describing the painting in report . We ask for more input suggestions…

[Serg]

What set of terms would you recommend for describing the painting in report from the following two options? We ask for more input suggestions…

1. Absent
2. Very small
3. Small
4. Practical
5. Big
6. Very Big
7. Huge


1. Negligible
2. Very slight
3. Slight
4. Practical...or moderate (?)
5. Large
6. Very Large
7. Extreme
Thanks

 

[strmrdr]

? for you am I wrong in saying that pretty much all diamonds are going to have some amount of variation and anything practical and under would be considered what we call classic style here?

if that's the case then:
classic none
classic very small
classic small
classic med
classic
Painted very small
Painted small
painted med.
painted large
painted extreme

 

[Regular Guy]

- option b

- generally descriptive terms, where possible, i.e., practical/moderate, extreme.

 

[belle]

Date: 9/10/2006 11:42:22 AM
Author:Serg

What set of terms would you recommend for describing the painting in report from the following two options? We ask for more input suggestions…

1. Absent
2. Very small
3. Small
4. Practical
5. Big
6. Very Big
7. Huge


1. Negligible
2. Very slight
3. Slight
4. Practical...or moderate (?)
5. Large
6. Very Large
7. Extreme

Thanks

1. negligible
2. minimal
3. slight
4. practical
5. considerable
6. substantial
7. excessive

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I prefer the word moderate over practical...practical would mean nothing to me without seeing the key.

 

[Serg]

Re: ? for you am I wrong in saying that pretty much all diamonds are going to have some amount of variation and anything practical and under would be considered what we call classic style here?

Some Hypotheses
1) FS and IS have increased number painting diamonds
2) New GIA cut grading system have penalized all type painting in first time
3) The Current AGS system and may be current GIA internal rules are not penalizing crown painting less then 1 click
4) The Crown painting less than 1 click may improve cut

I use describing practical for 0.8-1.2 click (notches)

http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/helium/polish/history-helium3_80_74.phtml

 

[JohnQuixote]

Because different levels impact different configurations differently the nomenclature should be descriptive without seeming 'judgmental.'

Seven total terms are required.

Pricescopers, who are used to dealing with high end diamonds, might find this information useful: Typically, for crown-only painting on near-Tolkowsky diamonds with a high level of optical symmetry:

1st term (currently absent/negligible): Would typically receive AGS0, GIA Ex in cut
2nd term (very small/very slight): AGS0, GIA EX
3rd term (small/slight): AGS 0, GIA EX
4th term (practical/moderate): AGS 0, GIA EX (VG at upper limit of scale)
5th term (big/large): AGS 0, GIA VG
6th term (very big/very large): AGS 1, GIA G (VG at lower limit of scale)
7th term (huge/extreme): Lower in both metrics

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/10/2006 1:24:40 PM
Author: Serg

Re: ? for you am I wrong in saying that pretty much all diamonds are going to have some amount of variation and anything practical and under would be considered what we call classic style here?

Some Hypotheses
1) FS and IS have increased number painting diamonds
2) New GIA cut grading system have penalized all type painting in first time
3) The Current AGS system and may be current GIA internal rules are not penalizing crown painting less then 1 click
4) The Crown painting less than 1 click may improve cut

I use describing practical for 0.8-1.2 click (notches)

http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/helium/polish/history-helium3_80_74.phtml

Sergey.. the problem with descriptive terms like practical or huge, is that one level of painting may be very good for one cut of stone and very bad for another. The level of painting, and its benefits and/or any potential drawbacks are dependent on the stone as a whole, and we have gone over this ad nausium with Rhino before.

My suggestion is that Helium just report the "facts" as to the difference in angle between the breaks and adjacent mains. It requires a 3D analysis to to render a valid opinion otherwise. GIA got their nuts in a wringer trying to make judgemental calls regarding painting (and they are still caught in it), independent of the stone as a whole..

As an aside, how does Helium do with measuring painting on a stone like an EightStar. I know Sarin can't do it accurately, and is working on trying to fix it, after some prodding by myself and others.

 

[Serg]

Marty,

We do not grade cut.

We are measuring and describing level of painting. We use same and separate description for Pavilion and Crown. For grading we should account combination painting for crown and pavilion.

It is not grading issue. But we can not use number only, it is too difficult for consumers. Our task inform consumer about type and value painting. Just inform.

 

[Serg]

Big or small is not grading
Bad or good is grading.
We do not use bad, good, excellent, etc...

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/10/2006 2:50:11 PM
Author: Serg

Marty,

We do not grade cut.

We are measuring and describing level of painting. We use same and separate description for Pavilion and Crown. For grading we should account combination painting for crown and pavilion.

It is not grading issue. But we can not use number only, it is too difficult for consumers. Our task inform consumer about type and value painting. Just inform.

