dialogue that should have been there in the beginning. The technology would have been of tremendous use if it was available when I first started but it was not. It has and has had it''s flaws (no pun intended

but this site L & I have developed is the start of dialog. Think of it as this has never been available before. The net creates a transparency. This is good. Personal opinions are good. The divide between consumer and trade have never been closer. Things will work out but I do not believe on either side, if this is to progress, that personal attacks will be the solution. Ask questions, criticize, want, and need to learn, this is what I have taught my children.

Anyway, my beautiful wife wants me to come in with her. Michigan State will win the basketball tournament but my pool is on Boston College. For those in the north spring is around the corner and we will continue to debate. This is good! Go tell the one you are married to or the one you are going to marry that you love them beyond and we''ll find another topic tomorrow

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/16/2006 11:04:41 AM
Author: 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.

Hi kenny,

I was venting a bit. When threads turn from informational to personal, I''d rather not be here. I agree. There are good issues to be hashed out here. If folks can communicate without insinuating dishonesty/skewing of results etc. and personal issues, I am all for participating. It''s not like I''m some fly by night who just showed up here with no credentials. Observation of diamonds and consumer reaction to various cutting styles is a topic that interests me greatly. Stick around.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Winkster!

Hope this post finds you well friend.

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 know that about you Wink. You are in this for the passion and I love that about you.

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.

Good question. I have only shown that comparison to few of the observers in this study and I was primarily tallying the results of the 1st two comparisons. This week however I was asked to make this same comparison you are asking now. While I haven''t been tallying this last one, all of the observers so far picked the non-painted AGS 0/GIA Ex over the GIA Ex steep/deep used in this study. I am under the gun to return this GIA Ex study stone soon to the manufacturer but I am going to be visiting their office to see if I can seek out a master stone to purchase for inventory. More like an I-J SI stone. The one in this study was a D VS2. Unless anyone wants to make a contribution to the cause of science?

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

You are a true gentleman Wink. Here is a photograph taken under the DiamondDock of a typical steep/deep vs this GIA Ex steep/deep used in this study. Sergey and Mike Cowing agree, this is a bright stone even though they have not seen this. To be honest, I was very skeptical before this comparison. The darker stone (pretty obvious here), is a typical steep/deep but this stone also exhibits digging as well.

 

[Rhino]

Hi lawmax!

It was such a pleasure speaking with you on the phone today and for the opportunity of being able to clear the air between us. You are such a sweetheart to talk with and I hope one day to be able to meet you face to face.

If you ever want to talk please consider me a friend.

Warm regards,
Jonathan

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 3/16/2006 8:18:13 PM
Author: mepearl53

Can I call you Al? I agree totally that one can disagree on personal opinions and what constitutes a scientific evaluation. I have enormous respect for Martin and would defend him also. Brilliant man and respect him enormously! But, I also feel that science has it's flaws also and what has sounded like a opinion to the contrary can in the end have validity in context. I've seen too much, 'my expert is better than your expert' over the years and the point is never resolved.

Sure, you can call me Al.

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree, science does have its flaws.

And yes, I agree, it's the "my expert is better than your expert" vibe that is completely fruitless and unattractive. I perceive part of the problem is that the less-secure interpret that as disparaging their expertise, and that's not the case at all.

Look, I'm sure that the guy who asserted "the world is round" rocked the establishment of the day and the scholars who felt FIRMLY sure that the earth was flat. Turns out that they weren't exactly correct about the earth being flat.

Doesn't make those scholars any less knowledgable, nor does it call into question the breadth of their knowledge or their credentials. It just means that others disagreed with that point! It's this inability to separate a disagreement about a given premise from a wholesale dismissal of one's expertise that is fueling the issues here.

Date: 3/16/2006 8:18:13 PM
Author: mepearl53

I am sorry if your experiences have not been the best. 34 years in the business and I suspect not everyone has had the best things to say about me. He has been a ethical person with me and I understand the business through eyes most won't see. I do not know of the behind the scenes you refer but in my limited amount of time here I think I have seen multiple hidden agendas from many a contributor. I'll agree to disagree with you here.

I agree there have been many "behind the scenes" agendas, and it's something I don't support. If an opinion is worth having, it's worth having out loud, so to speak. Strength of one's convictions and all that. Regarding the rest, yeah, let's agree to disagree. Groovy.

Date: 3/16/2006 8:18:13 PM
Author: mepearl53

I think that customer distrust is why many people are here and lurking on the site. Media, personal experience, and horror stories abound within my trade. And I personally do not blame the consumer. I am embarrassed by what goes on in my trade. Our business is a blind business and this, wonderful site, hopefully, for those that can read between the line, is the dialogue that should have been there in the beginning. The technology would have been of tremendous use if it was available when I first started but it was not. It has and has had it's flaws (no pun intended but this site L & I have developed is the start of dialog. Think of it as this has never been available before. The net creates a transparency. This is good. Personal opinions are good. The divide between consumer and trade have never been closer. Things will work out but I do not believe on either side, if this is to progress, that personal attacks will be the solution. Ask questions, criticize, want, and need to learn, this is what I have taught my children.

