Painting: Stop the madness

A comparison to internet color and clarity judgments:
 
We all know color grading, done from the side, is not absolute - since cut influences face-up appearance.  A well-cut G (or lower) may face-up with little, if any, color.
 
Thanks to mature education Pricescope members realize this, and counsel accordingly.  They don’t create fear about color.  They give appropriate advice.  As a seller of well-cut diamonds we are expected to report face-up color accurately when asked, just as we are expected to report accurately on ‘eye-clean.’  If we do not it will certainly come back to haunt us.
 
GIA’s painting judgment must be treated the same way.  For now GIA still views diamonds from the side to see painting so (like color) there is no way to be sure how the diamond ‘faces up’ unless you have it in-hand.

(The AGS incorporates this judgment in their light performance grade:  Any diamond not receiving the strict numerical values for brightness, dispersion, contrast and leakage will not get the AGS 0 Ideal grade.  This is a logical, face-up assessment of painting.)

The ‘madness’

Seller X should not take aim at seller Y’s product, directly or indirectly, over judgments that can only be made with the individual diamond in-hand:  These include face-up specifics of color or clarity from any lab, and brillianteering the way GIA approaches it at this time.

Example:  Our company would not warn people away from competitors’ GIA SI1 diamonds, claiming they can have inclusions and our eye-clean judgment is more elite.  We would not warn that competitors’ GIA H rounds could show more tint than ones we would approve.  To do so would be idle speculation, and a breach of etiquette.

Pricescope is self-patrolled.  As sellers, we earn our reputations through truthful representation and delivery of diamonds that delight and perform; to intelligent and very discriminating consumers who post here.

We will not enjoy a top reputation if we misrepresent things.  It is that simple.

If sellers use blanket judgments to attack competitor’s products they don’t actually have in-hand the animosity and fear created may threaten the environment we currently enjoy on Pricescope.

Wink Jones
GG
Winfield's/High Performance Diamonds

........... Karl has joined the diamond trade and is now posting as Karl_K

(*•.¸(`*•.¸¸.•*´)¸.•*)
¨`•.¸ *belle*¸.• ´¨
(¸.•*(¸.•*´ `*•.¸)*•.¸)

Rhino
Good Old Gold

Rhino
Good Old Gold

Date: 5/31/2006 11:07:40 AM
Author: belle

using your si example, what is NOT fine is for a vendor to say 'all si1-si2 diamonds are not eye clean' without ever looking at the diamond itself to judge. you cannot make a blanket statement about eye-clean and you can NOT make a blanket statement with painting.

let's address what created the situation.
1. rhino implying that all painted diamonds are bad
2. you agreeing with this even though you have admitted to not seeing many (any?).

should we also address exactly what you have based your claims on, since you never answered me in the other thread?

Rhino
Good Old Gold

........... Karl has joined the diamond trade and is now posting as Karl_K

Rhino
Good Old Gold

i am SO OVER this whole subject and conversation.

these discussions are such moot points. no one is going to change their point of view or their preference to suit someone else nor is anyone else going to have a blinding epiphany about what they *really* want to see in their diamond based on what is said here.

where i see people doing a disservice to the customers are when they blanket statement all of the painted stones aka 'i don't like painted stones'. or tout GIA as knowing what they are doing by dinging painted stones by saying that they MUST be overpainted to be dinged. i have a stone right here on my hand that is not overpainted and it was dinged by GIA. go figure?

let the customer choose by their own eye or their own requirements. all this confusion and discussion led one of the PS'ers here to buy one of each in order to try to determine what HIS eyes saw. while that is fabulous, not everyone should have to do that in order to determine if their eye will dislike a painted stone. it's splitting hairs between absolutely amazingly well-cut stones. IMO having seen many of both types of stone (which is more than can be said by many consumers here), both styles are beautiful, amazing, stunning. i would be happy with either style of cut. INVENTORY may play a huge part in if a consumer ends up with a classic-ish or painted kind of stone. i don't think that people should be narrowing down the field of inventory from an already small funnel into an even smaller one.

lastly, rhino, you could be viewed as touting GIA and dinging the painted stones because you pretty much ONLY CARRY classic stones!! whereas WF sells both. of course both of you believe very strongly in your own product. so that is where the vendor discussing other vendor's goods really comes into play. i do see influence trying to happen couched in high-brow terminology, but that has always really been the case to me...this is nothing new. but this discussion on the painted vs non, the good and the bad, how many threads have there been on this stuff? and they ALWAYS end up the same way. it's just an old, tired song.

