Determining the beauty of a diamond, an analogy

[oldminer]

Beauty of oight performance in a round diamond is measured by Brillancy, Sparkle and Intensity. These three terms are thorougly defined already on my website and elsewhere.

I would suggest that to understand how they work together lets imagine fine food. There is a certain look to our eyes, a certain smell to our nose, and a taste on our tongue. If the look of the food is brillancy, the smell is sparkle and the taste is intensity, think of what happens if any one of these three elements of food are adjusted. If one changes the pepper or salt level of a fine food it can rapidly degrade its quality and desirablility. If one changes the aromatic nature to too intense or eliminates the aroma, the food may become far less inviting. If one dyes the food blue, we almost all agree it is less appealing.

Any one part of this three part recipe may have quite an effect on the overall beauty of the food. There is a certain range of balance between ingredients and layout that maximizes the benefits. At least with food, there is.

My question is, how have those who will use light prediction formulas arrived at the recipes for proper blending of these three aspects for actual appearance and beauty. What assurance are they giving us that there is not too much of one component or not enough of another in their model's theory? This is not an attack, but a question that we have yet to discuss.

In work I have been a part of, we used a sufficient statistical sample of real diamonds to determine the proper blend of the three key elements. I have seen a couple light predictive tools that have no apparent basis other than to say "more is better". Can one reach a "more is less" postion in a diamond, too? What do you think?

PUN: Food for thought!

Have a wonderful day Pricescopers.

 

[Serg]

Other option

Cut is taste
Color is smell
Clarity is Look

Taste-cut is:
Brilliancy is salt
Fire is sour
Scintillation Is spicy
Contrast is bitter taste
Form is sugar

 

[strmrdr]

sheesh Dave how many more advertisements are you going to post for imagem?

Wake me up when your ready to post some real info and back it up with solid science.

 

[oldminer]

Strmrdr: It is not an ad. Do you have an answer or is the only response an insult? If you can't be nice, then why respond? Sounds like you have the problem, not me.

Sergey: Of course, one can use a differnt set of words for different analogies. Is your response funny or is it indicitave of an indirect methodology? If you have nothing positive to ad, why be so antisocial? I have never been tough on you. In fact, I have been helpful to you with the AGA Cut Class grades, buying your programs and saying nice things....This is a fair competition, not a dirty fight. Information is king and knowledge being shared is of interest to many readers. If you have better thoughts, then let's see them. No problem with reading and further understanding.

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/14/2005 9:06:26 AM
Author: oldminer
Strmrdr: It is not an ad. Do you have an answer or is the only response an insult? If you can''t be nice, then why respond? Sounds like you have the problem, not me.

Sergey: Of course, one can use a differnt set of words for different analogies. Is your response funny or is it indicitave of an indirect methodology? If you have nothing positive to ad, why be so antisocial? I have never been tough on you. In fact, I have been helpful to you with the AGA Cut Class grades, buying your programs and saying nice things....This is a fair competition, not a dirty fight. Information is king and knowledge being shared is of interest to many readers. If you have better thoughts, then let''s see them. No problem with reading and further understanding.

re:If you have nothing positive to ad, why be so antisocial?

What do you mean? Please clarify.

 

[strmrdr]

Would you rather I drive a mack truck thru the holes in your analogy?

Well lets see hmmmmmm....
Food can taste both maximum possible peppery and maximum possible salty at the same time.

Where no one diamond can have the max amount of fire and white light return. Because at some point you have to trade one for the other.

bad clarity foods look good bad clarity diamonds dont look good.

You speak of proper blend, proper blend for who?

I like my pepsi without lemon, Sandi wont drink it without lemon which is the proper blend?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/14/2005 9:06:26 AM
Author: oldminer
Information is king and knowledge being shared is of interest to many readers.

Then where is the info Dave?
Serg has taught me and the world a lot about the inner workings of his research and tools as opposed to well you know who....

 

[belle]

Date: 9/14/2005 8:18:50 AM
Author:oldminer

I have seen a couple light predictive tools that have no apparent basis other than to say ''more is better''. Can one reach a ''more is less'' postion in a diamond, too? What do you think?

interesting analogy dave...food. now you''re talking my language!

as far as the ''more is better'' i can understand exactly what you mean. there has to be a balance.

i think serg''s example was appropriate in the overall idea. cut, color and clarity are the basis (the meat) of the diamond...adding the subtle seasonings of brilliancy, fire, scintillation and contrast in certain proportions constitutes the flavoring. some like their food very salty, others would have it more spicy. we all have different tastes in what constitutes the best combinations, but i think it''s safe to say that an excess of everything does not necessarily make it better. sometimes less is more.

