Are there any photos documenting the negative aspects of a "Steep Deep"

[LD]

Date: 11/25/2009 2:40:10 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/25/2009 1:52:22 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 11/25/2009 10:28:24 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 11/25/2009 2:08:38 AM

Author: Serg


John, GIA article has completely wrong statements why cutters use Painting. GIA did wrong conclusions about connections between painting-digout and yield . GIA forgot consider rough surface . I doubt what this GIA article is good for consumer education, because it has misleading information in most critical points. ( for same reason GIA early gave wrong cut grade for diamonds as *

I like to give balanced representation, which is why I linked subject matter from GIA, AGSL and PS.


You''re right, the GIA piece is nearly 5 years old. You may remember that Brian Gavin and I reacted strongly when it came out, and worked heavily with both GIA and AGSL to produce the third piece I linked? Reading through the different articles I trust that intelligent readers will come to intelligent conclusions.

John,
1)GAI article has wrong statements about reason for painting . they forgot account what increasing girdle thickness in halves Usually demand to decrease diameter . So painting is not good way to increase yield. for other reason GIA statement about dig-out was wrong too
2) Peter Y. did not discuss about yield, but his statements about spread could easy create wrong understanding for consumers about yield for painting diamonds and cutter motivation. I hope you remember my and Janak discussion with Peter about connection between Yield and painting-digout.
3) I did not find in Brain article information how painting changes yield.

So I do not see balanced representation for painting in this 3 articles. first two create consumer scare-mondering about painting. ( however most consumer will not understand last 3 pages in Peter article)

For the benefit of many, here is an old photo - not sure where I got it.
Note how bruting demands that the stone be ground down until there is a clean line for the girdle.
It is why very often the girdle has a wave in it on scan maps so the diameter can be a little larger.
Sometimes painting or digging is done to enable a part of the unbruted rough to be polished out - generally this is localized. Sometimes it is done in one spot because there is an inclusion to remove.
Often when it is done all around the stone there is a desire to improve the stone or some reason we may never know.

Garry - thank you. Is it possible to guestimate what percentage of diamonds will have had some form of painting/digging? Is this common or reasonably rare - or somewhere in between please?

Apologies as I really don''t want to threadjack or move off subject but this is incredibly fascinating and a wonderful learning tool.

 

[diagem]

As this is an issue I spend a lot of time explaining my clients...

Date: 11/25/2009 2:40:10 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

For the benefit of many, here is an old photo - not sure where I got it.
Note how bruting demands that the stone be ground down until there is a clean line for the girdle.
It is why very often the girdle has a wave in it on scan maps so the diameter can be a little larger.
Sometimes painting or digging is done to enable a part of the unbruted rough to be polished out - generally this is localized. Sometimes it is done in one spot because there is an inclusion to remove.
Often when it is done all around the stone there is a desire to improve the stone or some reason we may never know.

Usually a rough stone gets bruted twice and sometimes even more..., all depending on the texture of the rough skin close to the "potential position" of girdle plane.
If we take Garry''s posted images (above) as an example..., image #4 marking the girdle for blocking you can notice (red circles) what may very well be indented naturals that would require primary blocking only to brute a second time and hope a third wont be necessary.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/25/2009 4:58:22 PM
Author: LovingDiamonds

Date: 11/25/2009 2:40:10 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

For the benefit of many, here is an old photo - not sure where I got it.
Note how bruting demands that the stone be ground down until there is a clean line for the girdle.
It is why very often the girdle has a wave in it on scan maps so the diameter can be a little larger.
Sometimes painting or digging is done to enable a part of the unbruted rough to be polished out - generally this is localized. Sometimes it is done in one spot because there is an inclusion to remove.
Often when it is done all around the stone there is a desire to improve the stone or some reason we may never know.

Garry - thank you. Is it possible to guestimate what percentage of diamonds will have had some form of painting/digging? Is this common or reasonably rare - or somewhere in between please?

Apologies as I really don''t want to threadjack or move off subject but this is incredibly fascinating and a wonderful learning tool.

I guess maybe less than 15% have been totally dug or painted all round.
But maybe up to half have a little here or there.

You can see from DiaGem''s post why that would be so for that stone.

 

[John P]

Date: 11/25/2009 1:52:22 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 11/25/2009 10:28:24 AM
Author: John Pollard

I like to give balanced representation, which is why I linked subject matter from GIA, AGSL and PS.