________________________________

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

-Albert Einstein

Marty Haske GG(GIA), Senior Member NAJA, ISA Appraisal Trained(past ISA), BS(MIT)/MS(MIT)
Adamas Gemological Laboratory

Marty Haske GG(GIA), Senior Member NAJA, ISA Appraisal Trained(past ISA), BS(MIT)/MS(MIT)
Adamas Gemological Laboratory

it is always harder to find a "mind clean" stone than a eye clean stone.

(*•.¸(`*•.¸¸.•*´)¸.•*)
¨`•.¸ *belle*¸.• ´¨
(¸.•*(¸.•*´ `*•.¸)*•.¸)

I was referring to our conversation in this thread Marty.

http://www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?mode=viewtopic&topicID=41869&num=30&pageNo=5 

I had stated:

Which is why, as always, the consumer must do their homework as well as the gemologist. While experts may agree/disagree on certain issues in each of the cut grading systems, the consumer who doesn't feel like looking into these things is safest getting a stone that falls into the top grade of both. My suggestion of course, if there are disparaging opinions, would be to view both side by side and pick the stone they like best of course.

Your response:

I agree

If you meant something different or have changed your opinion I respect that but this is what I remember.

Peace,

Rhino
Good Old Gold

Date: 5/31/2006 2:28:43 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 5/31/2006 11:23:15 AM
Author: Rhino
So if a consumer comes on these boards and is looking for professional opinions, those who disagree with yours should not post? I assume you are writing this in response to the thread 'Why would anyone object to painting?' A person asked a question soliciting opinions. I gave mine and the logical reasons behind my opinion. It would have never gone beyond that were it not for the continuing discussion and even in that continuing discussion you do not find me exhibiting bad etiquette. As long as freedom of speech exists, if a person is looking for an opinion (even if it was regarding color, clarity, SI1's, SI2's or whatever) I will share mine and shouldn't be made to feel any different because my opinion differs on this matter. Not once in all the years I've been on these boards do I target a competitors product and knock it. The question regarded the issue of painting and I have my opinion and on a public forum there is nothing wrong with me to share it. That's all I'll say on the matter.

Jon
LOL...very time when this topic comes up, i think you better go hide in your BAT CAVE !!! J/K

Rhino
Good Old Gold

Marty Haske GG(GIA), Senior Member NAJA, ISA Appraisal Trained(past ISA), BS(MIT)/MS(MIT)
Adamas Gemological Laboratory

"Your liberty to wave of hands is over on the nose boundary of your opponent".
Can anybody give original expression of judge who investigate case about scuffle in the Great Britain Parliament at the beginning of its foundation?

GIA is free to create any cut grade systems. At the same time GIA surely beat somebody's nose under any created system.
Accordingly the observers will divide into different groups depending on their relation to beaten noses. Somebody will glad that their nose is safe. Somebody will glad that competitor beaten nose . For somebody it doesn't matter. Somebody will be indignant why liked for him nose had been beat. Somebody will be not satisfied that not liked for him nose is safe.

Somebody will ask: is it possible to behave more carefully and deliberately?

Rhino,
 we have liberty of choice of camp. Unfortunately at present moment we belong to different camps. And when somebody talk to you (evidently or not) that you are from another camp then it is statement of fact  but not attack on your nose. Greatly more global and not controlled by you processes threaten your nose like for example GIA actions.

we are in different camps because
1) we differently estimate future prospect of GIA System. I consider probable changing of GIA position in the area of Painting in the nearest 5 years.
I consider that it is possible to create infrastructure for limitation of casual wave of fists in which Labs brands have been transformed (not Labs but exactly their brands).
2) we differently draw border between statements and arguments.
3) we differently behave toward foreigner  arguments.
4) we have different understandings what is scientific experiment.

