G color/ yellow in house
- Thread starter bluepetal
- Start date
- Status
bar01
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 622
I recently bought a pair of smaller round ideal SI-1 G's graded by AGS.
As I walked aorund my house I thought I saw some yellow tint too. I thought I was nuts - I mean everyone told me that G's were safe bets.
But it did change depending were I was at - I have lots of different light sources and wall colors in my home. Looking at it under incadescent light with "sugar cookie" (slight yellow) painted walls - then I moved downstairs to a basement with flourscent lights and white walls - there was a change!
After talking to oldminer in a past post on how to judge color - I took my loose diamonds from between my fingers and put them on a white piece of paper - turned off all the lights and stood near a window with natural light filtering in. Looked perfectly white to me - whew!
As I walked aorund my house I thought I saw some yellow tint too. I thought I was nuts - I mean everyone told me that G's were safe bets.
But it did change depending were I was at - I have lots of different light sources and wall colors in my home. Looking at it under incadescent light with "sugar cookie" (slight yellow) painted walls - then I moved downstairs to a basement with flourscent lights and white walls - there was a change!
After talking to oldminer in a past post on how to judge color - I took my loose diamonds from between my fingers and put them on a white piece of paper - turned off all the lights and stood near a window with natural light filtering in. Looked perfectly white to me - whew!
laney
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Messages
- 750
I read this thread and laughed.. as I thought about the new lightbulb commerical...
have you seen it? It''s not the paint... it''s not the turkey... it''s your lighting.
I think it'' for GE Reveal Lightbulbs.
There is another one... where a guy is being interrogated in a police station.. and the cop says.. I thought that was a green shirt...but now I see it''s more like a seafoam?
Anyone?
have you seen it? It''s not the paint... it''s not the turkey... it''s your lighting.
I think it'' for GE Reveal Lightbulbs.
There is another one... where a guy is being interrogated in a police station.. and the cop says.. I thought that was a green shirt...but now I see it''s more like a seafoam?
Anyone?
Patty
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2003
- Messages
- 4,457
Laney, the "seafoam" commercial is one of my favorites! We were on a trip recently with some friends of ours and my girlfriend was complimenting me on my outfit. Her husband then says to my husband, "That''s a nice shirt you''re wearing, Dave. It''s charcoal, isn''t it?" I cracked up. It turns out that he hadn''t even seen the Reveal Lightbulb commercial but of course I told him about it!Date: 11/4/2004 4:240 PM
Author: laney
I read this thread and laughed.. as I thought about the new lightbulb commerical...
have you seen it? It''s not the paint... it''s not the turkey... it''s your lighting.
I think it'' for GE Reveal Lightbulbs.
There is another one... where a guy is being interrogated in a police station.. and the cop says.. I thought that was a green shirt...but now I see it''s more like a seafoam?
Anyone?
I think everyone notices te same issue in indorr lighting. If you have a low watt light bulb, just look at it. It isn''t exactly "White" light. Even some light bulbs with clear casing (where you can see the filament) have a yellowish tint to it. If you have dimmers on a bulb like this, you can bring it down relatively low and adjust the color from yellow to orange and then dark red when it is almost off. You really need good light bulbs that shoot out some nice white light. Most cheap light bulbs DO NOT do this. It stinks for your diamond, as it reflects the color well... I suppose the natural color in the diamond would also enhance this effect, as some yellow tint from the light + slight natural yellow tint will make it more pronounced.
I would think the people who benefit the most are the people with flourescence and flourescent lighting...
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
To a variety of folks:
I seem to be accused of many things for my previous post. Perhaps some of it is true, perhaps not.
How true is the information I presented before. Is it just plain false, or just an exargeration. How can I persent such information. This is an unusually long post as I present my evidence and information.
If any of you have not guessed before this I have a techincal background, and have a BS in Engineering. I have many years experience working with industrial standards for many different things and processes - and have worked with code committees on needed changes. Figuring out what a standard requires, and its loopholes (if there are any) is part of my job. Finding vendors who cut corners in standards when perfoming a job for my employers over the years is also a key part of my job.
I am typically a good researcher on sorting out likely Bu.. S.. from reliable information, but like every one I do occasionally get fooled. If you can point out what is the false information in what I present - and back it up with reasonable data. I will acknowadge it.
As far as my formal diamond grading experience. Zip. However, that does not prevent me from going into the local jewelers and asking about fluoresence and getting a demonstration of the color change (up to several grades). Several prominant Pricescope vendors have discussed it in many post - which is why I became interested in fluoresence in a diamond in the first place.
I do not feel that I am inventing much information in my post above.
For reference the original post thread that the subject came up on is:
www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?mode=viewtopic&topicID=20500&num=30&pageNo=1
With a subject line of "Latest Trend: 0 Ideals cut for weight, not beauty " by NiceIce if my link does not work right.
Please read the appropriate parts of this thread starting at my first post, and the responses of the various people who commonly post here. I will let you form your own oppinion on the validity of the base information, and if anyone challanged it at the time.
As far as who am I to challange GIA. It is not me, it is Marty Haske from Adamas Gemological Laboratory, and one of the Pricescope listed appraisers. I though that he was somewhat respected on this forum.
Please read his paper on this. I gave the link above, but I will give it again.
www.gis.net/~adamas/giafluor.html
Again, please read this before continuing if you wonder where I got the information and in part what I base my conclusions on.
So one of the key questions is "Did GIA change how they were color grading diamonds" Yes or No.
