2006 GIA grading report - Post info here please

[belle]

Date: 1/12/2006 10:56:04 PM
Author: michaelgem

Belle,

Do you really see the efforts at educational interaction and understanding going on here as 'helium commercials and imagem commercials and gia commercials'?

yes and no.

of course there is some great exchange of information going on here, but certainly i see the same players in the same roles touting the same thing once again. it just makes it a little harder to separate the wheat from the chaff is all. i am looking forward to the continued educational interaction and the sharing of *new* information.


btw... sir john, i was not referring to you.

i happen to think there is merit in the new gia system. i don't agree at all with the rounding, but i think it is a step in the right direction and will serve consumers as a whole better than before.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/12/2006 11:42:18 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/12/2006 10:42:28 PM
Author: adamasgem

Garry..

By rerounding so that the diameter goes down (7.19-->7.1, the table percentage goes up automatically, even though you havent touched the table physically I just checked this Marty and it changes by 0.1% - not enough to get 55.7% to 56.1% - I was speaking generically, but you are right there.. I have no clue as to what goes on internally in the SARIN software, whether they use the "true" numbers and then round the result, or round each set, divide to get percentage and reround. They may even calculate each of the 4 table % by dividing by the diameter along that particular baseline.


and that is aside from the fact that lowering the crown angle must make the table SMALLER not bigger by +0.1% - so even allowing for all the rounding and diameter reduction factors you mention - this is impossible - so the algoritms are ????????? Maybe ..notice the crown height numbers will change also Table size, crown height and crown angle are interrelated, if you do the caluclations, there is no mathematical consistency in the numbers given for table size, crown height and crown angle

Tan(CA)= (crown height %)/(50-0.5 * table%)
original...
Tan(CA) = 15.5/(50 - 0.5*55.7) =15.5/22.15=0.699774 -----> 34.98 degrees not 35.7 deg

now the new recut
Tan(CA)= 15.8/(50-0.5*56.1)=15.8/21.95=0.719818------> 35.74 not 35.6

So I don''t know which numbers presented are right, wrong or fudged..averaged, rounded internal.. you cant get there from here if my math is correct

And I''ve alway been commenting that SARIN numbers don''t add up when you look at a manufacturers report or the "averages" put on paper.. (In GIA''s defense, maybe that''s why they never used them, although they were the best at the time)..

Now the SRN file mesh data will tell you about SARIN''s idea of meet point faceting which will effect these numbers, which we have discussed before..




same bed

Sarin are GIA''s resellers - they both have an interest in selling this software package - but we were promised there would be a chart made available for appraisers - which is apperantly ''at the printer''. Very slow printers

Me thinks the sales of software will die immediately the printers have finished their work (that has taken more than 6 months).

BTW is it fair and reasonable for a not for profit authority to sell the result of industry funded research?

Good question Garry, but that''s the way the world turns. I''ve always asked why everything at GIA/GTL is proprietary and not open on the same basis.. Seems to me that there are TAX dollars at work indirectly the way GIA is structured.

 

[Serg]

re:I''ve always asked why everything at GIA/GTL is proprietary and not open on the same basis..

If GIA open grading ( clarity, color, cut,..) standard, Gia and some other lubs will bankrupt after several years( Indian or China graders will win, may be IGI too) . this way is not good for diamond industry too.

Not good choice: secret standards or bankrupt GIA. Most in industry prefer secret standards.

Marty,
Do you have other alternative?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/13/2006 2:25:22 AM
Author: Serg

re:I''ve always asked why everything at GIA/GTL is proprietary and not open on the same basis..

If GIA open grading ( clarity, color, cut,..) standard, Gia and some other lubs will bankrupt after several years( Indian or China graders will win, may be IGI too) . this way is not good for diamond industry too.

Not good choice: secret standards or bankrupt GIA. Most in industry prefer secret standards.

Marty,
Do you have other alternative?

There are few a alternatives Sergey.. But right now it is all about money and sales and perception of goodness, or rarity, or protection of some in the "trade".

Maybe the government should step in, and kicks some butt and effectively takes over the defacto role of the proprietary G-D that GIA has created as its role.