You're right, the GIA piece is nearly 5 years old. You may remember that Brian Gavin and I reacted strongly when it came out, and worked heavily with both GIA and AGSL to produce the third piece I linked? Reading through the different articles I trust that intelligent readers will come to intelligent conclusions.

John,
1)GAI article has wrong statements about reason for painting . they forgot account what increasing girdle thickness in halves Usually demand to decrease diameter . So painting is not good way to increase yield. for other reason GIA statement about dig-out was wrong too
2) Peter Y. did not discuss about yield, but his statements about spread could easy create wrong understanding for consumers about yield for painting diamonds and cutter motivation. I hope you remember my and Janak discussion with Peter about connection between Yield and painting-digout.
3) I did not find in Brain article information how painting changes yield.

It is mentioned on the first page Sergey. [excerpt from article]


Q: Why Paint or Dig?

1. To try and retain weight at critical points: If a diamond is close to a commercially important weight the painting approach may be used because less material is polished away. On the example below normal indexing would result in a finished diamond weighing 0.99 ct. Painting to 4 degrees - particularly on the pavilion's long lower girdle facets - allows the commercially important 1.00 ct mark to be 'saved.'
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. To improve a verbal description of girdle thickness or clarity: For example, a very thick girdle may be dug out enough so that it will appear only 'slightly thick' to the grader, or an inclusion could be dug-out in order to improve the clarity grade.
   
3. Relative to crown-only painting: To acquire desirable visual properties. A measure of crown-only painting on 'superideal' diamonds can improve the diamond's brightness and increase the amount of visible broadfire dispersion.

Q: Why is it said that Painting & Digging are bad?

A: Because the most common uses of painting & digging are 'swindling strategies' in answers 1 and 2, above. What is not commonly known is that a measure of crown-only painting on superideal makes can be used to acquire desirable visual properties. Remember that the 'superideal' category of diamonds makes up less than 1% of all round diamonds produced.

So I do not see balanced representation for painting in this 3 articles. first two create consumer scare-mondering about painting. (however most consumer will not understand last 3 pages in Peter article)

GIA's "scare-mongering" was aimed in the right direction since in the old days these strategies were used to swindle. I will say again; since the 2006 grading metric was introduced some of the old tricks no longer work. I certainly agree with you about the early over-harsh grading of diamonds like 8*. To paint (crown only) to 1 click on a cutter's tang can enhance visual properties and even help some deep congifurations. But going beyond that can be problematic. There is a limit and GIA's intentions were well-meant if somewhat ham-fisted.

As far as "balanced representation" in the links I wasn't going for balance as you decide to interpret it. I provided bodies of work from three separate recognized sources.

If you have a paper on the subject you feel better-communicates to a new reader please link it. If it has value I'll definitely bookmark it for future reference.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/25/2009 6:11:56 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 11/25/2009 1:52:22 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 11/25/2009 10:28:24 AM
Author: John Pollarddocume~1/garry/locals~1/temp/__skypeietoolbar_cache/e70d95847a8f5723cfca6b3fd9946506/session/gif/offline.gif) !important" id="skype_name_injection_1_98" class="skype_name_highlight" onmouseover="event.cancelBubble" = true; event.returnvalue = false;" skypename="john_table55"> docume~1/garry/locals~1/temp/__skypeietoolbar_cache/e70d95847a8f5723cfca6b3fd9946506/session/gif/arrow.gif) !important" id="skype_name_arrow_1_98" class="skype_nh_arrow_hid" skypename="john_table55">

I like to give balanced representation, which is why I linked subject matter from GIA, AGSL and PS.

You''re right, the GIA piece is nearly 5 years old. You may remember that Brian Gavindocume~1/garry/locals~1/temp/__skypeietoolbar_cache/e70d95847a8f5723cfca6b3fd9946506/session/gif/offline.gif) !important" id="skype_name_injection_2_101" class="skype_name_highlight" onmouseover="event.cancelBubble" = true; event.returnvalue = false;" skypename="itsallinthecut"> docume~1/garry/locals~1/temp/__skypeietoolbar_cache/e70d95847a8f5723cfca6b3fd9946506/session/gif/arrow.gif) !important" id="skype_name_arrow_2_101" class="skype_nh_arrow_hid" skypename="itsallinthecut"> and I reacted strongly when it came out, and worked heavily with both GIA and AGSL to produce the third piece I linked? Reading through the different articles I trust that intelligent readers will come to intelligent conclusions.