Based on the information I have, and the fact that some highly respected Pricescope Vendors did not dispute or agreed with Marty''s key allegation of the shift - I think the answer is yes.
Then there falls two logical qustions from that: Q 1) Did GIA have the "right" to make that change? Q 2) How significant of an affect on diamond qualtiy/prices did the change have (i.e is the issue an overexageration).
There is a third question related to Did GIA start grading diamonds with fluoresence as having none? If NiceIce is to be trusted - the answer seems to be Yes.
Onto Question 1) Changing the standard for color grading... I cannot speak for the rest of the world but in the USA there are legal requirments related to Jewelry in 16 CFR part 23. This prohibits the misrepresentation of color along with many other items, although it does not specifically specify how color is to be graded.
However, an unanounced change in color grading would be an inherent misrepresentation (a lab is not free to invent its own method of color grading), especially in the face of well established industry standards. This is how standards work even if there is not precise publication of a standard by a recognized standard''s body.
In addition, the section on misrepresentation of "Blue-White" raises the direct point that those diamonds must be color graded in "North Daylight" (or its equivelant).
Research into North Daylight is a fascinating subject itself, and I will be the first to admit that while there is a basic concept of North, or South, Daylight it is somewhat hard to find general aggreement out that exactly what conditions represent the "North Daylight" that should be duplicated as closely as possible by artificial lighting.
However, the gist of my research seems to indicate that jewelers have for hundreds of years used north or south daylight (depending on which hemishpere they are in - and discounting for the moment that the earth is tilted to the sun) to eliminate glare from the overhead sun when judging jemstone color. I did not find a single reference anywhere that indicated that you used anything but... The result is that it is clear that "North Daylight" is the standard for grading diamond color.
The references also indicate the vast color changes that can occur during the day from normal daylight. The best overall reference I found on the subject is at the following link (read the second section for a discussion on the issues on choosing artificial light - if interested: not really needed to follow the rest my discussion, just thought some of you would be interested).
www.palagems.com/gem_lighting1.htm
The real debats out amoung the litereature I found was on what kind of "North Daylight" to use relates to what temperature is the light (6000K to 7500K) and clear blue sky or cloud covered sky.
However, another piece of information that I found - and is susposed to be a direct quote from an older GIA dictionary is: north light: "illumination from the northern sky between 10 AM and 12 Noon on a moderately overcast morning during the sping or fall". There is also a note about 6500K.
That is well within the most common range of discussion, and given that the stated source is GIA seems rather difinitive.
Of course, anyone out there with some older copies of the GIA material can easily check that definition (alas, I do not have such a book here).
The really important part of the definintion here is "moderately overcast" as this would most likely be considered a light general cloud cover based on the various references I read.
Here is why that is important. absent the cloud cover - on a clear blue sky - North/South Daylight will have a UV component (the sky is blue because of blue light scatter, which would extend into the UV range (to a fixed limit according to my astronomer freind as he described some reaction in the upper atmosphere that cuts almost everything above a certian frequency - but clearly into the lower UV ranges).
Toss in the cloud cover, my astronomer freind tells me, and no UV. Zip UV from a practical standpoint.
"a moderately overcast morning" = 0 UV
Note that this definition - with the overcast sky - is consistent with the information presented by Marty as to the multi decade method of color grading diamonds.
If GIA has changed the definition of "North Daylight" to remove the "moderately overcast morning" part of the definition - then the definition, and their grading standard, would have changed from no UV to moderate UV. I am not saying the changed - but theorectically this would allow them to say that they were still using "North Daylignt" while changing the effective standard.
Can someone with the current GIA reference material post what is the current GIA definition of "North Daylight." We can compare it to the old definintion if it checks out.
In summary, based on decades of working with "standards" it is my opinion that if GIA has changed the grading method, or changed the definintion of "North Daylight" then they have taken upon themselves to effect a change not allowed in 16 CFR part 23.
Unfortunatly, in the USA it often takes a major lawsuit in order to correct such things - even obvous violations of industrial standards (I know of tubing vendors who do not meet ASTM standards for their tubing, and have gotten away with it for years (all the whle their material certs state that the tubing meets the appropriate standard). They just pay off the occasional customer when needed while they routinely underbid the companies that meet the standard - and they get lots of business. Key point: There are no "standards" police. You have to enfore your standards on the vendors (or deal with vendors who really do meet the standards).
This brings up the second question: How significant of an affect on diamond qualtiy/prices did the change have (i.e is the issue an overexageration).
The information I have is that only about 1/3 of diamonds have enough fluoresence to be affected enough to notice from No-UV to UV grading.
Furthermore, NiceIce indicates that the GIA reports that only about 10% of the total diamonds will shift color grades ranging from indore lighting to strong sunlight, which I consider to represent low UV to high UV lighting.
So I will accept the proposition that about 10% of all diamonds could be color graded differenctly based on shifting from no UV to daylight UV. For a 1 carat diamond of VS1 clarity a 1 color grad shift is about $900 (Blue Nile prices - that is where I developed my starter price charts). For high clarity diamonds it goes up, or lower clarity diamonds it goes down.
The stonger the fluoresence - the larger the color change (I think everyone agrees with that).
Changing the prices of 10% of the diamond market is a big chunk of change - is my deca million dollar figure really that out of place (deca is 10).