To quote John "Because different levels impact different configurations differently the nomenclature should be descriptive without seeming ''judgmental."

Words like Huge" can imply "bad" thanks to misinformation propogated by others on PS.

Just give the numbers!!!!!

 

[Serg]

Re: Just give the numbers!!!!!

It is useless at least. Furthermore it will provoke creating third party “grading descriptions ”

Re: Words like Huge" can imply "bad" thanks to misinformation propogated by others on PS.

Today big is bad , tomorrow small could be bad. Who knows? Huge is huge.
BTW . The goal this topic to find compromise between utility and misleading


Moscow bed time

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/10/2006 3:08:37 PM
Author: Serg

Re: Just give the numbers!!!!!

It is useless at least. Furthermore it will provoke creating third party “grading descriptions ”

Re: Words like Huge'' can imply ''bad'' thanks to misinformation propogated by others on PS.

Today big is bad , tomorrow small could be bad. Who knows? Huge is huge.
BTW . The goal this topic to find compromise between utility and misleading


Moscow bed time

That is the problem.. When you use a word descriptor, the "facts" underlying the word are subject to change (not to say that you would do that), just like GIA has done with girdle thickness descriptors.. Number don''t change..

You are making a "value" judgement when you use ANY descriptor.. and you, and everyone else, have measuremnt errors which could give you a "range" of desciptors. hugh one day and very big the next...

I''d like to agree with you, Sergey, but I can''t on this issue

 

[JohnQuixote]

I understand both arguments. Marty, the numbers will still be on the Helium reports. Simple descriptors are a supplemental, consumer-friendly service. I respect your position as a numbers purist...but as long as Helium is using verbal descriptors I'd like to put my 2 cents in.

The goal is to try and find 7 words for different, ascending ranges of (x) without being judgmental of (x). I consider the following to be neutral verbal descriptors:

Negligible
Very Slight
Slight
Moderate
Substantial
Very Substantial
Maximum

Apply these words to opposites (rich or poor for instance) and I believe that by themselves, the terms are not judgmental...

Specific to this issue, if someone believes 'substantial' (x) is bad, it's because a higher level of (x) has been implied as bad previously...not just because the word 'substantial' is in front of the term. For example: Is 'substantial flalloping' bad or good? How about 'substantial wicketcheering?' As a consumer, should I pay more for 'slight wicketcheer' or 'substantial wicketcheer?'

Whether 'painting' at escalating levels is good or bad is dependent on us (ALL of us) not to jump to conclusions about it and to provide education about different configurations.

I see that as a separate issue to what Serg is trying to do here.

 

[Iiro]

style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 156px">

It is not grading issue. But we can not use number only, it is too difficult for consumers. Our task inform consumer about type and value painting. Just inform.

IMHO is too early for painting to use desciptive terms. Once you introduce them, consumers take them as grades. Helium may be the first tool to measure is accurately, let the third party do grading and descriptions. I bet AGS and GIA will create their own nomenclatura, like they have done with fluorescence.

For operator you can make options in Helium report to use
1. Negligible
2. Very slight
3. Slight
4. moderate
5. Large
6. Very Large
7. Extreme

but only if operator chooses to use them. Default should be plain numbers.

Later you can add the GIA and AGS descriptions in options if they care to create them.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/10/2006 3:49:36 PM
Author: Iiro

style="WIDTH: 99%; HEIGHT: 156px">

It is not grading issue. But we can not use number only, it is too difficult for consumers. Our task inform consumer about type and value painting. Just inform.

IMHO is too early for painting to use desciptive terms. Once you introduce them, consumers take them as grades. Helium may be the first tool to measure is accurately, let the third party do grading and descriptions. I bet AGS and GIA will create their own nomenclatura, like they have done with fluorescence.

For operator you can make options in Helium report to use
1. Negligible
2. Very slight
3. Slight
4. moderate
5. Large
6. Very Large
7. Extreme

but only if operator chooses to use them. Default should be plain numbers.

Later you can add the GIA and AGS descriptions in options if they care to create them.

I guess what I am getting at is that, describing painting by number of clicks (facet normal azimuth) does not at first glance, appear reasonable, as it is a compound effect of the azimuth and the dop angle and the star length (for meet point faceting. The critical numbers appear to to me are the angle with respect to the table and the mains, but I may be wrong.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 9/10/2006 2:54:16 PM
Author: Serg
Big or small is not grading
Bad or good is grading.
We do not use bad, good, excellent, etc...

Big or small is grading too.

The problem is in defining your scale. By establishing the word terms, you are defining the parameters of a grade. You are saying that ‘small’ and ‘very small’ are significantly different and that measured variations contained within each grade are not. I notice you are using the unit ‘clicks’ in your discussion. I don’t know if the value of a click is standard from one cutter to the next but, assuming that it is, this seems like a good place to start in inventing a scale.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[JohnQuixote]

Neil, if I understand you correctly, the scale does exist.