This is done by exposure of the changing "standards", or lack thereof, in most all areas of the trade. I''ve tried a little of that with my article http://www.adamasgem.com/giafluor.html . That is a class action case waiting to happen.

A standard is not a STANDARD unless it is explictly and openly defined, and reproducable, and FIXED, not constantly changing at the whim of one organization or cartel.

Standards should only be changed to narrow and more explicitly define their meaning, not arbitrarily broaden their definition to line the pockets of certain elements of the trade.

I''d first like to see the GIA master "master" stones turned over to NIST for scientific definition, for example.. I''d love to have them subpeoned under appropriate circumstances.
I once tried to get spectral measurments on the CIBJO masters at SSEF, but that was refused, same thing.

As to the current fiasco regarding cut grading, as to what is the "best", no one seems to want to really define what is inside the black box. A private organization can regard things like that as proprietary, one that is effectively funded by the government by tax deductable contributions as a 501-3c, might be subject to something like Freeom of Information Act "requests", any lawyers out there???? Send me a email.. I believe their finanials are supposedly available by anyone, so why not other "proprietary" information that effects so many..

Of course, as Rocdoc suggested, we could always turn to the AGS standards, which are more openly defined, and ignore things like FARCEWARE(TM) altogether, or force them (GIA) to start doing things "right" by discusions like this.

I''ve been very explicit with GIA''s president, telling him in the past that there are two problems with GIA:
1) The not invented here syndrome
2) The inability to admit mistakes.

Needless to say, I''m not on their Christmas card list lately

(Although one time I was

).

Some management and attitude changes are needed, and I''ll do my part to contribute to that effort, especially the attitude issue, and the seemingly blackhole that exists there, and the inability of GIA researchers to freely and openly communicate because of the large sums of monies involved. GIA has a lot of good people, but they are unfortunately muzzeled, and quite a few have gotten fed up with the internal politics and left.

I don''t know the answer

, but it certainly isn''t solved by sitting back and blindly accepting GIGO

Maybe some of us should get together at the GRC in August and put our collective ideas together..

 

[Serg]

If GIA open grading ( clarity, color, cut,..) internal standard, Gia and some other lubs will bankrupt after several years( Indian or China graders will win, may be IGI too) . this way is not good for diamond industry too.

Not good choice: secret internal standards or bankrupt GIA. Most in industry prefer secret standards.

Marty,
I fixed.

Do anobody know alternative?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/13/2006 4:33:57 AM
Author: Serg


If GIA open grading ( clarity, color, cut,..) internal standard, Gia and some other lubs will bankrupt after several years( Indian or China graders will win, may be IGI too) . this way is not good for diamond industry too.
Yup, the key word is "internal"
What they taught to studentss and what they did and do are often two different things. and I''ve often complained about it.

Not good choice: secret internal standards or bankrupt GIA. Most in industry prefer secret standards.


Secret standards can be changed on a whim of the power brokers..

Marty,
I fixed.

Do anobody know alternative?

 

[Serg]

re:Speaking of balance and fairness, AGS has made important mistakes as well, and I do not see anyone on Pricescope exposing them. I am sure you are aware of some of them, but you chose not to criticize them.

It is not right.
I showed on PS two bigest erorr AGS cut grade.

1) Mono viewer. Not correct account leakage for P 41.5 Cr 35. I wrote it several time on PS . I more agree with GIA grade than AGS grade for such diamonds.

2) ASET system for grade fancy cut


see for example https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/an-ags-view-of-gia-steep-deep-excellent.32764/

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/12/2006 7:01:18 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Good question John.

Thanks Garry, still hoping you can concise the obscuration info. I''d like to know where they came up with such wide obscuration as an average (if they did).

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/12/2006 8:34:15 PM
Author: Capitol Bill

Date: 1/12/2006 7:57:43 PM
Author: strmrdr

GIA should do it right or not at all.

Amen. Now that's concise!
Bill

I don’t know, guys. Turn this around and it seems like you're saying AGS should not have graded cut ’96-05.

Did you know (?)

> In 1996 AGS gave 41.5/35.8 Ideal, but that won’t get EX from GIA in 2006.
> Now AGS gives 41.2/35.8 Ideal on old DQDs, but it won’t get EX from GIA with D > 62.9%
> Now AGS gives shallow/shallow Ideal on old DQDs, but some won’t get EX from GIA.