 

[oldminer]

Bell; You have understood the poiint of my question. I was asking if those who compute light performance have done something to call too much of a compnment to their attention if it exists. There can be too much of a component and beauty wioll suffer. Is this in their programs? That was what was being asked.

Apparently they don''t want to respond or doid not understand. It is not a difficult question if they have an answer. If there is no answer, then I suppose it may be something they have not examined of considered.

 

[Regular Guy]

Do you remember (a while ago now), when the apple macintosh was introduced, how we saw the picture that may have been drawn in a restaurant on the back of an envelope, or on a napkin, of a sketch of what the design ended up looking like...very close to that original iteration?

Dave where you say...

Date: 9/14/2005 8:18:50 AM

In work I have been a part of, we used a sufficient statistical sample of real diamonds to determine the proper blend of the three key elements.

Actually, for both this and the HCA, I''m just curious about some of the details for the procedures used in the inception. Did you rank a bunch of diamonds, create a scale, 1 - 100, of how you liked them, using your eyes only, or something other? And then look for a match on proportions. Or...how did you pull out the 3 elements in these initial observations.

Can you tell us more about the build out?

Warmest regards,

 

[fire&ice]

Doesn''t personally preference supercede taste blends? I love garlic. In my cookbook, there is rarely too much garlic when cooked correctly. But, some people can''t stand garlic.

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/14/2005 10:12:52 AM
Author: oldminer
Bell; You have understood the poiint of my question. I was asking if those who compute light performance have done something to call too much of a compnment to their attention if it exists. There can be too much of a component and beauty wioll suffer. Is this in their programs? That was what was being asked.

Apparently they don't want to respond or doid not understand. It is not a difficult question if they have an answer. If there is no answer, then I suppose it may be something they have not examined of considered.

re:Apparently they don't want to respond or doid not understand. It is not a difficult question if they have an answer. If there is no answer, then I suppose it may be something they have not examined of considered.

It had been explained in our report in IDCC1.
And may be some participants remember answer Pol Van der Steen on Garry question. We discussed this analogy before conference in Basel.
There is very helpful analogy( what is why I printed our version analogy. I think our version is more constructive)



Dave,
I hope you will clarify you attack now.

re:If you have nothing positive to ad, why be so antisocial?


What do you mean? Please clarify.

 

[Regular Guy]

Here''s another analogy (just for phun):

Suppose Serg is like Michael Douglas
That could make Dave like Demi Moore
where Storm has issues concerning Disclosure

Discuss!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I have spoken with Dave and clarified what i think Sergey is saying.

Imagem have done some observation testing.
They have revealed less about their findings than even GIA.
Ira''s and Storms (blunt) call for some evidence shows a growing frustration that I beleieve the people from Imagem will eventually heed.

Imagem may have the answer. If they have, then great, and they will have no problem providing evidence that would give them a stronger leadership position. But in a vacuum of information, then no opinions can be made. Nuff said.

Sergey is referring to Pol''s analogy to wine.
Consider making a wine grading system:
We want to know many factors - sweetness, fruitiness, acidity, tannin levels, color and probably 10 other factors, including the very best temperature to drink each wine, and which markets prefer which levels of all of those factors so vitners can grow / market the right wine to the right people.

So what Sergey was adding to Dave''s tatse test was a few more variables.

This chart shows how Sergey proposed last year at the IDCC conference in Moscow, that such a taste test could be conducted.

Imagem and any other lab could choose to participate in such a study - but they do not have the predictive capacity that Sergey has.

Sergey can say to a diamond manufacturer"Please polish these 2 diamonds to exactly these proportions and shapes"
And those 2 diamonds might each have exactly the same amount of fire as a Tolkowsky diamond (according to Sergey''s predictive science).
But one has an average of 10 small fire flashes, the Tolkowsky has an average of 3 larger flashes, and the other stone has only 2, but they are huge.

By showing these stones to people around the world, this testing can find out what is the optimum size, distribution etc for fire, as well as know where the preferences lie geographically and demographically.

Just as we can find out about wine preferences for each of the wine factors, so too we can find out about people preferences for different visual appearance factors in diamonds.