I do get the impression that Gary H (cut nut) seems to agree that the change took place, but that the overall effect was not that significant. How big does it have to be - to be significant? Is it the fact that it only affects 10% of the diamonds, or the fact that paying for one color change is not that significant (and paying only that on 10% of the diamonds)? Collectively I see it as a huge number.
Nicrez has also presented evidence that GIA claims that they have not changed. That is at odds with the information that Marty has presented. I cannot directly respond to that as I do not have the specific industry contacts. But a lot of you do. Marty also presents information that the light bulbs have changed (and that would be a definite change in grading due to the change in spectra).
Please note that you don''t have to be a diamond expert to see a potential shift away from a standard (or how it is done). Many of us in other industries spend a lot of time tracking the same kind of issues on other industrial standards. To use my current phrase when I see something like this at work: My nose is twitching - something doesn''t smell right. 90% of the time I am right, 10% of the time it checks out as legitimate.
The process is fairly simple. Verify the old and new definitions, verify the old and new light bulbs, etc. It is either the same (or essentially the same) or not.
Perry
I seem to be accused of many things for my previous post. Perhaps some of it is true, perhaps not.
How true is the information I presented before. Is it just plain false, or just an exargeration. How can I persent such information. This is an unusually long post as I present my evidence and information.
If any of you have not guessed before this I have a techincal background, and have a BS in Engineering. I have many years experience working with industrial standards for many different things and processes - and have worked with code committees on needed changes. Figuring out what a standard requires, and its loopholes (if there are any) is part of my job. Finding vendors who cut corners in standards when perfoming a job for my employers over the years is also a key part of my job.
I am typically a good researcher on sorting out likely Bu.. S.. from reliable information, but like every one I do occasionally get fooled. If you can point out what is the false information in what I present - and back it up with reasonable data. I will acknowadge it.
As far as my formal diamond grading experience. Zip. However, that does not prevent me from going into the local jewelers and asking about fluoresence and getting a demonstration of the color change (up to several grades). Several prominant Pricescope vendors have discussed it in many post - which is why I became interested in fluoresence in a diamond in the first place.
I do not feel that I am inventing much information in my post above.
For reference the original post thread that the subject came up on is:
www.pricescope.com/idealbb/view.asp?mode=viewtopic&topicID=20500&num=30&pageNo=1
With a subject line of "Latest Trend: 0 Ideals cut for weight, not beauty " by NiceIce if my link does not work right.
Please read the appropriate parts of this thread starting at my first post, and the responses of the various people who commonly post here. I will let you form your own oppinion on the validity of the base information, and if anyone challanged it at the time.
As far as who am I to challange GIA. It is not me, it is Marty Haske from Adamas Gemological Laboratory, and one of the Pricescope listed appraisers. I though that he was somewhat respected on this forum.
Please read his paper on this. I gave the link above, but I will give it again.
www.gis.net/~adamas/giafluor.html
Again, please read this before continuing if you wonder where I got the information and in part what I base my conclusions on.
So one of the key questions is "Did GIA change how they were color grading diamonds" Yes or No.
Based on the information I have, and the fact that some highly respected Pricescope Vendors did not dispute or agreed with Marty''s key allegation of the shift - I think the answer is yes.
Then there falls two logical qustions from that: Q 1) Did GIA have the "right" to make that change? Q 2) How significant of an affect on diamond qualtiy/prices did the change have (i.e is the issue an overexageration).
There is a third question related to Did GIA start grading diamonds with fluoresence as having none? If NiceIce is to be trusted - the answer seems to be Yes.
Onto Question 1) Changing the standard for color grading... I cannot speak for the rest of the world but in the USA there are legal requirments related to Jewelry in 16 CFR part 23. This prohibits the misrepresentation of color along with many other items, although it does not specifically specify how color is to be graded.
However, an unanounced change in color grading would be an inherent misrepresentation (a lab is not free to invent its own method of color grading), especially in the face of well established industry standards. This is how standards work even if there is not precise publication of a standard by a recognized standard''s body.
In addition, the section on misrepresentation of "Blue-White" raises the direct point that those diamonds must be color graded in "North Daylight" (or its equivelant).
Research into North Daylight is a fascinating subject itself, and I will be the first to admit that while there is a basic concept of North, or South, Daylight it is somewhat hard to find general aggreement out that exactly what conditions represent the "North Daylight" that should be duplicated as closely as possible by artificial lighting.
However, the gist of my research seems to indicate that jewelers have for hundreds of years used north or south daylight (depending on which hemishpere they are in - and discounting for the moment that the earth is tilted to the sun) to eliminate glare from the overhead sun when judging jemstone color. I did not find a single reference anywhere that indicated that you used anything but... The result is that it is clear that "North Daylight" is the standard for grading diamond color.
The references also indicate the vast color changes that can occur during the day from normal daylight. The best overall reference I found on the subject is at the following link (read the second section for a discussion on the issues on choosing artificial light - if interested: not really needed to follow the rest my discussion, just thought some of you would be interested).
www.palagems.com/gem_lighting1.htm
The real debats out amoung the litereature I found was on what kind of "North Daylight" to use relates to what temperature is the light (6000K to 7500K) and clear blue sky or cloud covered sky.
However, another piece of information that I found - and is susposed to be a direct quote from an older GIA dictionary is: north light: "illumination from the northern sky between 10 AM and 12 Noon on a moderately overcast morning during the sping or fall". There is also a note about 6500K.
That is well within the most common range of discussion, and given that the stated source is GIA seems rather difinitive.