Rhino,
 I suggest you to think why technology of Painting spread on the market in spite of opposition from the GIA side.
Yield can not be the reason (here GIA was mistaken showing its total incompetence in given question).
The leakage decreasing and marketing tricks are not enough reasons to go against GIA.
So why it happens?
We are disagree in the consequences of this phenomena.
May be it is better to find the reason?

Also think about this: in the classic RBC the angle between main facets and girdle facets is exactly 11.25 degrees.
Is the reason of choice of this angle enough to consider that it is optimal angle for RBC?
What were really alternatives?
For what proportions (for example, table size) this angle had been choose among other possible combinations?
How have alternatives been changed for this angle since then?
 I recommend to think about these questions before you will continue your Mission.

Sergey Sivovolenko
CEO OctoNus

_____________________
Note: Chainsaw Not Sold Separately.

~~~ When in doubt...don't.~~~

Date: 6/1/2006 10:22:36 AM
Author: fire&ice
Not that I really have anything constructive to add to this ad nauseum discussion EXCEPT that these nano spec discussions SUCK THE LIFE out of diamonds.

I'm really waiting to see a thread on 'What effects/affects will my diamond have if I bake a Lemon Pie?' What if I eat it?

That really depends. Did you paint the edges of your diamond's crust with egg white before baking? Because you know non-painted au naturel crust pies are WAY BETTER than the painted crust pies. Or so I hear anyway...

________________________________

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

-Albert Einstein

In the time I’ve been at JCK there has been strong reaction here.  I’m glad for the opportunity to hear and address different perceptions. 

First, thank you for all opinions.

DiamondSeeker:  I’m sorry if it seems I am posting frivolously.  I did not explain that our company is receiving regular inquiries regarding ‘painted’ diamonds as a result of late discussions here.  In more than one case a customer has eliminated a wonderful candidate from his/her search based on no more than feelings of doubt.  You actually may have seen painted stones before, but they’d not be identified as such in the mainstream.  They can be indistinguishable from others.  Sadly the impression given on this forum is that ‘painting’ is something which is always identifiable, like a different style of dress.  It’s not.

F&I:  I understand, re: nano-spec discussions.  This particular ‘nano’ overlaps with broad consumer choice.  Mara, Belle, Dhog, Lynn B, Stephan, MikeMaz (off the top of my head) or any number of consumers who adore their diamonds might have excluded them from consideration based on empty fears if they entered the PS forum today.  That is what is occurring because of the ‘buzz.’  In our case it’s resulting in needless worry, extra time and sometimes extra expense for customers.  I hope this details our concern.

Strm:  I don’t think any vendors have posted pictures, called names or hate the GIA.  We have a long-standing relationship with GIA and still send them diamonds, despite concerns with the new system.  I would be interested in you viewing diamonds with different proportions/degrees of painting to broaden your perceptions about them.

Rhino:  I can illustrate your historical inconsistencies and patterns if you like, but I’d prefer to stay on-topic.  My point is simple:  Among professionals participating in this internet sales medium it’s not proper to create doubt about an aspect of a competitor’s product that must be seen to be determined.  Do you agree?

(warning…nano-tech follows)

Perhaps a solution:  If you can develop a reference of azimuth deviation for superideals close to Tolkowsky (1 degree is too much, 5 is too much, 7 is too much) we can begin to speak intelligently in terms of what may or may not influence performance.  Until you do so, blanket use of this term will continue to be a problem other vendors must address, especially considering the information I received yesterday indicating that common ACA New Line examples, and another manufacturer’s diamond, would not receive deductions.

A business is best built by working to create trust and faith in your own product.  Such trust is hard to create when generalities are being used to describe something specific.  Broad use of the word ‘painting’ is profiling and (in the words of the great Ron White) ‘profiling’s wrong.’

Sorry for the late bump...  If you’re sick of this subject I hope you never made it this far.

John

__________________________

John Pollard

Whiteflash Director of Education 2004-2007

~~~ When in doubt...don't.~~~

Bill Leiberum
1948-2007
Thanks for everything and Rest In Peace,Bill.