2006 GIA grading report - Post info here please

[belle]

Date: 1/27/2006 2:02:11 PM
Author: Serg

Belle,

Last several years I strongly recommended to all our clients of HR and Pacor to use processors Intel. Especially I increasing my recommendations after appearing of Hyperthreading in processors.
Last year I didn''t so insist and even sometimes provide the systems on the base of processors AMD.
At present moment after appearing of processors AMD dual core I recommend to use AMD processors. They are more fast and less noisy.
See... http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/pacor/performance.phtml
I don''t sell any processors. Do you consider that my actions are ''some AMD hype here''?

If no, then why is somebody under your criticism if he recommended Sarin early but now he recommends Helium.

It is not attack, I want show to you other side of coin only.

Along with this I am not glad at advertising of Helium on the PS. It is only problem for us. Unfortunately we haven''t opportunity to work on American market for experts.
All our efforts are directed in the Indian market. There is question what technology will be winner and will be more spread.

do you demand that everyone using a computer ask for amd processors even though intel are perfectly capable of doing the job in most situations? the critisism is not over a simple recommendation but of the complete dismissal of what served, and is still capable of serving, the majority of people here. i understand the quest for increased accuracy. especially by scientists such as marty and yourself, but for others not on such a mission to frivolously disregard one technology and demand another is not necessarily serving the greater purpose here.

 

[RockDoc]

Belle

I agree with you totally,but I think the point here that is being missed, are the leaders of a particular product such as Sarin or Intel are certainly astute enough that when there is a shortcoming discovered it will be corrected.

Technology changes constantly. Who''s to say that maybe at this moment of time Helium is more accurate than Sarin. Doesn''t it make perfect logical sense that if that is really so that Sarin will change or amend any such shortcoming?

Sarin updates their software, frequently, and it is far better now than it was several years ago. The same for Intel. If AMD comes up with something a little better, will Intel not adapt even better ways of addressing what might be their perceived shortcoming in the market.

Technology is sort of like leapfrog. Advancing technology is certainly part of staying in business for those in the technology marketplace.

But before I''d call Sarin or Intel asleep at the switch, in comparison with Intel or Sarin, the thrust of staying in the lead is paramount to a company''s success, and those like Sarin and Intel are not going to be comatose and unresponsive and will undoubtly jump back into "first place", thus moving the challenge to the next horse to run the race a little faster. This is good for everyone. We just have to sit back see what happens.

Rockdoc

 

[Serg]

Belle,

I am understanding your position, but I am disagree.

Re: do you demand that everyone using a computer ask for AMD processors even though Intel are perfectly capable of doing the job in most situations? the critisism is not over a simple recommendation but of the complete dismissal of what served, and is still capable of serving, the majority of people here

Yes for most current office tasks does not matter which processor you are using. Current AMD processors for desk stop computer is much better( not a little better) then Intel processors. But Intel has 77% of current market sells, because :
1)For most clients it is does not matter, they do not like change anything
2)‘If you buy Intel CPU and Intel CPU broke it is not you problem for you. If you change tradition and buy AMD CPU and AMD broke You can receive troubles from you chief ’
3)A lot of client are thinking Intel is best

But AMD desktop CPU is more faster or more cheap for same performance.

Criticism is very important part of progress. I am doing a lot of critic of GIA and AGS cut grade system. I sure I do important work for market( BTW I have not any cut grading system), I try push GIA and AGS improve cut grading system.

BTW. Do you know Why GIA are doing human grade of type girdle and thickness girdle? ‘..because current scanners can not measure girdle with good enough accuracy..it is from GIA presentation new cut grade system ’ Helium can do it, GIA know it. Current scanners for GIA are Sarin and OGI. GIA use your policy (i understand the quest for increased accuracy. especially by scientists such as marty and yourself, but for others not on such a mission to frivolously disregard one technology and demand another is not necessarily serving the greater purpose here. )

We can do scanner with accuracy much better than Helium. This scanner is necessary for labs and manufacture. It can save a lot of money for labs and help cut more perfect diamonds.

We are not doing such scanner . Do you know why?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/28/2006 9:17:47 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 1/27/2006 2:54:34 AM
Author: adamasgem

I believe what Garry really means is that AGS uses the Sarin generated mesh data (wire frame model) of the facets and not the RAW data that Sarin uses to generate those.

I don''t thnk anyone has access to that data..

Wait a minute, if not... where do these funky drawings come from?

(someone cited these from Jonathan''s site a while ago and there was some discussion).