2006 GIA is stricter than 1996-2005 AGS.
So was it a mistake for AGS to grade cut for 10 years? I don't think so.

As Serg shows, we have taken AGS to task, but I don't recall saying they should have done it 'not at all.'

Date: 1/12/2006 7:57:43 PM
Author: strmrdr

Besides I can see it now:

a: is this the most awesome diamond in the world, gia says it rates EX
me: no its steep/deep...

hmmmm i should make that into a play!

LOL. Funny play, Strm

Don’t worry though, life doesn't have to change for you. Newbies will post and you can say ‘earrings or pendant’ or ‘steep/deep’ using your DiamCalc. If they have a GIA doc you can still tell them to get a Helium/Sarin. If they say “But it’s GIA EX” you can say the same as when they say “But it’s IDEAL’ with 41+/35+… You can say ‘pass,’ and not give it a 'kewl or congrates or kicken'

unless you like it. Same as it ever was.

I allready know how to find the diamonds I want to buy :}

And in the world of PS that helps. In our PS fishtank the friendly Strmfish and his friends can guide and guard the minnows, but the real world is bigger. Strmfish do not swim the streets in the real world, but there are sharks. AGS and GIA have helped the shark problem: Now a 41.5/36 (or worse) can no longer be sold as ‘EX,’ because a shyster-shark can no longer say “polish/sym = cut.” There’s too much info out there now. That misrepresentation will stop.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/12/2006 8:09:29 PM
Author: RockDoc

John Q asks:

For anyone, I''d simply ask this: Take AGS completely out of the picture. Gone. Poof...

Now, would you rather have GIA as it was pre-2006, or GIA with a cut grade?
____________________________________________________________

The answer to that would depend on your stance on things:

A consumer would prefer the cut grade system
A cutter or dealer selling Ideal Cuts and H&A would rather have the newer ( as long as it made their stones look good)
A guy selling average or price point merchandise would not want to see the change.

Precisely. And that’s who this is about to me. Consumers outnumber all of us.

GIA is not even my lab of choice for premier diamonds (or my company’s) so it’s funny that I’m on this side of the discussion.

Those who know me can attest that I am a huge AGS fan. I own their pom-poms and spiritwear.

Yes the system needs improvement. It’s flawed, but so was the first AGS system.
I’m a bit sorry to see everyone hammering GIA for taking what I see as a step forward.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/13/2006 12:02:01 AM
Author: belle

btw... sir john, i was not referring to you.

i happen to think there is merit in the new gia system. i don''t agree at all with the rounding, but i think it is a step in the right direction and will serve consumers as a whole better than before.

Thanks M’Lady. I am grateful for the clarification, and I agree that it’s such a step.

 

[strmrdr]

You raise some good points John.

some questions for everyone not just John:
in 96 did AGS do the best they could with the information/tech available then?
With the AGS new system same question?
GIA new system same question?

There are always going to be disagreements on where to draw the line but the question I keep coming back to is did GIA do the best that can be done at this time.

To me the answer seems to be no
Did they come close?
again no

Did AGS do the best possible with there new system? again no
are they close? yes I think they are.

There is no perfect system as far as that goes but the question becomes is the GIA system useful,,, my best answers is in some ways it is but in others it isnt.

just one strmfish''s 2c :}

 

[JohnQuixote]

For anyone who didn''t get to see it while Strm had it changed... Classic!

(Strm, I''ll answer the Qs in a bit)

 

[adamasgem]

Stop.. We can''t have this discussion because posting more than one point would violate this part of the licensing agreement!!!

 

[Capitol Bill]

Date: 1/13/2006 12:19:01 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 1/12/2006 8:34:15 PM
Author: Capitol Bill

Date: 1/12/2006 7:57:43 PM
Author: strmrdr

GIA should do it right or not at all.

Amen. Now that''s concise!
Bill

I don’t know, guys. Turn this around and it seems like you''re saying AGS should not have graded cut ’96-05.

Did you know (?)

> In 1996 AGS gave 41.5/35.8 Ideal, but that won’t get EX from GIA in 2006.
> Now AGS gives 41.2/35.8 Ideal on old DQDs, but it won’t get EX from GIA with D > 62.9%
> Now AGS gives shallow/shallow Ideal on old DQDs, but some won’t get EX from GIA.

