- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,756
Garry, the diamonds used for testing the ImaGem have long been sold or distributed around the globe. The data exists, but no one can just keep diamonds in a box for others to test. The idea that all grading systems around the world will grade the same is a foolish notion. Grading systems of competing firms or labs do not grade all stones the same. The test of the three labs we did pretty much proves no lab is identical to another, yet they all survive. I expect labs to contuinue to be divergent on results.
We may never decide whose system is the most perfect one, but there will probably be those which are more respected by knowledgeable dealers than others. Some system will rise to the top, probably. That system may take on special importance in diamond trading or diamond retailing. There is room for more than one approach, but which system will be the "best" one, is up for grabs at this point.
Again, I have no agenda against predicitve devices. It seems that I can't get that point accross. They have their place. I just don't think they are right for a lab environment. Certainly some labs will use them in that way and that is their choice. We all want them to use Sergey's tools, if they do. No one makes a neater package than DiamCalc to help envision how a diamond would look if cut a particular way. They must remember that a measuring device, even Helium and ImaGem, makes certain assumptions on how a stone is cut as it can't possibly measure every minor aspect. This is only one place where a degree of error is created. If that error is re-used in making a predictive model, the error is further increased. This is one reason ImaGem did not go that route.
If a new device helps wine growers make better wine, we'll all be happier after 5pm and I won't complain. However, if the bottle of wine we open has a bad aroma or flavor, we won't drink it even if it was supposed to come from a great production as dictated by the wine tasters predictive technology. Our tongues are smarter than machines if we know when to use them and when to keep our mouths shut.....
We may never decide whose system is the most perfect one, but there will probably be those which are more respected by knowledgeable dealers than others. Some system will rise to the top, probably. That system may take on special importance in diamond trading or diamond retailing. There is room for more than one approach, but which system will be the "best" one, is up for grabs at this point.
Again, I have no agenda against predicitve devices. It seems that I can't get that point accross. They have their place. I just don't think they are right for a lab environment. Certainly some labs will use them in that way and that is their choice. We all want them to use Sergey's tools, if they do. No one makes a neater package than DiamCalc to help envision how a diamond would look if cut a particular way. They must remember that a measuring device, even Helium and ImaGem, makes certain assumptions on how a stone is cut as it can't possibly measure every minor aspect. This is only one place where a degree of error is created. If that error is re-used in making a predictive model, the error is further increased. This is one reason ImaGem did not go that route.
If a new device helps wine growers make better wine, we'll all be happier after 5pm and I won't complain. However, if the bottle of wine we open has a bad aroma or flavor, we won't drink it even if it was supposed to come from a great production as dictated by the wine tasters predictive technology. Our tongues are smarter than machines if we know when to use them and when to keep our mouths shut.....
300x240.png)