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

[Serg]

I am happy to change Huge to Maximum. You can not do bigger than Huge or Maximum.
I am happy to use Moderate.
I am not sure about “Substantial”


Other ideas?

 

[Serg]

Re: I bet AGS and GIA will create their own nomenclatura, like they have done with fluorescence… Then add, if the major labs will make it or add it to the grading criteria of cut/ light performance grading.

Gods are not working in Major labs. Major labs need good ideas too. Our descriptors may help to Major labs too

 

[Serg]

re: This is why you may want to cancel descriptors altogether and just use the numbers with the corresponding GIA and AGS thresholds.

Rhino,

Could you give information about official corresponding GIA thresholds?
I think you can not do it in next 1-2 years. May be you never can do it.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/11/2006 12:48:09 AM
Author: Serg
I am happy to change Huge to Maximum. You can not do bigger than Huge or Maximum.
I am happy to use Moderate.
I am not sure about “Substantial”


Other ideas?

I was re-thinking the "substantial" too. If we used culet descriptors then it''d be closer to...

none/neglible
very small
small
medium/moderate
large
very large
maximum or huge (if you saw fit to have 7)


descriptors like small, medium, large etc. are overall more objective than subjective and have good continuity ... small to large instead of small to substantial sounds better to me personally

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/11/2006 12:57:15 AM
Author: Serg

Re: I bet AGS and GIA will create their own nomenclatura, like they have done with fluorescence… Then add, if the major labs will make it or add it to the grading criteria of cut/ light performance grading.

Gods are not working in Major labs. Major labs need good ideas too. Our descriptors may help to Major labs too

Excellent point. A correllation I found of interest when you published the newer Helium reports Sergey were your descriptors and how they correllated with GIA''s observation testing results. What you have described as painting up to "moderate" makes a GIA Ex (except for perhaps the outer skirts of the moderate range which may get VG, don''t quite know yet). The descriptors you currently have as "big" and "very big" do not make Ex grade.

I have a few stones here with varying degrees of painting. In the ones I''ve examined I can determine when this feature impacts face up appearance. I''ve also been corellating this with other technologies. Sergey ... I know how I might perhaps help with the descriptors. Do you have .dmc files of stones with the various degrees of notching (minimum and maximum) within each range on your scale? Take the "moderate" or "practical" range. Do you have handy .dmc files with .8 notches and 1.2 notches? I''d generate them myself but will not be at my DC computer until Tuesday.

Regards,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/10/2006 10:09:05 PM
Author: Rhino


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

The "problem" with the above (adding AGS and/or GIA) is that is a potential grade effect IF AND ONLY IF other parameters fit the grade range.

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. NO

Peace,

 

[adamasgem]

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.

FACE UP appearence is not the only criteria considered.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/11/2006 1:23:10 AM
Author: Rhino

Excellent point. A correllation I found of interest when you published the newer Helium reports Sergey were your descriptors and how they correllated with GIA's observation testing results. What you have described as painting up to 'moderate' makes a GIA Ex (except for perhaps the outer skirts of the moderate range which may get VG, don't quite know yet). The descriptors you currently have as 'big' and 'very big' do not make Ex grade.

I have a few stones here with varying degrees of painting. In the ones I've examined I can determine when this feature impacts face up appearance. I've also been corellating this with other technologies. Sergey ... I know how I might perhaps help with the descriptors. Do you have .dmc files of stones with the various degrees of notching (minimum and maximum) within each range on your scale? Take the 'moderate' or 'practical' range. Do you have handy .dmc files with .8 notches and 1.2 notches? I'd generate them myself but will not be at my DC computer until Tuesday.

Regards,

Rhino.. One of the problems wiith nomenclature deals with perceprtion of goodness or badness. You cannot discount the fact that the EightStar has highest degree of optical symmetry and is perhaps the finest or one of the finest stones on the market, and you and I both know it. We know that the painting on these unique class of stones is in the highest end of the range 7 degrees azimuth give or take.. from my simulations and constructs..

YET..

1) GIA digs it for painting arbitrarily
2) I have YET to see data from ANY scanner that correctly reads the breaks on an EightStar

Can you take a Helium scan from an EightStar, which I believe you may have, and present it here anlong with the DMC file..

Sarin scans are currently entirely useless regarding EightStars..

I hope Helium can do the scanning correctly, otherwise how can one quantify with nomenclature what one may not be able to be discerned.. I have been told it can, but I'd like to see few scans..

 

[strmrdr]

Marty helium tracks em fine.
This one is from a helium mmd file the ones directly exported from helium are too big to post here at 300+ k and I cant find one at the moment.