Along the way, any major lab or grading company could elect to participate in the MSS (Master Stone Survey) by sending diamonds for study that they believe are bench mark stones for what ever factor.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/14/2005 4:48:34 PM
Author: Regular Guy
Here''s another analogy (just for phun):

Suppose Serg is like Michael Douglas
That could make Dave like Demi Moore
where Storm has issues concerning Disclosure

Discuss!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/14/2005 9:10:29 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Along the way, any major lab or grading company could elect to participate in the MSS (Master Stone Survey) by sending diamonds for study that they believe are bench mark stones for what ever factor.

Is the chart related to the MSS, Garry?

Love colorful clusters, but the technique is rather senzitive to sample selection...

hence less popular than one would wish for the sake of the nice pictures. So... I am bit curious why it was chosen.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Given all the recent papers about statisical sampling, Ana, it is little wonder that GIA and other organisations have not published their raw data.

We will be using the best techniques possible, and make all the work open for peer review.

 

[Rhino]

Interesting thread. Dave ... light performance threads tend to draw heat sometimes. Just read through some of the discussions I've had over the years.

Interesting analogy. I have many thoughts on this subject, many of which you may be surprised to hear my answer on because I do not always agree with the "more is better" concept but I"m about to hit the hay so I'll have to pick up on this tomorrow.

Garry, Serg ... excellent input as well. Dave, I don't think Serg was trying to be anti-social but just trying to give his input as best as he could communicate it.

Garry, what you say is of keen interest to me because I put into practice this very principal. When clients come to the store I introduce them to varying optical signatures then show them how they appear in various light conditions noting their preferences. We'll tie each client to a preferred signature so when we're helping find stones of their preference know exactly what features they prefer over others (contrast/brightness, fire, scintillation) and locate the appropriate stone as close to that signature as possible.

I can tell you from this kind of observation testing how people respond to different signatures depending on the light conditions they view under. That is why the study of that subject (optical signature) is and has always been of keen interest to me. Based on this study I believe I have the scintillation puzzle cracked. Both static and dynamic and covering different light conditions as well. More on this another time.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/15/2005 1:47:48 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Given all the recent papers about statisical sampling, Ana, it is little wonder that GIA and other organisations have not published their raw data.

How true! No one can please those statisticians and it is just a matter of time until most get discontent anyway.


For me it would be pure herezy to use dispersion analysis in a paper just becaue it is not fashionable... or something; forget that (mine at least) data is too shabby for just any stats to hold. So, the question was more about what method is fashionable rather than correct (I would not know how to come around corectness given survey data).

Oh well, just one random thought over morning cofee.

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/15/2005 1:43:34 AM
Author: valeria101

Date: 9/14/2005 9:10:29 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Along the way, any major lab or grading company could elect to participate in the MSS (Master Stone Survey) by sending diamonds for study that they believe are bench mark stones for what ever factor.

Is the chart related to the MSS, Garry?

Love colorful clusters, but the technique is rather senzitive to sample selection...

hence less popular than one would wish for the sake of the nice pictures. So... I am bit curious why it was chosen.

re:Love colorful clusters, but the technique is rather senzitive to sample selection...

Right.

see second scheme on http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/conferens-article/_7.htm#1

Last stage is verification and OTHER( any other) cuts

 

[Serg]

re:

Sergey is referring to Pol''s analogy to wine.
Consider making a wine grading system:
We want to know many factors - sweetness, fruitiness, acidity, tannin levels, color and probably 10 other factors, including the very best temperature to drink each wine, and which markets prefer which levels of all of those factors so vitners can grow / market the right wine to the right people.



Garry,

It is prelude just. Main idea was latter. Do you remember? If you do not remember , I will print( But I need find good translater-corrector)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.11/wine.html
Part of the article:

"McCloskey has rummaged through the several hundred distinct chemical compounds that make up fermented grape juice - tannins, phenols, anthocyanins, terpenes, norisoprenoids, essential oils - and identified 84 of them, 32 in reds and 52 in whites, as those responsible for the special flavors, smells, and colors that, in different proportions, make one wine cost $100 and another $10. In the right quantities and combinations, the compounds in a bottle can even garner a score of 90 or better from Wine Spectator or The Wine Advocate, the twin bibles of the American viterati.

"Leo has sussed out the elements of wine from the vineyard to the bottle and even as far as the marketplace," says Doug Danielak, vintner for Jade Mountain of Napa Valley. "He''s reverse-engineered winemaking."