I agree with the highlighted part. For me, it went even further....I felt at an extreme disadvantage trying to determine what I wanted and what was "a smart buy" without knowing anything about the product. For me, it's less an issue of distrust as it is "caveat emptor".....I didn't inherently distrust jewelers, but I didn't think that my information/preferences should be shaped solely by those who stood to profit from it.

I have seen some really heinous things by folks in your trade, but I've seen some really remarkable things, too. I've seen vendors like Brian and Wink and Paul go far out of their way to be open in sharing their knowledge and learning from each other and others in the trade. I personally find it EXCITING to read Wink's posts when he's freshly returned from a trip and SO enthusiastic about new information and his openness to new things and ways of thinking. It gives me great hope for where things are headed.

And yes, I think that the only way folks can REALLY earn respect is to put aside the petty Johnson contests and insecurities, and stop looking for personal insult where none is implied.

Sounds as though your children were well taught. The most important: Ask questions! Questions, disagreements, and debates are how progress happens, if done like adults.

Enjoy the game with your wife!

 

[dhog]

Date: 3/16/2006 8:18:24 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/16/2006 11:04:41 AM

Author: 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.

Hi kenny,


I was venting a bit. When threads turn from informational to personal, I''d rather not be here. I agree. There are good issues to be hashed out here. If folks can communicate without insinuating dishonesty/skewing of results etc. and personal issues, I am all for participating. It''s not like I''m some fly by night who just showed up here with no credentials. Observation of diamonds and consumer reaction to various cutting styles is a topic that interests me greatly. Stick around.

OK Rhino lets forget about what happened
and move foward as you know how I feel about
the diamond dock.

doing more research and posting results
is what its all about.

after you do all the tests that have been
recommended by the experts on here and come
to the same conclution then it will be time
for me to purchase my own dd for research.

I will start a new thread with a photo with
8 diamonds for comment and look foward to your
comment.

this is not about you or any other vendor
this is about billons over the long haul
We as consumers need to rise up to the challenge.

 

[Rhino]

Aljdewey and Belle,

I will not allow you to skew this thread into personal issues again. We are having fun talking and learning as a PS fam. If you can not stick to the information/topic at hand without insinuating personal issues against me, I ask that you please do not participate here. We are here to learn more and I am willing to share and stay if you can help yourself from making it personal. Before you begin to paint me as a history revisionist make sure you''ve heard all sides of the story and have your facts straight. That is all I have to say. Hopefully you can stay, contribute and participate in a constructive manner in which to help the people of this forum understand better the topic at hand.

Kind regards,

 

[belle]

Date: 3/16/2006 8:44:34 PM
Author: aljdewey

Enjoy the game with your wife!

there isn''t just one game.. there are 63!

it''s march baby!! let the madness begin!

this is the best time of the year.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 3/16/2006 8:47:25 PM
Author: dhog

Date: 3/16/2006 8:18:24 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/16/2006 11:04:41 AM

Author: 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.

Hi kenny,


I was venting a bit. When threads turn from informational to personal, I''d rather not be here. I agree. There are good issues to be hashed out here. If folks can communicate without insinuating dishonesty/skewing of results etc. and personal issues, I am all for participating. It''s not like I''m some fly by night who just showed up here with no credentials. Observation of diamonds and consumer reaction to various cutting styles is a topic that interests me greatly. Stick around.

OK Rhino lets forget about what happened
and move foward as you know how I feel about
the diamond dock.

doing more research and posting results
is what its all about.

after you do all the tests that have been
recommended by the experts on here and come
to the same conclution then it will be time
for me to purchase my own dd for research.

I will start a new thread with a photo with
8 diamonds for comment and look foward to your
comment.

this is not about you or any other vendor
this is about billons over the long haul
We as consumers need to rise up to the challenge.

Cool. That will be really interesting.

 

[pricescope]

Final reminder to everyone: please refrain from resolving personal issues with other forum members and try to stay on topic. We don''t want topic to be closed and loosing positive stuff...

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/16/2006 5:38:38 PM
Author: mepearl53
As a B&M store that sells designer jewelry I can say that each customer interrupts their own taste in design. What I might like they may not and visa versa. I believe there are many schools of thought and in the end who is correct with what is the best? Can''t figure it out. Obviously there are differences of opinion on what makes one product better than another and my opt on it is beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I believe many of the long time diamond people understand there is a personality to a diamond. And like all of us each has a difference in appearance and that''s a good thing.