2006 GIA is stricter than 1996-2005 AGS.
So was it a mistake for AGS to grade cut for 10 years? I don''t think so.

As Serg shows, we have taken AGS to task, but I don''t recall saying they should have done it ''not at all.''

Hey John,
I hope you''ll take this post in the spirit of friendly debate that it''s intended. I understand the point you''re trying to make. Indeed, if the AGS never existed and we did not have the benefit of learning from the ever-improving AGS cut grade approaches, the new GIA cut grade system would be the starting point and everybody would have to embrace it and try to build upon it. But back in reality, the AGS and its past & present approaches to cut grading do exist. So why go backwards? GIA''s cut grade system is, at best, a day late and a dollar short. As long as the GIA bases it system on inaccurate methods of measurement due to extreme rounding, the entire exercise is futile. And the GIA has no excuses because the technology exists to give their system the accuracy it needs. But they''ve chosen to go a different route. Am I supposed to close my eyes and join them in their state of denial?

And for the sake of understanding your line of reasoning, I''ll apply it to another scenario:
When Intel introduced the Pentium processor (in the early 90''s?) it was then state-of-the-art. Looking back, we know it was far from perfect. But Intel continued working to improve it and today we have the Pentium 4 processor. And you can bet they won''t stop there. Now if another company came forward today and introduced a new processor that looked and performed very similar to Intel''s Pentium 2 processor, what would be the market reaction?

While the AGS is working on perfecting the "Pentium 5" of cut grading, the GIA is trying to convince us that its "Pentium 2" equivalent is the way to go. I''m not buying it. The Emperor has no clothes.

Bill

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/13/2006 2:27:24 PM
Author: strmrdr

You raise some good points John.

some questions for everyone not just John:
in 96 did AGS do the best they could with the information/tech available then?
With the AGS new system same question?
GIA new system same question?

There are always going to be disagreements on where to draw the line but the question I keep coming back to is did GIA do the best that can be done at this time.

To me the answer seems to be no
Did they come close?
again no

Did AGS do the best possible with there new system? again no
are they close? yes I think they are.

I’ll do my best to paint it as I know it. Corrections welcome.

AGS

1955 AGS Diamond Standards Committee begins work. After 30 years AGS 0-10 scale introduced, Tolkowsky-based. 1996-2005 AGS applies the system & gains knowledge. Meanwhile MSU/HCA develops. 2001 HCA launched on internet. HCA/AGS reinforce each other (to cheers or jeers depending on which forum you’re on). Ideal-scope introduced, is well-suited for internet. Gains massive popularity and overtakes HCA & AGS as it directly assesses the diamond. AGS revises ideal proportions after years of feedback (that’s important) and advances their own reflector/direct-assessment studies via ASET. July 2005 launch of new performance-based system.

> Great strides. Freshly evolved system. Better now (let’s lose the old DQDs, shall we?).

GIA

1989 GIA begins cut grade development with virtual study/human observation and correlation to proportions. They did not have the 30 years of AGS research (but obviously benefited directly/indirectly by gleaning info from that and other sources). 2006 GIA launches their system which, like others before it, is proportions-based.

> Did they do the best they could? Qualified no. Accurate measurements must be included, the rounding is ham-fisted and the metric has questions to be answered. Why do I qualify the no? Because considering the many masters they must serve & the many hands stirring that pot, it’s remarkable that it ever got launched.

They are on the grid. Good for them. It’s in our best interest to give constructive feedback.

There is no perfect system as far as that goes but the question becomes is the GIA system useful,,, my best answers is in some ways it is but in others it isnt.

just one strmfish's 2c :}

Agree with fishy.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/13/2006 11:07:25 PM
Author: Capitol Bill

Hey John,
I hope you'll take this post in the spirit of friendly debate that it's intended. I understand the point you're trying to make. Indeed, if the AGS never existed and we did not have the benefit of learning from the ever-improving AGS cut grade approaches, the new GIA cut grade system would be the starting point and everybody would have to embrace it and try to build upon it. But back in reality, the AGS and its past & present approaches to cut grading do exist. So why go backwards? GIA's cut grade system is, at best, a day late and a dollar short. As long as the GIA bases it system on inaccurate methods of measurement due to extreme rounding, the entire exercise is futile. And the GIA has no excuses because the technology exists to give their system the accuracy it needs. But they've chosen to go a different route. Am I supposed to close my eyes and join them in their state of denial?