John,
1)GAI article has wrong statements about reason for painting . they forgot account what increasing girdle thickness in halves Usually demand to decrease diameter . So painting is not good way to increase yield. for other reason GIA statement about dig-out was wrong too
2) Peter Y. did not discuss about yield, but his statements about spread could easy create wrong understanding for consumers about yield for painting diamonds and cutter motivation. I hope you remember my and Janak discussion with Peter about connection between Yield and painting-digout.
3) I did not find in Brain article information how painting changes yield.

It is mentioned on the first page Sergey. [excerpt from article]




Q: Why Paint or Dig?

1. To try and retain weight at critical points: If a diamond is close to a commercially important weight the painting approach may be used because less material is polished away. On the example below normal indexing would result in a finished diamond weighing 0.99 ct. Painting to 4 degrees - particularly on the pavilion''s long lower girdle facets - allows the commercially important 1.00 ct mark to be ''saved.''
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. To improve a verbal description of girdle thickness or clarity: For example, a very thick girdle may be dug out enough so that it will appear only ''slightly thick'' to the grader, or an inclusion could be dug-out in order to improve the clarity grade.
   
   
3. Relative to crown-only painting: To acquire desirable visual properties. A measure of crown-only painting on ''superideal'' diamonds can improve the diamond''s brightness and increase the amount of visible broadfire dispersion.

Q: Why is it said that Painting & Digging are bad?


A: Because the most common uses of painting & digging are ''swindling strategies'' in answers 1 and 2, above. What is not commonly known is that a measure of crown-only painting on superideal makes can be used to acquire desirable visual properties. Remember that the ''superideal'' category of diamonds makes up less than 1% of all round diamonds produced.

So I do not see balanced representation for painting in this 3 articles. first two create consumer scare-mondering about painting. (however most consumer will not understand last 3 pages in Peter article)

GIA''s ''scare-mongering'' was aimed in the right direction since in the old days these strategies were used to swindle. I will say again; since the 2006 grading metric was introduced some of the old tricks no longer work. I certainly agree with you about the early over-harsh grading of diamonds like 8*. To paint (crown only) to 1 click on a cutter''s tang can enhance visual properties and even help some deep congifurations. But going beyond that can be problematic. There is a limit and GIA''s intentions were well-meant if somewhat ham-fisted.

As far as ''balanced representation'' in the links I wasn''t going for balance as you decide to interpret it. I provided bodies of work from three separate recognized sources.

If you have a paper on the subject you feel better-communicates to a new reader please link it. If it has value I''ll definitely bookmark it for future reference.

John that is rather naive - in that example today the polisher would simply leave the entire girdle thicker and make 1.01ct

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Rockdiamond,

This is for you!! I borrowed it from another recent thread:

Notiice how the diamond doesn''t have a big dark ring! It has a very light ring and just shows what is underneath skin color. Put a blacksweater underneath it and you will see black.
Do as storm says and put it on red cloth you will see red.
That is major leakage! Leakage does not show up as a dark ring unless you have lack of light underneath it. That is major steep deep and all they did was place in between their fingers in direct light.

But that is a a really really poorly cut diamond not borderline steep deep and I doubt most diamonds that people ask about get 6.8 on HCA or have that much leakage.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks CCL - very relevant

Date: 11/25/2009 7:06:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/25/2009 6:11:56 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 11/25/2009 1:52:22 PM
Author: Serg



John,
1)GAI article has wrong statements about reason for painting . they forgot account what increasing girdle thickness in halves Usually demand to decrease diameter . So painting is not good way to increase yield. for other reason GIA statement about dig-out was wrong too
2) Peter Y. did not discuss about yield, but his statements about spread could easy create wrong understanding for consumers about yield for painting diamonds and cutter motivation. I hope you remember my and Janak discussion with Peter about connection between Yield and painting-digout.
3) I did not find in Brain article information how painting changes yield.

It is mentioned on the first page Sergey. [excerpt from article]






Q: Why Paint or Dig?

1. To try and retain weight at critical points: If a diamond is close to a commercially important weight the painting approach may be used because less material is polished away. On the example below normal indexing would result in a finished diamond weighing 0.99 ct. Painting to 4 degrees - particularly on the pavilion''s long lower girdle facets - allows the commercially important 1.00 ct mark to be ''saved.''
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. To improve a verbal description of girdle thickness or clarity: For example, a very thick girdle may be dug out enough so that it will appear only ''slightly thick'' to the grader, or an inclusion could be dug-out in order to improve the clarity grade.
   