If he is right, this guy has a tool that can make great wine affordable.
The same tool can be used for design and is used for production - and the same tool is used for grading.

That is what Sergey has, and we seem to be having trouble getting people to understand the amazing importance.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/15/2005 1:47:48 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
and make all the work open for peer review.

 

[Serg]

Date: 9/15/2005 9:46:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)



http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.11/wine.html
Part of the article:

'McCloskey has rummaged through the several hundred distinct chemical compounds that make up fermented grape juice - tannins, phenols, anthocyanins, terpenes, norisoprenoids, essential oils - and identified 84 of them, 32 in reds and 52 in whites, as those responsible for the special flavors, smells, and colors that, in different proportions, make one wine cost $100 and another $10. In the right quantities and combinations, the compounds in a bottle can even garner a score of 90 or better from Wine Spectator or The Wine Advocate, the twin bibles of the American viterati.




'Leo has sussed out the elements of wine from the vineyard to the bottle and even as far as the marketplace,' says Doug Danielak, vintner for Jade Mountain of Napa Valley. 'He's reverse-engineered winemaking.'

If he is right, this guy has a tool that can make great wine affordable.
The same tool can be used for design and is used for production - and the same tool is used for grading.

That is what Sergey has, and we seem to be having trouble getting people to understand the amazing importance.

Interesting article. Thanks.

Such method can control quality of known wine but can not grade unknown wine. The difference is very important

I need print Pol example. I will do it in weekend

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/14/2005 8:18:50 AM
Author:oldminer
Can one reach a ''more is less'' postion in a diamond, too? What do you think?

Iv been thinking about this all day.
Leaving out everything but that question.

The answer is yes.
Think FIC
Some people love very fiery diamonds.
So some are cut with very high crowns and shallowish pavilians.
This trades off brightness for fire.
So in that case less brightness is more fire.

So in the case of FICs more brightness is less fire and to those that love them a not as great a diamond.

 

[oldminer]

A response from Dr. Lalit Aggarwal;

ImaGem used a representative large sample in developing and validating the classification of diamonds on appearance based on direct measurement of light emanating from diamonds. To achieve a representative sample, size, color, clarity, fluorescence and cut were considered both for development and validation purposes. A multivariate statistical approach was used along with expert assessment to develop the classification system. ImaGem system also relies on well established science of perception. ImaGem system for direct measurement of light behavior is now commercially available in Surat, India and in Philadelphia, USA.

Under the trademark of LightStar; trade, walk-in and Internet customers are using this service and find that the system gives them an assessment of the appearance consistent with what they see. There is a good old American saying that says "proof of the pudding is in how good it tastes." ImaGem system continues to prove its usefulness in the market place; it is based on good science, right methodology and years of testing. The direct measurement approach developed by ImaGem is available for fancy cut stones as well.

ImaGem has been negotiating with a number of important players in different markets and continues to grow its market share. Any trade entity interested in LightStar may send stones for analysis. We see LightStar grade based on direct measurement to become an important standard in the market place. We welcome and are open to working with any interested party from any part of the world.

In so far as the issue of methodology is concerned, it should be clear that taking measurements of a diamond and using these measurements for modeling light behavior using ray tracing methodology yields a prediction and not a measurement of light emanating from a real diamond. We can predict or estimate weight of a diamond from its measurements but no reputable lab will use the predicted value in place of the direct measurement of weight obtained from a weighing scale on a diamond grading report. In fact FTC prohibits this practice. Any party contemplating to use predicted values for grading should be forewarned of the dire legal consequences of adopting this methodology in the US market.

Whether in science or in commerce, a reliable grading system is based on direct measurement and not on prediction. Proponents of predicting light behavior praise the virtue in using a large number of variables in their model. In fact as the number of variables increases, the efficacy of individual variables in explaining the variance will go down. The practice of using a large number of variables is common when there is a lack of theoretical understanding of the problem. In such cases, a large number of variables may be used as a surrogate for good science, hoping and praying that people will believe that more variables means a better model. In fact it is just the opposite. Statisticians scorn the practice of using a large number of variables by using the phrase "Everything but the kitchen-sink approach." As the number of variables goes up, degrees of freedom will go down, and at some point a model becomes undesirable and useless.

There is extensive scientific literature on the subject to support the idea stated here. Instead of presenting and citing material from mathematical statistics, an example may well illustrate the power and usefulness of a model based on a parsimonious selection of variables. Consider the problem of estimation of the weight of a diamond again. Because there is a theoretical basis that specific gravity and volume are related to weight, only a very few measurements are needed to obtain a good estimate.