Of course, anyone out there with some older copies of the GIA material can easily check that definition (alas, I do not have such a book here).
The really important part of the definintion here is "moderately overcast" as this would most likely be considered a light general cloud cover based on the various references I read.
Here is why that is important. absent the cloud cover - on a clear blue sky - North/South Daylight will have a UV component (the sky is blue because of blue light scatter, which would extend into the UV range (to a fixed limit according to my astronomer freind as he described some reaction in the upper atmosphere that cuts almost everything above a certian frequency - but clearly into the lower UV ranges).
Toss in the cloud cover, my astronomer freind tells me, and no UV. Zip UV from a practical standpoint.
"a moderately overcast morning" = 0 UV
Note that this definition - with the overcast sky - is consistent with the information presented by Marty as to the multi decade method of color grading diamonds.
If GIA has changed the definition of "North Daylight" to remove the "moderately overcast morning" part of the definition - then the definition, and their grading standard, would have changed from no UV to moderate UV. I am not saying the changed - but theorectically this would allow them to say that they were still using "North Daylignt" while changing the effective standard.
Can someone with the current GIA reference material post what is the current GIA definition of "North Daylight." We can compare it to the old definintion if it checks out.
In summary, based on decades of working with "standards" it is my opinion that if GIA has changed the grading method, or changed the definintion of "North Daylight" then they have taken upon themselves to effect a change not allowed in 16 CFR part 23.
Unfortunatly, in the USA it often takes a major lawsuit in order to correct such things - even obvous violations of industrial standards (I know of tubing vendors who do not meet ASTM standards for their tubing, and have gotten away with it for years (all the whle their material certs state that the tubing meets the appropriate standard). They just pay off the occasional customer when needed while they routinely underbid the companies that meet the standard - and they get lots of business. Key point: There are no "standards" police. You have to enfore your standards on the vendors (or deal with vendors who really do meet the standards).
This brings up the second question: How significant of an affect on diamond qualtiy/prices did the change have (i.e is the issue an overexageration).
The information I have is that only about 1/3 of diamonds have enough fluoresence to be affected enough to notice from No-UV to UV grading.
Furthermore, NiceIce indicates that the GIA reports that only about 10% of the total diamonds will shift color grades ranging from indore lighting to strong sunlight, which I consider to represent low UV to high UV lighting.
So I will accept the proposition that about 10% of all diamonds could be color graded differenctly based on shifting from no UV to daylight UV. For a 1 carat diamond of VS1 clarity a 1 color grad shift is about $900 (Blue Nile prices - that is where I developed my starter price charts). For high clarity diamonds it goes up, or lower clarity diamonds it goes down.
The stonger the fluoresence - the larger the color change (I think everyone agrees with that).
Changing the prices of 10% of the diamond market is a big chunk of change - is my deca million dollar figure really that out of place (deca is 10).
I do get the impression that Gary H (cut nut) seems to agree that the change took place, but that the overall effect was not that significant. How big does it have to be - to be significant? Is it the fact that it only affects 10% of the diamonds, or the fact that paying for one color change is not that significant (and paying only that on 10% of the diamonds)? Collectively I see it as a huge number.
Nicrez has also presented evidence that GIA claims that they have not changed. That is at odds with the information that Marty has presented. I cannot directly respond to that as I do not have the specific industry contacts. But a lot of you do. Marty also presents information that the light bulbs have changed (and that would be a definite change in grading due to the change in spectra).
Please note that you don''t have to be a diamond expert to see a potential shift away from a standard (or how it is done). Many of us in other industries spend a lot of time tracking the same kind of issues on other industrial standards. To use my current phrase when I see something like this at work: My nose is twitching - something doesn''t smell right. 90% of the time I am right, 10% of the time it checks out as legitimate.
The process is fairly simple. Verify the old and new definitions, verify the old and new light bulbs, etc. It is either the same (or essentially the same) or not.
Perry
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
I believe you are wrong..
They used to sell and use GEM Verilux Fluorescent tubes which they can''t get any more.
Then they started selling plain Verilux, which had the nasty habit of glowing greenish white when they were near any UV source (they couldn''t get the old GemVerilux bulbs)
And I believe they now use plain D65.. and are teaching to hold the stone right up to the light (maximize UV input)
All the bulbs had UV content and were not "filtered Cool White Fluorescent" like they taught for 50 years...
See http://www.gis.net/~adamas/giafluor.html
MelissaSue
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,006
I don''t see the yellow in my (I/j) stone in indoor lighting.. but I see the yellow in my white gold.. I''ve determined it is all in my head, planted there by the evil platinum pushing jeweler.
Nicrez
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,230
to Marty: Who is your source on this alleged change in lighting sources? If you don''t want to post, please feel free to PM me, and I will verify the information through headquarters if need be.
I don''t disagree that color misrepresentation in wrong, but in the legal field, you need to prove that there is some sort of conspiracy or malintent to prosecute, and wether GIA was NEGLIGENT in doing so, I doubt. If one or two graders have different opinions on color versus a few gemologists in Timbucktu, I DON''T DOUBT...
It''s quite a bizarre thing I noticed...You have a GEM lab, don''t you? Do you do grading? Interesting that you are trying to find fault and spread misconception about one of the world''s most trust gemological laboratory, when YOU YOURSELF have a lab... Hmmm.... Conflict of interest?
Again, I would gladly verify all the information you are alleging. Consider my personal pet project for the year.