   
   
3. Relative to crown-only painting: To acquire desirable visual properties. A measure of crown-only painting on ''superideal'' diamonds can improve the diamond''s brightness and increase the amount of visible broadfire dispersion.

Q: Why is it said that Painting & Digging are bad?



A: Because the most common uses of painting & digging are ''swindling strategies'' in answers 1 and 2, above. What is not commonly known is that a measure of crown-only painting on superideal makes can be used to acquire desirable visual properties. Remember that the ''superideal'' category of diamonds makes up less than 1% of all round diamonds produced.

So I do not see balanced representation for painting in this 3 articles. first two create consumer scare-mondering about painting. (however most consumer will not understand last 3 pages in Peter article)

GIA''s ''scare-mongering'' was aimed in the right direction since in the old days these strategies were used to swindle. I will say again; since the 2006 grading metric was introduced some of the old tricks no longer work. I certainly agree with you about the early over-harsh grading of diamonds like 8*. To paint (crown only) to 1 click on a cutter''s tang can enhance visual properties and even help some deep congifurations. But going beyond that can be problematic. There is a limit and GIA''s intentions were well-meant if somewhat ham-fisted.

As far as ''balanced representation'' in the links I wasn''t going for balance as you decide to interpret it. I provided bodies of work from three separate recognized sources.

If you have a paper on the subject you feel better-communicates to a new reader please link it. If it has value I''ll definitely bookmark it for future reference.

John that is rather naive - in that example today the polisher would simply leave the entire girdle thicker and make 1.01ct

A clarification re my last comment
My reference was to Brian’s article, not John''s comments, so sorry if appeared that way.

I mentioned “today” specifically because in the old days most labs graded based mainly on valley thickness. Today the thick part can be up to 5% for many labs top grades and AGS would accept a what would have been Very Thin for an occasional thin part in the valleys.
I disagree about the relevance of Brian''s article for todays grading procedures (his article was written at a time when the rules had changed) and I agree with Sergey about GIA not understanding the reasons cutters and polishers employ painting and digging.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/25/2009 6:11:56 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 11/25/2009 1:52:22 PM

Author: Serg

Date: 11/25/2009 10:28:24 AM

Author: John Pollard


I like to give balanced representation, which is why I linked subject matter from GIA, AGSL and PS.


You''re right, the GIA piece is nearly 5 years old. You may remember that Brian Gavin and I reacted strongly when it came out, and worked heavily with both GIA and AGSL to produce the third piece I linked? Reading through the different articles I trust that intelligent readers will come to intelligent conclusions.

John,

1)GAI article has wrong statements about reason for painting . they forgot account what increasing girdle thickness in halves Usually demand to decrease diameter . So painting is not good way to increase yield. for other reason GIA statement about dig-out was wrong too

2) Peter Y. did not discuss about yield, but his statements about spread could easy create wrong understanding for consumers about yield for painting diamonds and cutter motivation. I hope you remember my and Janak discussion with Peter about connection between Yield and painting-digout.

3) I did not find in Brain article information how painting changes yield.

It is mentioned on the first page Sergey. [excerpt from article]




Q: Why Paint or Dig?

1. To try and retain weight at critical points: If a diamond is close to a commercially important weight the painting approach may be used because less material is polished away. On the example below normal indexing would result in a finished diamond weighing 0.99 ct. Painting to 4 degrees - particularly on the pavilion''s long lower girdle facets - allows the commercially important 1.00 ct mark to be ''saved.''
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. To improve a verbal description of girdle thickness or clarity: For example, a very thick girdle may be dug out enough so that it will appear only ''slightly thick'' to the grader, or an inclusion could be dug-out in order to improve the clarity grade.
   
   
3. Relative to crown-only painting: To acquire desirable visual properties. A measure of crown-only painting on ''superideal'' diamonds can improve the diamond''s brightness and increase the amount of visible broadfire dispersion.

Q: Why is it said that Painting & Digging are bad?



A: Because the most common uses of painting & digging are ''swindling strategies'' in answers 1 and 2, above. What is not commonly known is that a measure of crown-only painting on superideal makes can be used to acquire desirable visual properties. Remember that the ''superideal'' category of diamonds makes up less than 1% of all round diamonds produced.