 

[strmrdr]

Here is the gem file for those that dont have DC

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/11/2006 12:48:09 AM
Author: Serg

I am happy to change Huge to Maximum. You can not do bigger than Huge or Maximum.
I am happy to use Moderate.
I am not sure about “Substantial”

Other ideas?

Combining your prior descriptors with substitutions that are palatable to some here:

negligible
very small
small
moderate
large
very large
maximum

 

[strmrdr]

is there a maximum? well I guess when there is huge holes left I guess.....
I can live with the list as JohnQ posted in his last post except for maximum

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/11/2006 10:20:38 AM
Author: strmrdr
Marty helium tracks em fine.
This one is from a helium mmd file the ones directly exported from helium are too big to post here at 300+ k and I cant find one at the moment.

Thanks Storm.. Close but no cigar yet, IMHO. But MUCH MUCH MUCH better than SRN scans I have seen

The lack of meet point faceting in your file suggests strongly that there are still some issues to be resolved. I have a 1.5ct EightStar (fancy vivid Yellow) and I can''t see the level of facet junction errors present in your example file when using DC at effectively an 8 to 10X blowup. While no stone is "perfect", from the scan one would think there are minor pointing issues.

I''ll have to take the time and try to figure out what azimuth error level could be inferred from your file..

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/11/2006 11:08:19 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 9/11/2006 10:20:38 AM
Author: strmrdr
Marty helium tracks em fine.
This one is from a helium mmd file the ones directly exported from helium are too big to post here at 300+ k and I cant find one at the moment.

Thanks Storm.. Close but no cigar yet, IMHO. But MUCH MUCH MUCH better than SRN scans I have seen

The lack of meet point faceting in your file suggests strongly that there are still some issues to be resolved. I have a 1.5ct EightStar (fancy vivid Yellow) and I can''t see the level of facet junction errors present in your example file when using DC at effectively an 8 to 10X blowup. While no stone is ''perfect'', from the scan one would think there are minor pointing issues.

I''ll have to take the time and try to figure out what azimuth error level could be inferred from your file..

When Jon gets back to the office on tue maybe he can do one with the newer software and a direct export and email it to you.
This one was done the first day he got the helium scanner.
The direct exports contain more data and are more accurate I think.? serg? Garry?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/11/2006 3:49:07 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 9/10/2006 10:09:05 PM
Author: Rhino


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

The ''problem'' with the above (adding AGS and/or GIA) is that is a potential grade effect IF AND ONLY IF other parameters fit the grade range.

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. NO

Peace,

I think Serg wants to keep his descriptors separate from other assessment valuationg.

Marty is right about the grading ranges in any event: AGS allows a different level of painting with near-Tolk configurations than with shallower or deeper, so just giving a number (or a descriptor) won''t allow you to know what light performance values it will receive.

Rhino is correct about digging - as well as pavilion painting. Crown-only painting should really be treated differently than any other p or d: It takes about 0.5 of a click to start seeing adverse effects of digging in many cases.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/11/2006 11:07:46 AM
Author: strmrdr
is there a maximum? well I guess when there is huge holes left I guess.....
I can live with the list as JohnQ posted in his last post except for maximum

There is a maximum: 3 clicks, or 11.25 degrees.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/11/2006 11:12:20 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 9/11/2006 11:08:19 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 9/11/2006 10:20:38 AM
Author: strmrdr
Marty helium tracks em fine.
This one is from a helium mmd file the ones directly exported from helium are too big to post here at 300+ k and I cant find one at the moment.

Thanks Storm.. Close but no cigar yet, IMHO. But MUCH MUCH MUCH better than SRN scans I have seen

The lack of meet point faceting in your file suggests strongly that there are still some issues to be resolved. I have a 1.5ct EightStar (fancy vivid Yellow) and I can''t see the level of facet junction errors present in your example file when using DC at effectively an 8 to 10X blowup. While no stone is ''perfect'', from the scan one would think there are minor pointing issues.

I''ll have to take the time and try to figure out what azimuth error level could be inferred from your file..

When Jon gets back to the office on tue maybe he can do one with the newer software and a direct export and email it to you.
This one was done the first day he got the helium scanner.
The direct exports contain more data and are more accurate I think.? serg? Garry?

That''s a good idea.. Let me point out that Helium is WAY WAY WAY ahead of the competition, even though the final result is, in my opinion, not "correct", to the level of accuracy one would see on other scans with more conventional breaks.. TRUST me, I DON''t THINK IT IS AN EASY ARITHMATIC JOB to resolve the differences between between mains and breaks when there is so little angular differences.