Since proponents of prediction of light behavior are unable to take color, clarity, fluorescence and other nuances of the cut of a stone in to account in making predictions, they are loading up their models with an ever increasing number of variables to maximize the explained variance. This is a dangerous approach - it is neither good science nor good business. Direct measurement of light behavior should be used in grading while predictive models may be useful in assessing a new cut before cutting begins.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[Serg]

Dave,

Again I did not find any real answer from Imagem or you for below my OLD comments and OLD questions:
Next features could indicate problems of system:
1) Different metric for different cuts
2) Absence correlation of grade form size diamond. Is any current direct system could show next correlation :
Small( 0.1 ct) diamond should has less number of facets than Big( 5ct) diamond?

Below are my next very important questions to Imagem:
What diamonds had been use for training Sophisticate Intelligent software and what diamonds had been use only for verification result of such training.?
Who and How did grade beauty, Scintillation, brilliancy of diamonds for training and verification?
Hardware, software could be closed for protection investment.
But information about collection diamonds for training and verification should be published.
I see only one reason for hiding such information - Had been used convenience sample of diamonds.
Could you show other reason?

Anybody could show to me answer on my questions in "A response from Dr. Lalit Aggarwal"?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/19/2005 7:23:59 AM
Author: oldminer

A response from Dr. Lalit Aggarwal;

ImaGem used a representative large sample in developing and validating the classification of diamonds on appearance based on direct measurement of light emanating from diamonds. To achieve a representative sample, size, color, clarity, fluorescence and cut were considered both for development and validation purposes. A multivariate statistical approach was used along with expert assessment to develop the classification system. ImaGem system also relies on well established science of perception. ImaGem system for direct measurement of light behavior is now commercially available in Surat, India and in Philadelphia, USA.

Under the trademark of LightStar; trade, walk-in and Internet customers are using this service and find that the system gives them an assessment of the appearance consistent with what they see. There is a good old American saying that says ''proof of the pudding is in how good it tastes.'' the brilliancescope is doing the same things, so what is different?
ImaGem system continues to prove its usefulness in the market place; it is based on good science, right methodology and years of testing. The direct measurement approach developed by ImaGem is available for fancy cut stones as well.
ImaGem has been negotiating with a number of important players in different markets and continues to grow its market share. Any trade entity interested in LightStar may send stones for analysis. We see LightStar grade based on direct measurement to become an important standard in the market place. We welcome and are open to working with any interested party from any part of the world.

In so far as the issue of methodology is concerned, it should be clear that taking measurements of a diamond and using these measurements for modeling light behavior using ray tracing methodology yields a prediction and not a measurement of light emanating from a real diamond. We can predict or estimate weight of a diamond from its measurements but no reputable lab will use the predicted value in place of the direct measurement of weight obtained from a weighing scale on a diamond grading report. In fact FTC prohibits this practice. Any party contemplating to use predicted values for grading should be forewarned of the dire legal consequences of adopting this methodology in the US market. I think it could be said that both AGS and possibly GIA are then in breech of FTC rules if we follow that logic Dr Aggawral?

Whether in science or in commerce, a reliable grading system is based on direct measurement and not on prediction. Proponents of predicting light behavior praise the virtue in using a large number of variables in their model. In fact as the number of variables increases, the efficacy of individual variables in explaining the variance will go down. The practice of using a large number of variables is common when there is a lack of theoretical understanding of the problem. In such cases, a large number of variables may be used as a surrogate for good science, hoping and praying that people will believe that more variables means a better model. In fact it is just the opposite. Statisticians scorn the practice of using a large number of variables by using the phrase ''Everything but the kitchen-sink approach.'' As the number of variables goes up, degrees of freedom will go down, and at some point a model becomes undesirable and useless. Mr Parker the wine grader may not be a scientist, but has pretty good success with a large number of variables

There is extensive scientific literature on the subject to support the idea stated here. Instead of presenting and citing material from mathematical statistics, an example may well illustrate the power and usefulness of a model based on a parsimonious selection of variables. Consider the problem of estimation of the weight of a diamond again. Because there is a theoretical basis that specific gravity and volume are related to weight, only a very few measurements are needed to obtain a good estimate. SG varies because of inclusions and small variances in atomic lattice etc - but ''volume'' would be a better measure anyway