So I do not see balanced representation for painting in this 3 articles. first two create consumer scare-mondering about painting. (however most consumer will not understand last 3 pages in Peter article)

GIA''s ''scare-mongering'' was aimed in the right direction since in the old days these strategies were used to swindle. I will say again; since the 2006 grading metric was introduced some of the old tricks no longer work. I certainly agree with you about the early over-harsh grading of diamonds like 8*. To paint (crown only) to 1 click on a cutter''s tang can enhance visual properties and even help some deep congifurations. But going beyond that can be problematic. There is a limit and GIA''s intentions were well-meant if somewhat ham-fisted.


As far as ''balanced representation'' in the links I wasn''t going for balance as you decide to interpret it. I provided bodies of work from three separate recognized sources.


If you have a paper on the subject you feel better-communicates to a new reader please link it. If it has value I''ll definitely bookmark it for future reference.

Thanks John,
I missed it because I did not believe what Brain could consider connection between painting and yield without rough shape.
Yes for some rough painting cold increase yield but usually it decrease yield because if you increased thickness in half you need decrease thickness in mains( what will reduce mass much more than you won in halves) , also some times you need decrease diameter ( what has even much more strong negative influence for mass)

So all this 3 article create wrong consumer feeling about 1.00 ct painting diamonds. This is very good example of “consumer scare-mongering Labs promotion” due lack in knowledge . Brain at least showed something positive in painting for cut performance .

yes, Painting diamonds have worse( a little bit, negligible )spread than digout RBC.
But for my Opinion ( of course I did not do statistic for all type rough) average yield for painting diamonds is less than for classical diamonds and digout diamonds from same rough.

This quite opposite conclusion what consumer can received from these 3 links. Most of these authors mixed Spread and Yield .

I expected from you more attention in this subject. Usually your educated post are correct and helpful. You have great reputation on PS and should avoid to spread so misleading information ( because your are Leader in consumer education)

1.0 ct digout RBC Could be sign what cutter did digout to received
we will try find our old ( it was several years ago and it is not easy to find now) private correspondence with Labs about painting-yield and publish on PS all technical information from these correspondence

 

[Serg]

From: Sergey Sivovolenko
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2008 11:56 AM
To:
Subject: RE: painting digging etcetera

Hi ….,

Re: …….

Could we consider trivial example( Cutters do not like examples with ideal parametrical rough model, but it best type example for beginning)




Blue diamond is Cr11.25P11.25, red diamond Cr14.25P14.25

Blue diamond has diameter 6.317 and mass 1.00ct
Red diamond has diameter 6.368 and mass 1.0123. Red diamond with diameter 6.317 has mass 0.9879 according your general calculations

1) ……..

Re: ………
No. If you consider in general ( without rough model ) Cutter lost 1.2% for Cr14.25P14.25 ( -4% versus -5% ).

Without rough model classical diamond with fixed maximum girdle height has bigger mass than totally digit diamond and much bigger mass than totally painting diamond . only combination crown digit pavilion painting add yield ( PGF have bigger area than CrGF)

My advice discuss this issue with Janak. He has much bigger experience in this field than I. I have just theoretical knowledge’s . He has a lot of practices

 

[Serg]

re:Blue diamond is Cr11.25P11.25, red diamond Cr14.25P14.25

Cr11.25P11.25-are azimuths ( difference between main facets and girdle facets ) for classical RBC( zero painting or digout)
Cr14.25P14.25- are azimuths for 3 degree digout

re:Red diamond has diameter 6.368 and mass 1.0123. Red diamond with diameter 6.317 has mass 0.9879 according your general calculations

It means for such ideal crystal digout will give better yield and spread( than for classical RBC) in same time. Painting will give worse yield for same rough.


If rough is ideal crystal( sharp edges ) , cutters need use min girdle thickness to increase yield ( for such rough it significantly increase diameter ). So painting is bad idea to increase yield

if rough is rounded crystal , cutters need use max girdle thickness to received maximum yield. but painting again can not increase yield because if you had max girdle thickness and then did painting, finally you need decrease thickness in mains( what will reduce mass much bigger than you due painting)

sometimes painting could increase yield but it is not common situation. but digout is very helpful to increase yield

 

[John P]

Garry and Sergey,

Thanks John, I missed it because I did not believe what Brain could consider connection between painting and yield without rough shape.

No. It's just a conceptual drawing for laymen. Yield was not the topic of the article.

So all this 3 article create wrong consumer feeling about 1.00 ct painting diamonds. This is very good example of “consumer scare-mongering Labs promotion” due lack in knowledge . Brain at least showed something positive in painting for cut performance .