Here is a current Sarin scan on an EightStar.. I''m on their butts big time to fix the "problem", and to their credit, they are working on it, so comparatively maybe I shouldn''t complain about minor problems I see in the Helium scan, but obviously, there is a greater error level than normal.

 

[Serg]

re:This one was done the first day he got the helium scanner.
The direct exports contain more data and are more accurate I think.? serg? Garry?

Did Rhino use 400 contours(Accuracy mode) or 800 contours( Hi-Accuracy mode)?
400 contours is not enough for painting 2 clicks. ( Azimuth between main facet and girdle facet is 4 degree only)

Marty,

Important remark : For diamond appearance is important angle deviation only( Slope and azimuth)
Minor facet junction is not important.
If angle between two facet small , even the small angle deviation( error in model) will give very big facet junction errors.
See FS or IS images for this *8star Helium model for example( For classical round diamond such big facet junction errors will give big angle error and change images. But for this example you can not see changing in image)

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/11/2006 11:04:14 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/11/2006 12:48:09 AM
Author: Serg

I am happy to change Huge to Maximum. You can not do bigger than Huge or Maximum.
I am happy to use Moderate.
I am not sure about “Substantial”

Other ideas?

Combining your prior descriptors with substitutions that are palatable to some here:

negligible
very small
small
moderate
large
very large
maximum

Good compromise. Thanks.
Should we continue?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/11/2006 12:18:22 PM
Author: Serg

re:This one was done the first day he got the helium scanner.
The direct exports contain more data and are more accurate I think.? serg? Garry?

Did Rhino use 400 contours(Accuracy mode) or 800 contours( Hi-Accuracy mode)?
400 contours is not enough for painting 2 clicks. ( Azimuth between main facet and girdle facet is 4 degree only)

Perhaps Helium should issue a warning to do this, if it doesn''t already, if it detects such type of stone...

Marty,

Important remark : For diamond appearance is important angle deviation only( Slope and azimuth)
Minor facet junction is not important. One relates to the other..

If angle between two facet small , even the small angle deviation( error in model) will give very big facet junction errors. OK, I haven''t thought of it that way. As a first guess, I was going to look at what pertubations in the mesh points would generate meet point faceting and then look at the resultant angle differences.

See FS or IS images for this *8star Helium model for example( For classical round diamond such big facet junction errors will give big angle error and change images. But for this example you can not see changing in image) I agree that the renderings will not show up the errors. I just took note of the mesh question and wondered how much the angle errors would be.. Probably the slow scan would improve the "results". Would you have any estimate on the error level in azimuth and tilt for the breaks? It will be worse than the mains I believe because the baselengths are shorter...

Sorry to be such a knit picker, you are so far ahead of the rest of the field!!!!!

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/11/2006 2:20:18 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 9/11/2006 11:04:14 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/11/2006 12:48:09 AM
Author: Serg

I am happy to change Huge to Maximum. You can not do bigger than Huge or Maximum.
I am happy to use Moderate.
I am not sure about “Substantial”

Other ideas?

Combining your prior descriptors with substitutions that are palatable to some here:

negligible
very small
small
moderate
large
very large
maximum

Good compromise. Thanks.
Should we continue?

How about "Painting Range Classification X" (X=1,2,3 4, 5 etc)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/11/2006 2:20:18 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 9/11/2006 11:04:14 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/11/2006 12:48:09 AM
Author: Serg

I am happy to change Huge to Maximum. You can not do bigger than Huge or Maximum.
I am happy to use Moderate.
I am not sure about “Substantial”

Other ideas?

Combining your prior descriptors with substitutions that are palatable to some here:

negligible
very small
small
moderate
large
very large
maximum

Good compromise. Thanks.
Should we continue?

This is such a hard problem.
I do not like maximum because from 7 to 11.75 is a long way.
And this rule should apply to pavilion painitng - moderate on this scale for the pavilion is huge.
And this rule should aply for digging - as JP points out - digging also has a much bigger effect than crown painting

I am not sure a word system is useful

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/11/2006 4:25:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
This is such a hard problem.
I do not like maximum because from 7 to 11.75 is a long way.
And this rule should apply to pavilion painitng - moderate on this scale for the pavilion is huge.
And this rule should aply for digging - as JP points out - digging also has a much bigger effect than crown painting

I am not sure a word system is useful

Agreed - it is hard.