Since proponents of prediction of light behavior are unable to take color, clarity, fluorescence and other nuances of the cut of a stone in to account in making predictions, they are loading up their models with an ever increasing number of variables to maximize the explained variance. This is a dangerous approach - it is neither good science nor good business. Direct measurement of light behavior should be used in grading while predictive models may be useful in assessing a new cut before cutting begins. other industry bodies seem to have agreed that other factors are already ''priced'' for their respective ''C''s". why do it again? I3 stones may be free? Also it should be said that the 3D model approach gives a beauty potential that needs to have polish and other issues such as durability graded independantly with the rules that each lab or vendor may choose to apply
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

 

[oldminer]

Garry:
There is a definite way scientists pursue knowledge. Jewelers and gemologists have been far less academic in these matters that are of interest to us. Where shortcomings are being pointed out, is not a criticism of anyone, but simply the way a good scientist will take apart the suggestions of others who do not have sufficient training or expertise. There is a lot of half baked science in the gem grading business which has now become subject to modern technology. There will be some huge changes.

The Brilliancescope: Dr. A. assures me that there is a basic difference between ImaGem and the BScope. It is a sufficient difference to say that one works well and one does not work so well. Since we want "accuracy" then one works and the other doesn't. Its a matter of expectations and market demand. Also, a matter of good science and quasi-science.


The FTC issue and wine tasting: Yes, the AGS and GIA need to be aware that "grading" is not done by a "forecast", but by "measures". In the litigious USA they may well consider the implications of calling a prediction a "grade". I won't take them to court, but maybe someone else might. That's how Americans differ from many other cultures.
You don't have wine tasting machines, but grading is done by the human grader. No one looks at a wine's chemicals and predicts the complex taste.....do they?
As far as variables go you can always make a chart to show two variables. An X and Y style chart. You can make one with three variables, an X,Y, and Z chart. However, it becomes way more problematic to get into charting more than three variables. Weighting or importance of variables becomes overwhelming. You cannot begin to state definitively how more or less "fire" affects beauty in a quantitative way. You can't begin to assess how a bit of "yaw" makes a diamond less pretty in a quantitative way. BUT, you can get nearly all you need from a limited set of variables, measured directly, based on light performance, not calculations of dozens of facet angles and lengths. Grading based on a large stew of many components is doomed and bad science. That is what is being said by someone who I believe knows his field.

Volume a better measure?: The trade accepts weight from a scale as the defining amount of a diamond. Volume is also an excellent tool for measuring something, but the trade depends on carat weight. If someday the trade switches to volume, we would use water displacement methods and not physical measurments because calculating from those mm measurements won't be really accurate. They'd bed far less accurate than water displacement measures.

3D modeling and beauty: No one is condemning using predictive models to develop cutting styles and new shapes, etc. The predictive models ARE subject to POLISH, Fluorescence and CLARITY situations JUST LIKE YOU SAID. And, for those reasons alone, the predictive model is not accurate in the real world with real diamonds and human customers who are buying 1 (one) important diamond for themselves or their loved one. They want to know what that particular diamond performs like, not what it could do in a perfect environment. What if one weights polish wrong in the calculation? What if the clarity is rather low? Who adjusts the calculated output of a predictive device for any particular diamond. Prediction is great for giving cutters road maps to perfecting their art....no problem. Plug in as many variables as you want to "Grade" and all you will get in the end is bad science that will not pass even basic scientific scrutiny. A pig with lipstick is still nothing but a dressed up pig.

Consumers really don't want to have a system that every lab applies different rules. Such a method will keep people in the dark, as they have been for many years. People want openness and uniformity to grading. At least with the IdealScope the subjectivity is understood, but the human eye is a good tool for appreciating comparitive quality once a system is given to users. So simple and yet so effective.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Wow! This thread took on a life of its own.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.11/wine.html
Yes Dave - this is a new breakthrough in wine grading. And like Sergey''s approach, it helps wine growers ensure they get the right flavours and other things that suit a particular market.

I do not think BScope ahs proven anything, and I see ImaGem setting out to prove itself the same way Bscope has.

Sergey is simply saying "show us the stones and the data you used to ''calibrate'' and test Imagem"

If you do this you do not need to compromise trade secrets. and if you do it, then we can confirm or improve your technology because one important issue for cONSUMER CONFIDENCE is that all grading systems should give the same grade to the same stone.