And for the sake of understanding your line of reasoning, I'll apply it to another scenario:
When Intel introduced the Pentium processor (in the early 90's?) it was then state-of-the-art. Looking back, we know it was far from perfect. But Intel continued working to improve it and today we have the Pentium 4 processor. And you can bet they won't stop there. Now if another company came forward today and introduced a new processor that looked and performed very similar to Intel's Pentium 2 processor, what would be the market reaction?

While the AGS is working on perfecting the 'Pentium 5' of cut grading, the GIA is trying to convince us that its 'Pentium 2' equivalent is the way to go. I'm not buying it. The Emperor has no clothes.

Bill

Bill, the spirit is appreciated.

Now then, I think you’re hearing only part of what I am saying. I’m on record (for the 432nd time now) as LOUDLY agreeing that GIA needs to give accurate reporting to the tenth of a degree and stop the rounding, so I am going to ignore those bits. Next time you guys make me repeat that I’m going to MARTY-SIZE it, okay?

I would change your Pentium comparison slightly. GIA is proportions-based while AGS has moved to performance-based. Everyone starts similarly - systems evolve differently. I’d modify your comparison to say they both started out DOS (proportions) and eventually evolve to Windows or Mac or (your pleasure) Linux, etc.

Examples:

AGS began with proportions and evolved to ASET (performance)
Garry began with proportions and evolved to Ideal-Scope (performance)
AGA began with proportions and evolved to Imagem (performance)
MSU began with proportions and evolved to scanning/ray-tracing (virtual performance)

GIA has just begun. The system will evolve. Let’s not behead it before it can grow teeth.

So yes, you’re right. It’s not the electric light (AGS) but at least GIA has learned to make fire. Consumers as a whole are better served by this discovery and the sharks can no longer burn the minnows by suggesting p/s = cut.

And yes, I also agree that GIA’s system has issues (433rd time). No problem. The market will reflect that and make AGS more elite. A little competition is also a good thing for consumers.

Regards Bill.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/14/2006 2:38:52 AM
Author: JohnQuixote





Bill, the spirit is appreciated.

Now then, I think you’re hearing only part of what I am saying. I’m on record (for the 432nd time now) as LOUDLY agreeing that GIA needs to give accurate reporting to the tenth of a degree and stop the rounding, so I am going to ignore those bits. Next time you guys make me repeat that I’m going to MARTY-SIZE it, okay?

John: You coined a new term "Marty Size"

Look, I'm the thorn on GIA's backside, and I firmly believe that too many politics entered into their conclusions, and that is sort of evident by their "use" restrictions and somewhat lack of openness vis-a-vie AGS, becuase they know things are somewhat amiss.

That is not to say that the work good people did was not valuable and intellectually stimulating, but I think there was a turn in thinking from what the late Dennis Foltz had in mind when I was talking to GIA in the early 90's about ray tracing and analysis.

IN GIA's DEFENSE, when they first started their research, they were SEVEVERLY LIMITED by the lack of computer performance, and HAD TO spend VAST resources just to get the data in their original article. (They were workiing with 133Mhz performance or lower, in general, I believe they had to have 100 "puters" chugging away)

I've spent 24 hours or more on an IBM mainframe in those days just to do one (somewhat different problem) type of simulation.

On a one Gig processor, you might spend 8 hours or more to get one data point using Monte Carlo forward ray tracing, with all the information needed.

But you have to, and had to, do that first, so that you KNOW the level of errors you introduce by reducing the sampling size or revert to less computer intensive approximation techniques like reverse ray tracing.

I firmly believe that they tried to do it right in the first place, made some mistakes in thinking and logic, AS WE ALL DO SOMETIMES, but non technical management stepped in and said, shoot the engineers and get the product out the door.