So we're not flipping between clicks and degrees, I scratched this out:

Clicks Degrees
(0.0 - 0.1) (0.0 - 0.4) First descriptor
(0.1 - 0.3) (0.4 - 1.1) Second
(0.3 - 0. (1.1 - 3.0) Third
(0.8 - 1.2) (3.0 - 4.5) Fourth
(1.2 - 1. (4.5 - 6. Fifth
(1.8 - 2.2) (6.8 - 8.3) Sixth
(2.2 - oo) (8.3 - 11.25) Seventh

So, 'maximum' would describe 8.3 - 11.25 Garry.

But...As several of us have intoned, digging to the second or third descriptor is far worse than painting well beyond that would be...in any configuration...and all adverse effects depend soley on configuration to begin with.

There is also the matter of crown versus pavilion: Anything on the pavilion influences performance much faster than it does on the crown.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/11/2006 5:14:14 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/11/2006 4:25:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
This is such a hard problem.
I do not like maximum because from 7 to 11.75 is a long way.
And this rule should apply to pavilion painitng - moderate on this scale for the pavilion is huge.
And this rule should aply for digging - as JP points out - digging also has a much bigger effect than crown painting

I am not sure a word system is useful

Agreed - it is hard.

So we''re not flipping between clicks and degrees, I scratched this out:

Clicks Degrees
(0.0 - 0.1) (0.0 - 0.4) First descriptor
(0.1 - 0.3) (0.4 - 1.1) Second
(0.3 - 0. (1.1 - 3.0) Third
(0.8 - 1.2) (3.0 - 4.5) Fourth
(1.2 - 1. (4.5 - 6. Fifth
(1.8 - 2.2) (6.8 - 8.3) Sixth
(2.2 - oo) (8.3 - 11.25) Seventh

So, ''maximum'' would describe 8.3 - 11.25 Garry.

But...As several of us have intoned, digging to the second or third descriptor is far worse than painting well beyond that would be...in any configuration...and all adverse effects depend soley on configuration to begin with.

There is also the matter of crown versus pavilion: Anything on the pavilion influences performance much faster than it does on the crown.

Perhaps if one could understand the 1 sigma standard deviation of each measurement and the statistics about the average (which I think this desceiptor applies to) one could make sense of it, because you have different widths for each interval.. I expect that as the degrees go up, the uncertainty might go up also, but I''m not sure.. The expected uncertainty on every class of angles (crown mains verses pavilion mains verses starsi) is NOT the same.. In terms of the number of differential clicks you are progressing 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 0.4, 0.6, 0.4 ,0.8

Any reason whyboys ?????

 

[adamasgem]

Here is what is happening physically as you increase the number of clicks for a 34.5 crown main, 50% star and 53% table...

The thickness of the girdle under the breaks increases up to an additional 2.6% (of the diameter) over the thickness at the mains, that is why the thickness at the mains is reduced usually, and the angle with respect to the table of the breaks decreases and approaches that of the mains, in this case 34.5 degrees.. Both functions slightly non linear..

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/11/2006 5:57:00 PM
Author: adamasgem
Perhaps if one could understand the 1 sigma standard deviation of each measurement and the statistics about the average (which I think this desceiptor applies to) one could make sense of it, because you have different widths for each interval.. I expect that as the degrees go up, the uncertainty might go up also, but I'm not sure.. The expected uncertainty on every class of angles (crown mains verses pavilion mains verses starsi) is NOT the same.. In terms of the number of differential clicks you are progressing 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 0.4, 0.6, 0.4 ,0.8

Any reason whyboys ?????

I took your break angle chart and used it to demonstrate the progressions Marty.

(0.0 - 0.1) = 1
(0.1 - 0.3) = 2
(0.3 - 0. = 3
(0.8 - 1.2) = 4
(1.2 - 1. = 5
(1.8 - 2.2) = 6
(2.2 - oo) = 7

I know there is good reason to break the front (0.0 - 2.0 clicks) into smaller segments because there will be abundant variations therein, while it's rare to see painting beyond 2 clicks (note I said 'rare,' not unheard of...don't Marty-size me!).

Maybe Serg can explain why these particular widths-of-range have been chosen.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/11/2006 5:57:00 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 9/11/2006 5:14:14 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 9/11/2006 4:25:06 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
This is such a hard problem.
I do not like maximum because from 7 to 11.75 is a long way.
And this rule should apply to pavilion painitng - moderate on this scale for the pavilion is huge.
And this rule should aply for digging - as JP points out - digging also has a much bigger effect than crown painting

I am not sure a word system is useful

Agreed - it is hard.