I don''t disagree that color misrepresentation in wrong, but in the legal field, you need to prove that there is some sort of conspiracy or malintent to prosecute, and wether GIA was NEGLIGENT in doing so, I doubt. If one or two graders have different opinions on color versus a few gemologists in Timbucktu, I DON''T DOUBT...
It''s quite a bizarre thing I noticed...You have a GEM lab, don''t you? Do you do grading? Interesting that you are trying to find fault and spread misconception about one of the world''s most trust gemological laboratory, when YOU YOURSELF have a lab... Hmmm.... Conflict of interest?
Again, I would gladly verify all the information you are alleging. Consider my personal pet project for the year.
rfath
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 406
Date: 11/5/2004 79:45 AM
Author: Nicrez
It''s quite a bizarre thing I noticed...You have a GEM lab, don''t you? Do you do grading? Interesting that you are trying to find fault and spread misconception about one of the world''s most trust gemological laboratory, when YOU YOURSELF have a lab... Hmmm.... Conflict of interest?
Whoa... you seem to be getting a bit defensive. Check around on these boards.. Marty is rather well-regarded as an appraiser with a pretty significant technical background and a LOT of experience in the field. I think he''s concerned that he IS seeing some changes in the GIA that he''d like addressed so that it can continue to be one of the most well-respected labs. What would he be trying to sell someone?
If you''re interested, Marty''s website is http://www.gis.net/~adamas/.
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Dear Nicre..Date: 11/5/2004 79:45 AM
Author: Nicrez
to Marty: Who is your source on this alleged change in lighting sources? If you don''t want to post, please feel free to PM me, and I will verify the information through headquarters if need be.
I don''t disagree that color misrepresentation in wrong, but in the legal field, you need to prove that there is some sort of conspiracy or malintent to prosecute, and wether GIA was NEGLIGENT in doing so, I doubt. If one or two graders have different opinions on color versus a few gemologists in Timbucktu, I DON''T DOUBT...
It''s quite a bizarre thing I noticed...You have a GEM lab, don''t you? Do you do grading? Interesting that you are trying to find fault and spread misconception about one of the world''s most trust gemological laboratory, when YOU YOURSELF have a lab... Hmmm.... Conflict of interest?
Again, I would gladly verify all the information you are alleging. Consider my personal pet project for the year.
1) How about GIA documentation spanning 50 years of teaching with documented changes in the teaching.. Is the GIA color grading scale that of GIA/GTL or GIA?
2) How about purchases and tests on lights sold by GIA Gem Trade lab for the DiamondLite regarding the Verilux issue? What do your bulbs say GemVerilux or Verilux or Daylight (see pic on http://www.gis.net/~adamas/giafluor.html
3) Why don''t you take a piece of Lexan plastic (you can get at Home Depot) and use it to filter out the UV in your DiamondLite, since you seem to be a dealer. Try it on a strong blue against your masters. I''d love to demonstrate that in a court of law, and then present GIA''s own words "diamonds should be graded at their poorer color in artificial light devoid of ultraviolet"
4) Spectroscopy can easily illustrate the phenomena
You''ll only get the party line through your contacts at "GIA headquarters"..
And as to conflict of interest.. I don''t sell paper to the trade, I don''t sell diamonds, there is no conflict of interest, only the truth, whether you like it or not
Regarding "bizarre", if you want to throw BS accusations you''ll have to get your head out of your backside first so you''ll be able to see which direction to sling it
Richard Sherwood
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2002
- Messages
- 4,924
There are probably not many people at GIA who are at Marty''s level of expertise.
Nicrez
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,230
Several things that concerned me with this post.
1) Perry. I am sorry but I think it is improper to post with such authority based on someone else''s studies and words, as if you HAD the proof to back them up. It''s not your fight, it''s Marty''s, let him get into the details, as they are best coming straight from the horse''s mouth, or else who can answer the questions people can pose?
2) Marty makes accusations and allegations that to me, have not been proven on any other medium but his own website. No one has yet linked any articles written in impartial journals of Gemology or even a non-gemology source. Anyone have these? Agian to me, the proof is in the pudding.
3) He may be well received and possibly even absolutely right, but perhaps it''s the ferocity and presentation of this "facts" that to me ring a very discordant bell. It lacks a objectivity that most studies I have seen, and seems to border on liable accusation and demonization of GIA. Not very professional in my book.
4) He is also however a producer of "the SAS2000 Spectrophotometer Analysis System for color grading and treatment detection of diamonds." To me, there is a obvious conflict of interest in a man who decries the work of the largest gem grading lab''s color grading technique and in the same strokesells and produced HIS OWN method to color grade. To me, it is a weak sales tactic used by many people to drum up business for their own techniques, products, etc, when they put down and "call out" the dominating competitor in color grading.
5) I understand that if you feel passionately about something, and you believe yourself to be true, scare tactics and his entire tone of that whole website wreaks of propaganda. Perhaps it''s not, but his presentation and purpose have me wondering.
6) His comments such as "Regarding "bizarre", if you want to throw BS accusations you''ll have to get your head out of your backside first so you''ll be able to see which direction to sling it
7) I don''t like people using scare tactics. If you have an issue, confront it, try and solve it, lobby for it, but just going around telling people GIA is ripping people off in my book is absolutely NOT the way to handle something.