Look, I worked in Nuclear Weapons Systems delivery development for 30 years (and I know just a "little" about optics and ray tracing, etc via my work in stellar-intertial guidance), and while there was program management, the emphasis was in getting it right, unlike, as we are all too unfortunately familiar with, the politics entering into decisions that resulted in NASA's Challenger accident, irrespective of the dangerous work. Nuff said on that, but a sad and prime example of mis-management and crossed priorities, and maybe not unlike what we see now, where it is just too easy to poke justifiable holes in the "product".

Are we looking at another non-reproducable "Cold Fusion" debacle?

Let us hope that these discussions open the "eyes" of GIA management...

 

[Serg]

Re: Lets hope that these discussions open the "eyes" of GIA management...

Marty,

It is not enough. I think GIA management are understanding problems( GIA hight level heads are very smart.) , but they have not resources ( firstly political , moral (risky) and human resources. ) to change course. It is like this internal standards. They know about problems but have not good enough ( with small risk) solution. They pay now for previous mistakes and are receiving more and more new problems. Negative spiral is in GIA history now . BTW HRD has very big problems last time too. Of course some reasons HRD problems are different. But some reasons are exactly same. HRD changed board in last time. Interesting see results. I think a lot problems are going from a very complex Boards with a lot of conflict interest inside Boards. Management has not good possibility for good work in such system also( like researchers)

 

[Regular Guy]

Glad to see Serge''s post, and active involvement here.

1) I''m with JohnQ here on the basic set up; we should appreciate public policy, and the benefit to all for GIA''s improvements, while understanding that, looking after our own family, and appreciating the specialness of the Pricescope environment, Stormfish populating it, etc., we could also think it reasonable to hold a different standard for our own buying, realizing someone previously just bad choice will inevitably now have a chance to be better.

2) Happy to try to bury this question here, but in the interest of finding a shopper''s protocol, seems like it might inevitably be something like: a) GIA''s best on the search by cut, b) then AGS0 with 0 for light performance from virtually anybody, and then c) on the search by cut db, with AGS0 and 0 for light performance.

3) Again, nodding to Serge''s point, I think, and in contrast to your point Capital Bill, we should respect GIA''s operation as a business. In contrast to the Pentium example, GIA has 75% of the market. It would be irresponsible of them to take anything apart from a more conservative step. Of course, what they do should make sense, too, so how they''re doing what they''re doing is a good question (rounding...are they protecting their interests too much?).

So, enjoy the evolution, and look after taking care of yourself, I say.

Regards,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/14/2006 9:39:06 AM
Author: Serg
Re: Lets hope that these discussions open the ''eyes'' of GIA management...

Marty,

It is not enough. I think GIA management are understanding problems( GIA hight level heads are very smart.)

I''m not sure I agree entirely with that part of your statement, unless you are talking about the Board of Governors

 

[Capitol Bill]

Date: 1/14/2006 2:38:52 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

So yes, you’re right. It’s not the electric light (AGS) but at least GIA has learned to make fire. Consumers as a whole are better served by this discovery and the sharks can no longer burn the minnows by suggesting p/s = cut.

And yes, I also agree that GIA’s system has issues (433rd time). No problem. The market will reflect that and make AGS more elite. A little competition is also a good thing for consumers.

Regards Bill.

John,
I suppose if you''re saying what amounts to "at least it''s better than nothing", I''m inclined to agree with you. I guess I''m guilty of having higher expectations for a cut grade system brought forth by "the world''s foremost authority in gemology." Now I guess we wait for the improved version to be released. Anybody have an idea how long that might take? If the pace of their past cut grade work is any indicator, I might be in a retirement home looking forward to my jello snack by then.

The frustrating thing is the technology exists right now to make GIA''s system what it probably will take several years for them to finally implement. Will it be too late if/when it ever happens? In the meantime, stones with AGS paper will likely continue to sell at a premium to stones with GIA paper (markets have a very efficient way of sorting these things out).
Kind regards my friend,
Bill

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/14/2006 4:16:01 PM
Author: Capitol Bill

I guess I''m guilty of having higher expectations for a cut grade system brought forth by ''the world''s foremost authority in gemology.'' Bill

Bill: You forgot to recognize the FACT that "the world''s foremost authority in gemology" is a TRADEMARK, and we all should KNOW that trademarks are often more hype than fact.[$$)]
Thirty lashes with a wet noodle for having made such a mistake.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Nice tone to the discussion folks. You are all right - GIA have arrived somewhere, and we think it is the wrong place.
The rounding is bad - but it is only one issue however.