I also believe that defending each opinion is a good thing for that brings up the eternal questions of what is beauty. How the eye and brain translates a thing of beauty is individual and I believe that those opinions voiced on this thread are just that. I have said on countless thousands of occasions you cannot judge the beauty of a diamond from what was then paper to what is now computer models. The science of diamond grading is subjective to me and until proved other wise will remain so but open discussion is good. GIA has it''s drawback as does the AGS labs. I believe my eyes!

But, I think the criticism of Rhino is very unfair and harsh. He is my competitor, my friend, and a highly ethical man that I would defend to the end. In another thread the GIA was cast off as a sell out business. I don''t know and would be curious as to how this assessment was made. If we are naming names let''s name them. We will continue to buy diamonds with certs from both labs for I really don''t give a rip what the paper says. If it assures the consumers that my opinions are correct that is fine with me.

Excellent commentary Bill. Especially with how consumers interrupt their own taste with design. On a personal level, I really like the look of stones with high pin flash in settings that are pave set. Have you had a chance to eye ball one of these Eighternity''s in spot lighting yet?

 

[belle]

Date: 3/16/2006 8:58:21 PM
Author: Rhino
Aljdewey and Belle,

I will not allow you to skew this thread into personal issues again. We are having fun talking and learning as a PS fam. If you can not stick to the information/topic at hand without insinuating personal issues against me, I ask that you please do not participate here. We are here to learn more and I am willing to share and stay if you can help yourself from making it personal. Before you begin to paint me as a history revisionist make sure you''ve heard all sides of the story and have your facts straight. That is all I have to say. Hopefully you can stay, contribute and participate in a constructive manner in which to help the people of this forum understand better the topic at hand.

Kind regards,

huh?

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 3/16/2006 8:58:21 PM
Author: Rhino
Aljdewey and Belle,

I will not allow you to skew this thread into personal issues again. We are having fun talking and learning as a PS fam. If you can not stick to the information/topic at hand without insinuating personal issues against me, I ask that you please do not participate here. We are here to learn more and I am willing to share and stay if you can help yourself from making it personal. Before you begin to paint me as a history revisionist make sure you've heard all sides of the story and have your facts straight. That is all I have to say. Hopefully you can stay, contribute and participate in a constructive manner in which to help the people of this forum understand better the topic at hand.

Kind regards,

*sigh*....I haven't made this personal at all....and I'd kindly ask you to please stop asserting otherwise.

If you cannot respond to challenges to your hypothesis without taking it as a personal castration of your credentials, that's not my issue, it's yours. As Garry pointed out, the disagreements are technical in nature.....not personal.

I'm just not going to repeat this again. I'll be interested to read anything you have to contribute that is confined to the points of debate. And I do hope the fruitful discussion continues....I think there is much to be learned here. I'm interested in observation environments, controlled lighting, and the new cut grading systems. In order for folks to understand them, questions will be asked. Some will agree with some information, others won't. That's the nature of debate and true learning environment where folks concentrate more on learning and less on who's right/wrong.

I hope everyone is up to the challenge.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/16/2006 10:54:54 AM
Author: Rhino

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.

Rhino,

I was wearing my 'corporate coat' by not replying before. Brian had offered his input. When you reported my experience as a consumer I stepped out of the 'corporate coat' to correct it - I wasn't in the trade at the time. You refuse to accept the correction. So be it. As for your threat, I can’t even pretend to know what you’re talking about. Again, I am disappointed. Not just you - in parts of this whole exchange. As has been implied by many, this is not what PS is about.

 

[Rhino]

Hey dhog,

Date: 3/16/2006 8:47:25 PM
Author: dhog

OK Rhino lets forget about what happened
and move foward as you know how I feel about
the diamond dock.

doing more research and posting results
is what its all about.

after you do all the tests that have been
recommended by the experts on here and come
to the same conclution then it will be time
for me to purchase my own dd for research.

I will start a new thread with a photo with
8 diamonds for comment and look foward to your
comment.

this is not about you or any other vendor
this is about billons over the long haul
We as consumers need to rise up to the challenge.

Awesome. So am I dhog. I have a question though ... Garry & Sergey, this ones for you too. Why put the diamonds against a black background or even a bright white background?

I find that when you put steep/deeps against a white background that that makes pooper stones look good and conversly when you put them against dark backgrounds that they appear darker than they normally would in normal setting conditions. I don''t quite understand the reasoning for this.

For years we have always used neautral colored backgrounds as skin is generally a neautral colored background. Am I missing something?

Peace,
Jonathan

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/16/2006 9:01:21 PM
Author: Pricescope
Final reminder to everyone: please refrain from resolving personal issues with other forum members and try to stay on topic. We don''t want topic to be closed and loosing positive stuff...

Thanks for the reminder Leo. My apologies if I allowed myself to get off topic as well.