Val.. Good example of Sarin''s problems with EightStar style of cutting and small angular differences between facet angles (painted girdles) That is why, I believe AGS currently would get a Helium scan, because they would recognized the scan as no good.

 

[belle]

i fully understand your position as well sergey and like you, i am just trying to show the other side of the coin. i''m glad to know there is some understanding at least..and a little disagreement is always good

Date: 1/28/2006 12:47:10 PM
Author: Serg

Yes for most current office tasks does not matter which processor you are using. Current AMD processors for desk stop computer is much better( not a little better) then Intel processors. But Intel has 77% of current market sells, because :
1)For most clients it is does not matter, they do not like change anything
2)‘If you buy Intel CPU and Intel CPU broke it is not you problem for you. If you change tradition and buy AMD CPU and AMD broke You can receive troubles from you chief ’
3)A lot of client are thinking Intel is best

i disagree with this, partly because of the reasons rockdoc outlined above about technology. but again..i think we understand eachothers point, so there is no use in continuing on this front.

Date: 1/28/2006 12:47:10 PM
Author: Serg


Criticism is very important part of progress. I am doing a lot of critic of GIA and AGS cut grade system. I sure I do important work for market( BTW I have not any cut grading system), I try push GIA and AGS improve cut grading system.

BTW. Do you know Why GIA are doing human grade of type girdle and thickness girdle? ‘..because current scanners can not measure girdle with good enough accuracy..it is from GIA presentation new cut grade system ’ Helium can do it, GIA know it. Current scanners for GIA are Sarin and OGI. GIA use your policy (i understand the quest for increased accuracy. especially by scientists such as marty and yourself, but for others not on such a mission to frivolously disregard one technology and demand another is not necessarily serving the greater purpose here. )

We can do scanner with accuracy much better than Helium. This scanner is necessary for labs and manufacture. It can save a lot of money for labs and help cut more perfect diamonds.

We are not doing such scanner . Do you know why?

i am leary of the motives of gia and would like to see improved cut grading as well, so unfortunately only sarcastic comments are coming to mind in response to your question.

so for the sake of science, feel free to give your view on it.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/28/2006 1:52:34 PM
Author: belle

i am leary of the motives of gia and would like to see improved cut grading as well, so unfortunately only sarcastic comments are coming to mind in response to your question.

so for the sake of science, feel free to give your view on it.

Belle I know the post was to Sergey but:

Leary ? What would EVER make you leary of their motives($$$$)?

Couldn''t resist...

 

[adamasgem]

Wow!!!! This is off the current subject, but CONGRATULATIONS are in order
to GIA's Gems & Gemology. And I mean it sincerely!!!!!!!

http://www.gia.edu/gemsandgemology/31265/19341980_back_issues.cfm

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/28/2006 9:57:22 AM
Author: Regular Guy
The idea wasn''t popular when I first suggested it, but...

Date: 1/28/2006 12:30:04 AM
Author: adamasgem
I can''t take credit for anything other than reformatting to a pdf file

...with this sort of data, who can resist Ven 0 (the place where AGS and GIA agree on ideal).

Ira can you resist the part where gIA is very different to AGS?
Can you resist the stones with the proportions that AGS give ideal and GIA give VG and Good?

I am afraid it makes me feel ill, not happy that there is some coincidence of the data.

I am also saddened that GIA has attempted to restrict this information from the market by not publishing the charts that they said they would in August. The latest I heard is they are at the printer - but we heard that in Novemebr. Very very slow printers. ETA is expected to be Feb now. I will believe it when I see it.

So folks I guess we can expect to see a lot of GIA Excellent''s, and a lot less well cut under sizes; no more 80''s 90''s 1.30''s 170''s 2.40''s etc

 

[Serg]

Belle,

Re:..i think we understand eachothers point, so there is no use in continuing on this front.

You are right.

 

[Serg]

Marty, Thanks

Good news. Thanks GIA.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/28/2006 2:42:14 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Ira can you resist the part where gIA is very different to AGS?
Can you resist the stones with the proportions that AGS give ideal and GIA give VG and Good?

I am afraid it makes me feel ill, not happy that there is some coincidence of the data.

I am also saddened that GIA has attempted to restrict this information from the market by not publishing the charts that they said they would in August. The latest I heard is they are at the printer - but we heard that in Novemebr. Very very slow printers. ETA is expected to be Feb now. I will believe it when I see it.

So folks I guess we can expect to see a lot of GIA Excellent's, and a lot less well cut under sizes; no more 80's 90's 1.30's 170's 2.40's etc

Hopefully, they will do some "re-thinking" of their original logic behind their expanded grading "gifts" to the trade, and delay that publication until after they have fixed, what seems to me, at least, obviously very broken.