So we''re not flipping between clicks and degrees, I scratched this out:

Clicks Degrees
(0.0 - 0.1) (0.0 - 0.4) First descriptor
(0.1 - 0.3) (0.4 - 1.1) Second
(0.3 - 0. (1.1 - 3.0) Third
(0.8 - 1.2) (3.0 - 4.5) Fourth
(1.2 - 1. (4.5 - 6. Fifth
(1.8 - 2.2) (6.8 - 8.3) Sixth
(2.2 - oo) (8.3 - 11.25) Seventh

So, ''maximum'' would describe 8.3 - 11.25 Garry.

But...As several of us have intoned, digging to the second or third descriptor is far worse than painting well beyond that would be...in any configuration...and all adverse effects depend soley on configuration to begin with.

There is also the matter of crown versus pavilion: Anything on the pavilion influences performance much faster than it does on the crown.

Perhaps if one could understand the 1 sigma standard deviation of each measurement and the statistics about the average (which I think this desceiptor applies to) one could make sense of it, because you have different widths for each interval.. I expect that as the degrees go up, the uncertainty might go up also, but I''m not sure.. The expected uncertainty on every class of angles (crown mains verses pavilion mains verses starsi) is NOT the same.. In terms of the number of differential clicks you are progressing 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 0.4, 0.6, 0.4 ,0.8

Any reason whyboys ?????

if your question is why is the scale not a straight arithmetic one
then
I think the answer is that the effects are
negligible
very small
small
moderate
large
very large
etc

But this is, per se, a grading system what ever we prefer to say about it.
As Sergey would say - the effects we can see need to be based on a sliding non uniform scale.

But I am concerned that what ever scale is used - it will be confusing because as you say Marty - the various proportions and the amount of painting have their own interrelationships too.

 

[He Scores]

Let me say something with regard to the making of a brilliandeering facet and how digging actually occurs. You cannot simply take a girdle facet and increase it's angle and still end up with a properly aligned facet. The facet must be increased in angle and simultaneously adjusted for straightness toward the adjoining ribline of it's neighboring brilliandeering facet. This combination is what I think you guys are referring to azimuth. If you just simply increase the angle of a brilliandeering facet, you will miss the "stop point" in the center of the main facet.

I alluded to this in rebuttal to Peter Yanzer's "indexing" article. When Peter showed me his software for modelling of facet making on a diamond, it would be phsyically impossible to cut a diamond the way the program "sculpted" the material.

The greater the amount of digging, the greater the linear angle change between the girdle facet and the main while the linear change of the girdle facet and it's adjoining neighbor is decreased. Conversely, the lesser amount of angle change, the lesser amount of linear change between the main facet and the brilliandeering facet and the greater the amount of linear angle change from it's neighboring brilliandeering facet.

Full blown BrayScore anaylysis takes into account these measurements of each of these elements on their own merit and takes deductions accordingly. Rather than make a generalized descriptor of the facet arrangement, points are deducted for each individual facet as each of these facets will invariable have different linear angles and height angles due to the slope of the girdle, variances in main angles, etc. and over digging and pasting are general point deductors.

Respectfully submitted,

Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 9/10/2006 3:00:20 PM
Author: 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!!!!!

HI:

I acknowledge I am swimming with the big fish here, and hence preface my post by declaring my experience in developing rating scales for research projects, was limited to measuring attitudes.

That said, is it possible to consider using a 7 point linear scale with verbal labels on the end points and the indicators in between labelled with numbers? Diagrams, prn.

Rationale for this suggestion is:

1) 7 points max. based on psychological research by Miller (1956) showing that people have difficulty reliably making more than 7 distinctions (it''s dated, but it''s relevant!). I believe Serg/John mentioned only 7 choices in an earlier post.

2) Research shows that although verbal labels can clarify the meaning of scale points, they may also be distracting. Weisberg et al (1996) surmises it is best to include them, only when necessary. Moreover, if evidence in the literature suggests that people see very little difference between the rating "Good" and "Very Good", wouldn''t it just be better to use "the numbers" and have only the ''extreme'' descriptors/labels on the ends of the scale?

Just an alternative/thought.

cheers--Sharon

 

[JohnQuixote]

Good splashes Sharon. Several people have suggested numeric values as more neutral. If Serg feels strongly about verbal descriptors it's possible that extremes could be combined as you suggest (?)

Example:

0.0-0.1 clicks (painting or digging) could = 0/negligible either way.

Then P1, P2, P3, P4, P5 and PMax for painting
And D1, D2, D3, D4, D5 and DMax for digging.

In this system Crown 'P3' can be considered either positive, neutral or negative - the other factors will need to be considered to make that judgment.

This has been Marty's strong (font size=7) feeling too - he may be sending you love notes soon.