Currently:

(0.0 - 0.1) Absent
(0.1 - 0.3) Very small
(0.3 - 0. Small
(0.8 - 1.2) Practical
(1.2 - 1. Big
(1.8 - 2.2) Very big
(2.2 - oo) Huge

http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/helium/polish/history-helium3_80_74.phtml

Also, clicks are standard. The typical tang used in diamond cutting has clicks at the normal mains and halves, which are 11.25 degrees apart. To paint the crown halves the cutter sets the index to the nearest main click on the tang, and then uses the cheater screw to ‘cheat’ or adjust, a small amount to either side. How much can vary. Painting to 3.75 degrees (1 click) may be a minor amount, whereas painting to 7.50 degrees (2 clicks) could be major. But, the appropriate amount varies since overall configuration and optical symmetry change the playing field.

Thus the debate here about whether terms can describe a range without being judgmental.

We can talk in terms of fractions of clicks, or in terms of degrees of average azimuth deviation interchangeably. The click concept is more upstream-oriented.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/10/2006 2:54:16 PM
Author: Serg
Big or small is not grading
Bad or good is grading.
We do not use bad, good, excellent, etc...

No matter what you call it it''s going to be used for grading.

What I would like to see after thinking about it some more is the words reflecting its face up appearance and tied to IS images.
If it doesn''t close the 8 white dots and the v''s on the edge its considered - no to minor effect
If it closes them then its considered to have an effect on face up appearance.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/10/2006 7:52:51 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/10/2006 2:54:16 PM
Author: Serg
Big or small is not grading
Bad or good is grading.
We do not use bad, good, excellent, etc...

No matter what you call it it''s going to be used for grading.

What I would like to see after thinking about it some more is the words reflecting its face up appearance and tied to IS images.
If it doesn''t close the 8 white dots and the v''s on the edge its considered - no to minor effect
If it closes them then its considered to have an effect on face up appearance.

Storm you are making a grading system based on assumptions. I think it is what we do not need.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This thread has bought forward some good thinking.

I agree with Marty that painting can have very different effects on diamonds with different proportions. I have seen some AGS work to attempt to quantify this, and the results for just Tolkowsky proportions are rather complex.

It is not a simple problem.

But what Sergey is doing is attempting to put a standardized terminology in place. It is a good thing. We do not need another set of separate languages as some that we have seen develop. e.g. GIA measure lower girdle by looking at a diamond resting table down (length), in the same way they measure star facet length. Sounds simple – but once a diamond is set we rarely get to see it that way. OctoNus (and AGS?) measure depth – the side profile. There is usually about 2% difference in the measures.

Since GIA have made many claims that their cut grade system is designed so that appraisers can use it, it would be nice to see them change their system to one that appraisers can use for the estimation of set stones which is generally easier from the profile view.

It is always a shame when different methods are employed in an industry. I believe one of the US space disasters was a result of a metric / imperial measurement mess-up.

So far I am impressed with all the terminology put forward – I have no strong preference; but it is good to see a quality discussion.

While I am on this topic: it would have been nice if GIA had used the same chart pavilion angle orientation as all the other published works. Maybe it is not too late for them to change.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/10/2006 8:24:16 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 9/10/2006 7:52:51 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/10/2006 2:54:16 PM
Author: Serg
Big or small is not grading
Bad or good is grading.
We do not use bad, good, excellent, etc...

No matter what you call it it''s going to be used for grading.

What I would like to see after thinking about it some more is the words reflecting its face up appearance and tied to IS images.
If it doesn''t close the 8 white dots and the v''s on the edge its considered - no to minor effect
If it closes them then its considered to have an effect on face up appearance.

Storm you are making a grading system based on assumptions. I think it is what we do not need.

I knew there are some holes in it but threw it out there to get some thinking in a little different direction.
Thinking of the face up appearance of a diamond how would you do it?

 

[RockDoc]

I think the problem in evaluating this is the visual appearance "change" due to the painting.

Do consumers really want to know "click" decimal info ? How do you rate "cheating" when reporting the results of these measurements.

Additionally, even if this group comes up with really good terminology, rankings, and visual results, the visual differences between what each person actually sees and comprehends, and as a result issues an opinion, I think is a valiant effort, but quite problematic to do.

Then add, if the major labs will make it or add it to the grading criteria of cut/ light performance grading.

Rockdoc

 

[denverappraiser]

That’s the conversion I was looking for. Thanks John.