To borrow a quote "But that is only my opinion, and I may be wrong"

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Reprinting a chart is very little work compared to re-issuing grading reports and the huge effort to reprogram all the acanners and planning devices in maufacturers.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/28/2006 11:13:16 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Reprinting a chart is very little work compared to re-issuing grading reports and the huge effort to reprogram all the acanners and planning devices in maufacturers.

What they ought to do is have two grades, one what "science" tells them, and two what the "surveys" tell them. Would be interesting to see the overlap.

But when the "science" is distorted as to viewing environment, then there is a problem.

 

[Serg]

I read G&G 1935 and 1953 years. I found a lot of interesting articles. See for example article Procedures for Cutting and Grading of Diamonds by George R. Kaplan G&G Winter 1953-1954

http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/gemsandgemology/freebackissues/winter_1953.pdf

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/29/2006 2:44:59 PM
Author: Serg
I read G&G 1935 and 1953 years. I found a lot of interesting articles. See for example article Procedures for Cutting and Grading of Diamonds by George R. Kaplan G&G Winter 1953-1954


http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/gemsandgemology/freebackissues/winter_1953.pdf

That is interesting the diamond he is talking about other than the wide culet would be one id buy.
The lgf would be a little shorter than I like but it would be kicken.

 

[strmrdr]

simulated IS image

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/29/2006 3:01:00 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/29/2006 2:44:59 PM
Author: Serg
I read G&G 1935 and 1953 years. I found a lot of interesting articles. See for example article Procedures for Cutting and Grading of Diamonds by George R. Kaplan G&G Winter 1953-1954


http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/gemsandgemology/freebackissues/winter_1953.pdf

That is interesting the diamond he is talking about other than the wide culet would be one id buy.
The lgf would be a little shorter than I like but it would be kicken.

George is a true gentleman, and I've had the distinct pleasure of knowing him, as it was George who had Larzare Kaplan purchase a couple of SAS2000's for General Electrics's use in the GEPOL project, before the "world" (including GIA) knew what was going on with HPHT.

George has contributed greatly to the field of diamond cutting.

I haven't spoken with him in a few years, but I recommend that people look at his Letter to the Editor in the Summer 2002 issue of Gems & Gemology regarding GIA's cut grade research. It deals with issues like what happens when you tilt a stone and start seeing the girdle reflection in the table, and although differently, addresses issues I have also raised about using a singular faceup viewpoint for cut evaluation.

 

[rstillin]

maybe this is appropriate here: I took the IS and Sarin Info from WF ES search. The Cert # was used to look up the cut info from GIA''s cert search. How does GIA rate this cut as "fair"?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/29/2006 3:28:22 PM
Author: rstillin
maybe this is appropriate here: I took the IS and Sarin Info from WF ES search. The Cert # was used to look up the cut info from GIA''s cert search. How does GIA rate this cut as ''fair''?

Dart boards ???????? Polish?????

 

[JohnQuixote]

No. Rounding issues I reported in the first few pages of this thread. Buggy.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/29/2006 3:54:20 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
No. Rounding issues I reported in the first few pages of this thread. Buggy.

GIGO...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The good polish grade can only result in a downgrade to Very Good.

Is there something worng with the girdle in 1 spot?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Oh - it has painted upper girdles - so that means 8* too will probably get GIA fair.
Anyone got an 8* GIA retort # to check them?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/29/2006 6:13:42 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Anyone got an 8* GIA retort # to check them?

A portentous typo, mon wizard of Oz.

 

[RockDoc]

I haven''t seen a new report on an 8*. But I have seen ones before they started the Cut Grade Analysis.


GIA graded a lot of 8 star''s stones just good or very good, in the symmetry and polish conclusions in their reports.

I informed 8* to send back such grades and ask them WHY they downgraded them. It is my opinion that the flaw in the system previously is that they don''t take into consideration how much the pavilion facets are so intricantly aimed in both the sloope angle as well as the yaw angle in issuing their conclusions.

The article about painting appears to report that painting the crown, girdle, and pavilion is a negative aspect.

I advised 8* at that time to resibmit the stones, and ask why they only got good polish and symmetry ratings, rather than good or Very Good. In the few stones that were sent back GIA did correct the symmetry and polish grade of these stones to excellent and avoided coming up with a true explanation for the downgraded ratings from excellent to "whatever".

I''d be curious to see newer eightstars with the new grading report to see if they changed their stance on this, but I suspect they haven''t.


Rockdoc