Two degrees from MIT, or a degree from GOD, can make you know the subject matter you studied indepthly, but it does not make you an effective champion of consumers rights.So what then is his status on the "pending litigation" with GIA and the progress he has made on publishing his theory? As many posts as anyone can have, and as many trusted devotees that are willing to follow someone along no matter what, I do not take all information given to me on this forum as Gospel. I take each piece of it with a grain of salt, and find ways of verifying it on my own. I did this with many things on this site and have found that in my verification of such "turths" many things are perception, many are misconception and the rest can be deception. I would like to simply verify his information before accepting it, and I am well within my right as a consumer and (one day an industry professional) to challenge him on his theories.
If people stopped questioning and requiring proof, many of us would be buying "warped stones" and buying rough from some guy in Sierra Leon for $1.
But that''s just my $.04.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Nicrez is at the teachers are gods stage in a few months she will see how little her teachers really know and come back to earth.
Then she will learn how little she knows after she has her newly minted cert and hits the real world.
Its the same with higher education students the world over after a few sessions they think they know everything about everything it really annoys those of us that do :}
hehehehehehehe
Then she will learn how little she knows after she has her newly minted cert and hits the real world.
Its the same with higher education students the world over after a few sessions they think they know everything about everything it really annoys those of us that do :}
hehehehehehehe
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2003
- Messages
- 15,808
C''mon, GIA sells paper, Adamas Lab does not and for some reason I bet neither would fill the other''s boots. Unless science has become ripe for mass marketing without a hint of notice.
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Date: 11/7/2004 12:50:23 AM
Author: Nicrez
Richard, I appreciate your post in support of Marty. I have read your posts and trust your words, although i have never physically met you, I feel you are very trustworthy. I apologize, but although I have heard the name, I can not say that I am too familiar with Marty, until this post.
Several things that concerned me with this post.
1) Perry. I am sorry but I think it is improper to post with such authority based on someone else''s studies and words, as if you HAD the proof to back them up. It''s not your fight, it''s Marty''s, let him get into the details, as they are best coming straight from the horse''s mouth, or else who can answer the questions people can pose?
2) Marty makes accusations and allegations that to me, have not been proven on any other medium but his own website. No one has yet linked any articles written in impartial journals of Gemology or even a non-gemology source. Anyone have these? Agian to me, the proof is in the pudding.
3) He may be well received and possibly even absolutely right, but perhaps it''s the ferocity and presentation of this ''facts'' that to me ring a very discordant bell. It lacks a objectivity that most studies I have seen, and seems to border on liable accusation and demonization of GIA. Not very professional in my book.
4) He is also however a producer of ''the SAS2000 Spectrophotometer Analysis System for color grading and treatment detection of diamonds.'' To me, there is a obvious conflict of interest in a man who decries the work of the largest gem grading lab''s color grading technique and in the same strokesells and produced HIS OWN method to color grade. To me, it is a weak sales tactic used by many people to drum up business for their own techniques, products, etc, when they put down and ''call out'' the dominating competitor in color grading.
5) I understand that if you feel passionately about something, and you believe yourself to be true, scare tactics and his entire tone of that whole website wreaks of propaganda. Perhaps it''s not, but his presentation and purpose have me wondering.
6) His comments such as ''Regarding ''bizarre'', if you want to throw BS accusations you''ll have to get your head out of your backside first so you''ll be able to see which direction to sling it'' are actually the height of not only immaturity but also the perfect reason to distrust a person''s character. My accusation was because of the conflict of interest I saw, and frankly, the fact that he has a competing method to me is STILL justifiably a conflict of interest, and shows motivation on his part to dsicredit competitors and other methods.
7) I don''t like people using scare tactics. If you have an issue, confront it, try and solve it, lobby for it, but just going around telling people GIA is ripping people off in my book is absolutely NOT the way to handle something.
So what then is his status on the ''pending litigation'' with GIA and the progress he has made on publishing his theory? As many posts as anyone can have, and as many trusted devotees that are willing to follow someone along no matter what, I do not take all information given to me on this forum as Gospel. I take each piece of it with a grain of salt, and find ways of verifying it on my own. I did this with many things on this site and have found that in my verification of such ''turths'' many things are perception, many are misconception and the rest can be deception. I would like to simply verify his information before accepting it, and I am well within my right as a consumer and (one day an industry professional) to challenge him on his theories.
If people stopped questioning and requiring proof, many of us would be buying ''warped stones'' and buying rough from some guy in Sierra Leon for $1.
But that''s just my $.04.
Nicrez, whomever you are hidden in cyberspace behind an alias..
Perhaps you should also read http://www.gis.net/~adamas/giapat.html regarding GIA..
There are a lot of very good people at GIA, but unfortunately one of the requirements of employment at GIA is to wear a muzzle and only speak the party line. It is all about $$$$.
Management ordained themselves G-Ds, with the TRADEMARK, "The world''s foremost authority in gemology". It is all about $$$, and selling their paper.
I really like the bootlicking image, it seems appropriate for you, Nicrez.
Please remember, that it was YOU Nicrez, who questioned and attacked my integrity.
Perhaps Nicrez would tell us all who she or he really is, maybe that would shed some light on his/her coments.