The worse situation is that the way and the techniques and methods they used to establishe their parameters is highly questionable. No amount of accurate measurement will overcome this problem if my / our worst fears are on the money.

I have tried to keep an open and constructive mind on this topic and politiely raise questions that I hope will be asked in the right places.

Sergey mentions the quality of upper management. I agree with him and I am glad they did not throw Bill Boyajian out with the bath water over cerftifigate. He has a very solid background in gemology and teaching, as well as being a competent manager and politician. A man for all seasons.

The differences Sergey points to with the Board of Govenors is that there are many factions and interests. At HRD, Peter Meuss the CEO, has just stood down in a situation that has I expect some similarities. One of their borad mambers has also stood down - he is also on GIA BoG''s (I am not saying he is / that is / was bad) and that provides obvious conflicts of interest - or at least the appearance of.
Peter was a very commited and apparently competent person who wanted the best for HRD - but he was unable to handle the politics (in my opinion); certainly in negociations with him (he approved of hRD to back the cut grade research that we had planned) we found him to be a good man, but managing a brontasuarus- with limbs too far away and clogged arteries and veins.

I know Marty has had personal run ins with Bill B. I have too, but i respect his reasons and goals, and in the same shoes - might even have made the same decisions. For e.g. i have no problem with gIa deciding to add a bit of fluoro to make diamond colors look like they do in the real world. Should they have declared it openly? maybe. But what if they did, and the fighting and bickering was worse than the issue? Easier to let the minority of interested parties join in the debate and everyone else put up with / enjoy Marty''s rants and free entertainment perhaps.

Anyway - the point I want to make.
1. please gather information on actual Cut certified stones and post it here - as much detail please.
2. think about and read and raise all the old threads that discuss the actual research and survey etc - and Sergey''s new one where he is looking at lighting brightness - because this place is GIA''s main source of peer review.
3. keep it all polite and work towards solutions that work for consumers.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/14/2006 9:05:09 AM
Author: adamasgem

...That is not to say that the work good people did was not valuable and intellectually stimulating, but I think there was a turn in thinking from what the late Dennis Foltz had in mind when I was talking to GIA in the early 90's about ray tracing and analysis...

I’m don’t doubt it, Marty. Foltz was an educator foremost. I first heard about him for an appearance before Congress on home school study. When I joined the trade I learned of his involvement with GIA. Virtual campus was his creation. Coming from a background in education myself I wish I’d had the opportunity to know the man. Many educators avoid politics like scientists do.

Look, I worked in Nuclear Weapons Systems delivery development for 30 years (and I know just a 'little' about optics and ray tracing, etc via my work in stellar-intertial guidance), and while there was program management, the emphasis was in getting it right, unlike, as we are all too unfortunately familiar with, the politics entering into decisions that resulted in NASA's Challenger accident, irrespective of the dangerous work. Nuff said on that, but a sad and prime example of mis-management and crossed priorities, and maybe not unlike what we see now, where it is just too easy to poke justifiable holes in the 'product'.

What you and Serg are saying about management is viable and could explain some of what we agree are misfires. Perhaps rounding and accuracy opinions (among others) from GIA’s techies went the way of Morton Thiokol memos.

I firmly believe that they tried to do it right in the first place, made some mistakes in thinking and logic, AS WE ALL DO SOMETIMES, but non technical management stepped in and said, shoot the engineers and get the product out the door.

Just my opinion, but management was (is) trying to serve many masters and knows it, which is why the now-defunct Publicity Terms and such limitations were created: That was preparing a defense before presenting the case. The educational psychologist in me actually sees that as cup half-full because ‘the first step is admitting you have a problem.’

I can admit this problem: I like to MARTY-SIZE my fast-food meals.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/13/2006 4:18:13 PM
Author: adamasgem
Stop.. We can't have this discussion because posting more than one point would violate this part of the licensing agreement!!!

There is nothing like that for the stats on the lab reports though...

Would using those in the Cut Adviser here, DC and the like break rules too?