Forgive me Sergey but you're mistaken. In fact you're 180 degrees the wrong way; that article was written to combat the "scare-mongering" about painting occuring on PS at the time. Ask Garry to explain. I'm sure he recalls the circumstances.

I expected from you more attention in this subject. Usually your educated post are correct and helpful. You have great reputation on PS and should avoid to spread so misleading information ( because your are Leader in consumer education)

Thanks Sergey, that's very kind. For the record, the piece was peer-reviewed by researchers at GIA & AGSL among others. Of course the subject was painting for performance. If you think another work could better-communicate yield, including examples of rough planning/calculation specific to that topic, I'm sure such a piece would be a welcome addition here.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/26/2009 10:32:48 AM
Author: John Pollard
Garry and Sergey,

Thanks John, I missed it because I did not believe what Brain could consider connection between painting and yield without rough shape.

No. It''s just a conceptual drawing for laymen. Yield was not the topic of the article.

So all this 3 article create wrong consumer feeling about 1.00 ct painting diamonds. This is very good example of “consumer scare-mongering Labs promotion” due lack in knowledge . Brain at least showed something positive in painting for cut performance .

Forgive me Sergey but you''re mistaken. In fact you''re 180 degrees the wrong way; that article was written to combat the ''scare-mongering'' about painting occuring on PS at the time. Ask Garry to explain. I''m sure he recalls the circumstances.

I expected from you more attention in this subject. Usually your educated post are correct and helpful. You have great reputation on PS and should avoid to spread so misleading information ( because your are Leader in consumer education)

Thanks Sergey, that''s very kind. For the record, the piece was peer-reviewed by researchers at GIA & AGSL among others. Of course the subject was painting for performance. If you think another work could better-communicate yield, including examples of rough planning/calculation specific to that topic, I''m sure such a piece would be a welcome addition here.

John,

re:Forgive me Sergey but you''re mistaken. In fact you''re 180 degrees the wrong way; that article was written to combat the ''scare-mongering'' about painting occuring on PS at the time.

please reread my post:
1)So all these 3 articles create wrong consumer feeling about 1.00 ct painting diamonds.
2) This is very good example of “consumer scare-mongering Labs promotion” due lack in knowledge .
3) Brain at least showed something positive in painting for cut performance .

 

[Rhino]

Date: 11/26/2009 11:23:46 AM
Author: Serg


John,

re:Forgive me Sergey but you''re mistaken. In fact you''re 180 degrees the wrong way; that article was written to combat the ''scare-mongering'' about painting occuring on PS at the time.

please reread my post:
1)So all these 3 articles create wrong consumer feeling about 1.00 ct painting diamonds.
2) This is very good example of “consumer scare-mongering Labs promotion” due lack in knowledge .
3) Brain at least showed something positive in painting for cut performance .

Sergey do you mean 1 click or 1ct?

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/27/2009 12:02:22 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 11/26/2009 11:23:46 AM

Author: Serg



John,


re:Forgive me Sergey but you''re mistaken. In fact you''re 180 degrees the wrong way; that article was written to combat the ''scare-mongering'' about painting occuring on PS at the time.


please reread my post:

1)So all these 3 articles create wrong consumer feeling about 1.00 ct painting diamonds.

2) This is very good example of “consumer scare-mongering Labs promotion” due lack in knowledge .

3) Brain at least showed something positive in painting for cut performance .

Sergey do you mean 1 click or 1ct?

Rhino, I mean 1.00 carat painting diamonds.

See message from Brain Gavin Article :

"To try and retain weight at critical points: If a diamond is close to a commercially important weight the painting approach may be used because less material is polished away. On the example below normal indexing would result in a finished diamond weighing 0.99 ct. Painting to 4 degrees - particularly on the pavilion''s long lower girdle facets - allows the commercially important 1.00 ct mark to be ''saved."

all 3 articles create wrong consumer feeling about 1.00 carat(3.00ct,..) painting diamonds

 

[Karl_K]

oh fun painting.

No question painting can help some combos and hurt others.
What the main debate was about was the all red Ideal-scope BS marketing that was going on.
Taking the hit in scintillation and contrast for marketing was the problem.

 

[Rhino]

Understood Serg. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Stephan]

Wow, Jim, nr 1 looks gorgeous.
I really love long star facets. (even on a steep/deep ?!?)

 

[brellymom]

GIA Triple EX, Table 56, Crown 35, Pav 41.2
Steep Deep?
No fancy photography - though the ring doesn''t always show up so pronounced, I did have to take quite a few to capture it!