In the meantime, why don''t you try the little experiment I suggested with the Lexan regarding fluorescence, and try to remember GIA''s own words which I quoted in my article :
"diamonds should be graded at their poorer color in artificial light devoid of ultraviolet"
Nicrez
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,230
Who I am? Well I am not a dealer if that's what you are trying to imply. Would you like my name, my address, my telephone number, shoes size? My "Alias" as you say is actually a nickname I had for many years. I hide because there are frightening people on the internet and although I like to contribute and learn from this forum, I do not like to invite an open window into my life for any crazy to enter. Maybe you would like to attack the majority of posters out here who like to retain a modicum of privacy in their lives, without giving up their ability to learn from this post. FYI: I once belonged to a car forum, and I had posted the company I worked for. They actually knew my first name and last from the Stats (as we have here in PS) and eventually stalked me, and I had to file charges. So thanks, but no thanks on your full disclosure policy. I have had enough of that. If you read my posts, you will see that I am a SHE. I offer a lot of information, but because I don't post my real name it is a protection for my own safety, and I could give a rats @$$ if you like that or not.
And Strmrdr did not say that I was a bootlicker, but the teachers that I currently study from at GIA. I am currently in process of studying for my GG, and Marty, if you had the capability of a search function you could check my posts where I actually mention that. So savvy of posting your Anit-GIA results on the net, and yet you can't read into a forum where I have over 2000 posts to see who I am? I know...it's tough.
Strm, I assure you, it is not that I am in the teachers are God stage. I question them, just as much as I question any post here, I assure you. As a matter of fact, I questioned a certificate, based on an extra facet I found that was not mentioned. It's the class lab key we use, and as imperfect as the whole system is, I am learning from them, as much as they sometimes learn from me. I assure you as well, my questions (as well as others students) in class offer THEM insight into the market, as well as the updates of the field they may have missed while teaching. I NEVER stop asking questions and verifying answers. And I never claimed to know everything. I don't and that's what helps me learn from EVERY source, not just GIA. But if you think that's the case, I invite you to point out where I say that, and if my posts say anything further than the usual questioning of sources, facts and motives.
And Marty if you want to get personal, it only makes you look like a desperate peddler of your wares to me. Whatever respect you garnered in your industry is completely lost in my eyes with your reaction to my questioning your theories in this forum. If you are in the current stage of persuction of GIA, please tell us the place where we can read the legal proceedings or the published works you currently have and the names of other impartial gemology publications that have been happy to investigate alongside you...?
Oh and thanks for the seond link. It just looks like you have an agenda against GIA, because honestly I have never met anyone so desperate to crusify anyone...how sad.
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
Nicrez:
I am so sorry to hear about the stalking incident. Please be thankful that your state had laws on the books so that you could file charges and the issue be dealt with.
I was not so lucky on that as those laws did not yet exist (for clarification I am a guy, and guys can get stalked too). Worse yet, there was an actaul attempt made on my life and the police botched it so bad they could not charge him. What I went through the next several years was something I would not wish on anyone else (Initially I had to continue working with the "nut" and once that ended there was one point where I was moving on average every several months - and I was hours away from the original situation). The most important thing is that in the end I avoded a gunfight and did not do anything stupid that could get me charged; and in the end I emerged a stronger person (but at a very substaintail cost both financially, emotionally, and in my personal relationships). Eventually he disappeared and it took me about 3 years after that for me to relax into a more normal lifestye.
Please understand that while we may disagree on some things on this forum. I understand and wish for peace in our hearts. People who have survived stalking need to have freinds who "know" what it is like.
Perry
Rand_alThor
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 82
*
I really like the bootlicking image, it seems appropriate for you, Nicrez.
*
adamasgem,
I am nicrez''s fiancee. Why don''t you pm me instead? We can exchange phone numbers/addresses and even maybe sit down and discuss boot-licking image in detail. I would like that very much...(you may not!!). Perhaps, we can also discuss how we treat women.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
wooo
Nicrez is right I wouldnt call her a bootlicker I was expressing my frustrations about gia at her gia instructors not at her.
The other post was a joke see the hehehehehehe.
Marty you owe her an apology.
Rand chill out I understand but chill.
Nicrez is right I wouldnt call her a bootlicker I was expressing my frustrations about gia at her gia instructors not at her.
The other post was a joke see the hehehehehehe.
Marty you owe her an apology.
Rand chill out I understand but chill.
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Date: 11/7/2004 9:17:29 PM
Author: Nicrez
Who I am? Well I am not a dealer if that''s what you are trying to imply. Would you like my name, my address, my telephone number, shoes size? My ''Alias'' as you say is actually a nickname I had for many years. I hide because there are frightening people on the internet and although I like to contribute and learn from this forum, I do not like to invite an open window into my life for any crazy to enter. Maybe you would like to attack the majority of posters out here who like to retain a modicum of privacy in their lives, without giving up their ability to learn from this post. FYI: I once belonged to a car forum, and I had posted the company I worked for. They actually knew my first name and last from the Stats (as we have here in PS) and eventually stalked me, and I had to file charges. So thanks, but no thanks on your full disclosure policy. I have had enough of that. If you read my posts, you will see that I am a SHE. I offer a lot of information, but because I don''t post my real name it is a protection for my own safety, and I could give a rats @$$ if you like that or not.
And Strmrdr did not say that I was a bootlicker, but the teachers that I currently study from at GIA. I am currently in process of studying for my GG, and Marty, if you had the capability of a search function you could check my posts where I actually mention that. So savvy of posting your Anit-GIA results on the net, and yet you can''t read into a forum where I have over 2000 posts to see who I am? I know...it''s tough.