Of course the terms are judgmental. I also notice that this is not a linear scale. This too is judgmental. The span for ‘very small’ (0.1-0.3 clicks) less than half of the span for ‘small’(0.3-0.8 clicks) and this decision is evaluating, not measuring. The decision to start ‘huge’ at 2.2 instead of, say, 1.79 is terribly important and, since it will be clearly seen as a negative attribute, is making a statement about 1.79’s and their relative merits when compared to 2.2’s.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/10/2006 3:43:11 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

I understand both arguments. Marty, the numbers will still be on the Helium reports. Simple descriptors are a supplemental, consumer-friendly service. I respect your position as a numbers purist...but as long as Helium is using verbal descriptors I''d like to put my 2 cents in.

The goal is to try and find 7 words for different, ascending ranges of (x) without being judgmental of (x). I consider the following to be neutral verbal descriptors:

Negligible
Very Slight
Slight
Moderate
Substantial
Very Substantial
Maximum

Excellent suggestion John.

Scary how much we think alike at times.

I didn''t like the word "practical" as it implies anything other than practical is impractical and moderate IMO is the best word for the job if you want to go through with this Sergey.

Approaching this from a different angle and employing all of the ideas invoked here I would make the following suggestion.

Use the numbers approach Sergey as Marty is suggesting. When you personally put descriptors there even though your intent is not to grade, it will be interpreted that way. I know this becuase I hear it from consumer perspective who consult Helium Reports.

What I would suggest is along the lines of what John has suggested in another post in this thread listing not your descriptors but GIA''s and AGS''s thresholds for their top grades.

If you were going to use descriptors here''s what I''d like to see.

1st term Negligible: Would typically receive AGS0, GIA Ex in cut
2nd term Very Slight: AGS0, GIA EX
3rd term Slight: AGS 0, GIA EX
4th term Moderate: AGS 0, GIA EX (VG at upper limit of scale)
5th term Substantial: AGS 0, GIA VG
6th term Very Substantial: AGS 1, GIA G (VG at lower limit of scale)
7th term Maximum: Lower in both metrics

If you are going to use the descriptors I would suggest changing the 4th term (practical) to "moderate". This is more of an objective term than a subjective term.

Also ... you may want to think about employing a different range of descriptors for digging. What you currently have described as "practical" on the Helium Report woudln''t make AGS or GIA top grade. This is why you may want to cancel descriptors altogether and just use the numbers with the corresponding GIA and AGS thresholds.

Peace,

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 9/10/2006 2:50:11 PM
Author: Serg

We do not grade cut.

We are measuring and describing level of painting. We use same and separate description for Pavilion and Crown. For grading we should account combination painting for crown and pavilion.

It is not grading issue. But we can not use number only, it is too difficult for consumers. Our task inform consumer about type and value painting. Just inform.

Thanks for making this a consumer issue.

Perhaps it is a difference in language, but informing about value is grading, I think. Not that there's anything wrong with that, from my point of view.

Also, the way numbers can be used, can have the same effect, though this example may not map on all that well. Consider the "Pricescope your diamond" feature above. Leonid has included defaults for table and depth for each diamond type, i.e., round, princess, etc. Note, in response to one concern raised earlier by Marty: "the problem with descriptive terms like practical or huge, is that one level of painting may be very good for one cut of stone and very bad for another," and so, it is possible a parallel strategy can be responsive to this issue. Note also, these defaults can be modified, and absolute constraints used to replace them. But, just using the pricing model as is, selections are naturally constrained. And, I value this advice. In a recent thread, someone was looking for radiants. Accepting the defaults for table & depth, I had not even noticed an option another reader did see. By accepting all possible variations for table & depth, I was able to spot the lowest cost for a given size, color and clarity, that I had earlier missed, so being aware of what is possible can be useful for many reasons.

Taking JohnQ's approach is a middle way, and can also be a kitchen sink approach. It only falls short by making analysis a bit harder to infer. Also, if there is a difference between the author's analysis, and that of the labs, this may cause some grief that may be unnecessary. I don't know that this is the case or not.

Still, if -- by drawing from expert understanding -- we can limit the universe of options, when we are seeking to identify higher quality options...that expert advice is valued. Frankly, when shopping and looking at Consumer Reports, and there is a long column of options, I probably will not look at each and every one, but will look for useful criteria to constrain my search. If it is controversial, as is being asserted here...that is unfortunate. If it is not too controversial, however, and the creator of the proposed system will be willing to stick their neck out, consumers may win in the end.

 

[kenny]

Why not eliminate all words (and the feeling they evoke)?

Just name them one through seven, or A through G.

 

[Serg]

re:How do you rate "cheating" when reporting the results of these measurements.

Same scale and descriptors are for painting and digging out.

 

[Serg]

re: I also notice that this is not a linear scale. This too is judgmental.

Neil,

1) if you want to create subjective Human linear scale, you need to use non linear objective scale
2) I added additional interval in beginning due the limited scanner accuracy

 

[Serg]

re:Just name them one through seven, or A through G.

It is classical grading scale in diamond niche.