 

[Serg]

Date: 1/15/2006 7:58:35 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 1/13/2006 4:18:13 PM
Author: adamasgem
Stop.. We can''t have this discussion because posting more than one point would violate this part of the licensing agreement!!!

There is nothing like that for the stats on the lab reports though...

Would using those in the Cut Adviser here, DC and the like break rules too?

Good question.
I sure you can use data from lab reports.

furthermore I think that even new GIA software license is not correct. For example:

1) I have my database for my cut grading system
2) I checked one or several point in GIA software for compare my and GIA result.
3) I did not change anything in my Database after this compare.

Did I break GIA license?

Suggestion for newnewGIA license.

"...Do not even think about own database if you download GIA software..."

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 1/16/2006 2:54:30 AM
Author: Serg

Good question.
I sure you can use data from lab reports.

furthermore I think that even new GIA software license is not correct. For example:

1) I have my database for my cut grading system
2) I checked one or several point in GIA software for compare my and GIA result.
3) I did not change anything in my Database after this compare.

Did I break GIA license?

Suggestion for newnewGIA license.

''...Do not even think about own database if you download GIA software...''

Proprietary black box grading system, Sergey. Take it or leave it.. I imagine that some overseas cutters have generated the database

 

[Serg]

re: Take it or leave it.. I imagine that some overseas cutters have generated the database

Cutters do not need 38.000.000 combination. Fo sucessful work they need 10-1000 combination only for each cut group and they really need 2-3 group.
100-2000 combinations are easy to recive. It was not good idea to try sell such database.



From my November2005 letter to GIA.( I can not published GIA answer)

"

GIA president William Boyajian said in a statement, "¡K Because of GIA's important position in the industry and in the public eye as the leading authority in gemology, we take very seriously the need for our practices, procedures, and employees to be beyond reproach."



....
First of all I would like to express support for GIA¡¦s actions of consolidation of control systems for the independence of diamond grading. Perhaps similar reviews and modifications of other departments of GIA might occur too?....


...
„X GIA, with the help of the privileged relationships with some OEM vendors, has led OctoNus to support a direct competitor of GIA. We are the first company to introduce the AGS 2005 cut grade system in our scanners due to remarkable technical support from AGS. This system is delivered free of cost for all market participants. Many large Indian cutters are already using AGS 2005 intensively. Most will continue to use it in 2006 year because of additional profit that cutters can get using OctoNus technologies on rough stones above 5ct (plus additional value of a higher selling price for AGS compared to GIA certified diamonds). As a result the major GIA lab business can have large losses because of a small commercial profit of one GIA department.
„X The Facetware business model seems inappropriate for GIA¡¦s not-for-profit brand and working in the interests of the industry; especially as some companies made donations toward the development of this system. The political climate surrounding GIA is not very popular just now anyway, and the Facetware politics is intensifying this feeling in India. This dissatisfaction among many large Indian cutters has raised talk there in the creation of a new ¡¥independent lab¡¦.
„X Most of cutters don¡¦t need 38M combinations of Facetware for planning and allocation work. It is quite enough to use some thousands of combinations that they can get from the online version of Facetware, and then use this in the OctoNus systems; our clients are developing their own* GIA cut grading systems. So finally you can see that this business model may be unprofitable for GIA Gem Instruments; Sarin / OGI / OctoNus can get a competitive advantage (and a good image) by allowing clients to avoid charges of $3000 per system and ongoing annual fees.
..

...But I will try to neutralize GIA¡¦s monopolistic behavior to block the work of my company. Our companies compete in ¡¥different weight categories¡¦ which is why I can¡¦t compete with GIA in the current market. But I can create instruments and services that will change the market in principal.
...
"
* in reality such systems are not simple part GIA system. Its are combinations Cutters experiment and GIA, AGS, market joint limitations ( Intersection between AGS 0 and GIA execelent is small, Cutters should has possibility find solutions in this intersection. Is GIA-Sarin software giving such possibility - NO. They block normal work.)

 

[Serg]

"
...Manufacturers need charts to manufacture diamonds to produce diamonds as per a lab’s standard....

...Why you thought of selling GIA database instead of making it public? You can either sell your data base OR sell your certificate. Not both together. Controversy is already against GIA.
GIA should not charge the manufacturers for the database...''''

It is not mine.