Strm, I assure you, it is not that I am in the teachers are God stage. I question them, just as much as I question any post here, I assure you. As a matter of fact, I questioned a certificate, based on an extra facet I found that was not mentioned. It''s the class lab key we use, and as imperfect as the whole system is, I am learning from them, as much as they sometimes learn from me. I assure you as well, my questions (as well as others students) in class offer THEM insight into the market, as well as the updates of the field they may have missed while teaching. I NEVER stop asking questions and verifying answers. And I never claimed to know everything. I don''t and that''s what helps me learn from EVERY source, not just GIA. But if you think that''s the case, I invite you to point out where I say that, and if my posts say anything further than the usual questioning of sources, facts and motives.
And Marty if you want to get personal, it only makes you look like a desperate peddler of your wares to me. Whatever respect you garnered in your industry is completely lost in my eyes with your reaction to my questioning your theories in this forum. If you are in the current stage of persuction of GIA, please tell us the place where we can read the legal proceedings or the published works you currently have and the names of other impartial gemology publications that have been happy to investigate alongside you...?
Oh and thanks for the seond link. It just looks like you have an agenda against GIA, because honestly I have never met anyone so desperate to crusify anyone...how sad.
I get it now, a GG in training. Just avoid the GIA brainwashing and get different perspectives, like the FGA program, or try this link for an online gemology program from my links page. http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~eps2/
GIA''s home study and extension teachers are excellent, and they as an institution have significantly improved their educational program from the downturn of the 90''s.
My relationship with GIA goes back a long way, until I got screwed by their management, with personal interference in my business by their president, BB.
Their commentary in a US patent is trade liable.
You don''t know the players, I do, for the most part, world wide.
Whether you want to believe that G-D aka GIA is perfect or not, realize that there are a lot of forces driving what they do, namely $$, hence the changes in how they teach grading. I spent a lot of time documenting what they have taught over the years, and realized that because of $$, they have pandered to the trade to give better grades, case in point the fluorescence issue, of which I am on solid technical ground with my challenge to what they are doing and the deception they are attempting to foster on to the consumer.
.It is a subtle, yet radical change in grading which means big $$ for the trade members of GIA/GTL, including our friends from DeBeers, who give big contributions.
If you look at the time line with respect to the DeBeers going private, and GIA''s statements about 35% of the world''s diamonds having some level of fluorescence, you sort of wonder which methodology was employed to value the stockpile for the stockholders prior to them going private. Let alone the 20 years of stockpiling type IIa brownies and valuing them as industrial, non gem quality rough, knowing they could be decolorized.
The diamond trade is almost entirely dependent on what GIA/GTL says is "truth", but is certainly free to challenge it, which I am doing on solid technical grounds. I have them hung with their own words, which I, and tens of thousand other GG''s were taught for fifty years.
"diamonds should be graded at their poorer color in artificial light devoid of untraviolet, use FILTERED cool white fluorescent light, which unlike sunlight, is nearly devoid of ultraviolet."
Get your head out of the sand, please.
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Dear Fiancee.. I feel real sorry for you, buddy.
Are you going to come to her defense everytime she opens up her mouth and sticks her foot in it, for the rest of your life, think about it. Sounds like she might have done it before with the stalking thing, maybe not.
And as far as threatening me, don''t start something you can''t finish, lest you want to wind up behind bars, licking your wounds.
You can pm me if you want, I''ll talk to you rationally, my information is public.
Nicrez
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2004
- Messages
- 3,230
I didn''t even know that Rand posted and I thank him for sticking up for me. He is man enough to respect a woman and to know what lines should never be crosses, and stands up for me when someone crosses those lines of decency. If you didn''t have enough ammunition to enjoy your day being rude to me, I hope your second dose on someone virtuously protecting his fiance''s honor makes you feel like a real man.
You speak about my life with the most contemptuous tone and sarcastic obnoxious attitude. This forum is no place to talk about such issues, so I will refrain from further discussing how I feel. but your personal comments are not only inappropriate and totally disrespectful, but indicate to me what type of person you are. Don''t feel sorry for my fiance, as he''s not the one who is terminally rude and a complete jerk.
There is nothing rational about your talk, and I don''t care if you are right or wrong on any subject, you are probably one of the most obnoxious people I have ever had the unfortunate chance of encountering anywhere. That said, write up a storm, insult me as much as you want, but know that I will not stoop to your level. Enjoy your forum the floor is ALL yours.
Jennifer5973
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2003
- Messages
- 4,107
Too bad MIT doesn''t have a course in chivalry.
There are ways to make a point without personal attacks and disrespect.
rfath
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2004
- Messages
- 406
You know... I''d like to be able to respect both of you. Name-calling, questioning motives, nastiness... it''s just not what this forum is for. It''s icky and uncomfortable when people who used to act respectful instead get into a poo-flinging spat in front of a lot of people. Can it stop now, please? This thread started out well.... and now it''s starting to stink.
pricescope
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1999
- Messages
- 8,266
Date: 11/8/2004 8:475 AM
Author: rfath
You know... I''d like to be able to respect both of you. Name-calling, questioning motives, nastiness... it''s just not what this forum is for. It''s icky and uncomfortable when people who used to act respectful instead get into a poo-flinging spat in front of a lot of people. Can it stop now, please? This thread started out well.... and now it''s starting to stink.
Amen
- Status
Did You Miss the May 2024 Jewels of the Weeks?
Did You Miss the May 2024 Jewels of the Weeks? - 05/31
The Best Time to Buy a Diamond Engagement Ring
The Best Time to Buy a Diamond Engagement Ring - 05/29
300x240.png)