GIA Diamond Cut Grading: Problems with Diamond Dock

[dhog]

Date: 3/20/2006 9:41:02 PM
Author: strmrdr

Direct sunlight or bright direct lighting is not the best lighting for separating diamonds.

[/quote]


Id rather go shooting :}[/quote] could you hit
your target in the bright sunlight on the border
of the photo or would you run out of ammo.

I keep plenty of ammo for future use

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/20/2006 9:30:45 PM
Author: dhog

I need you to cast the lure out of the photo
and tell me where it landed. pretty cool

happy fishing

The smallest "Al''s Goldfish" always seemed to work for me with ultralight setup.

As for storm''s "shooting", a 22cal Hammerli with a 2 gram trigger pull for shooting the pits out of olives or punching holes in very small 10 rings

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 10:42:34 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Not shallow at all. 40.83. They''re GIA: E-VG proportions in DC. I took my lead from your first set of graphics and darked the mains manually to show where the differences were taking place: I think you did that in your 1:31:17 AM post...unless there is a feature in DC that does this I''m not aware of (?) I created them on the fly but I had the GIA lengths appx 77.7, 80, 82.3 (DC 79.4, 81.5, 83.7).

I definitely approve of having the info. I said in my previous post that I applaud GIA for their studies and for including them. I wish it were not rounded, as the character of diamonds within 5% can be different sometimes, but if we got everything we wanted it would be too easy I suppose.

Thanks for clarifying John.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 3:09:29 PM
Author: adamasgem
This is the indexing study for 50% stars and 80% lower girdle halves

thanks for posting that Marty ...

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 3:59:46 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 3/20/2006 2:59:12 PM
Author: strmrdr

LOL no John just starting to put 2 and 2 together.
This mess is starting to make sence to me.

Hehe. Strm’s process of putting 2 and 2 together…

Look at 2.
Cross-check 2 and look again.
Might be 2 but need to prove it.
Separate each component of 2.
Now you have 1 and 1.
Evaluate 1. Is it really 1?
Find lab reports on 1.
Post 1 for feedback.
Research all previous posts on 1.
Do a background check on the integrity of past 1s.
Put 1 in earrings and pendants.
Put grease on the pavilion of 1.
Get a scan of 1. Use IntegerCalc and play with 1.
Consensus is that it is 1.

Ok. 1 seems to be 1… Now let’s go look at the other ‘1.’

(repeat)

LMAO!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 4:26:18 PM
Author: dhog
rhino

if the diamond dock could emulate real sunlight
you might be able to photograph real fire and at
the same time get a blue sky even with the stone
tilted in a viewers approx. angle

That is a beautiful picture depicting fire dhog. Is that with the Nikon?

 

[Rhino]

The above topic did get me to thinking about ‘painted’ upper halves and we are going to ray trace stones with varying amounts of ‘painting’ with star / lower girdle combinations other than the 50 / 80 to see how much a cutter can ‘paint’ and still get AGS 0 light performance in our system. We’ll make this information available to all.

Hey Mike,

If you''ve read Garry''s article he points out certain issues about GIA raytracing and how it only corellated with 58% of the observers.

This tells us something that we need to think about further ...

You know I''m a nut for technologies and the info that can be garnered from them, HOWEVER when they disagree with human observation ...

I love the ASET. I love AGS''s PGS software from what I''ve seen of it. However, when majority consumer preferences runs counter to technology (I don''t care what technology it is) we must consider human perception first and foremost. This is, in my opinion one of slight pit falls of the AGS system as it appears it may have adopted some of the weakness'' of reflector technologies since it relies so heavily upon it.

In my professional opinion, the ultimate test of *any* technology is how well it correllates to human perception. ASET and PGS included. If it fails in one area or another, educate the public regarding those weakness''/strengths and let them be informed so they know the facts before consulting them. I look at ASET as a tool (and dam good one at that) for identifying ones personal preferences. It was a hoot after some of our survey''s suggesting to folks that their personal preference lied in a stone with Bscope results (in that instace) that were med/high/med!

Peace,
Jon

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 5:08:54 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 3/20/2006 4:33:17 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 3/20/2006 4:26:18 PM
Author: dhog
rhino


if the diamond dock could emulate real sunlight

you might be able to photograph real fire and at

the same time get a blue sky even with the stone

tilted in a viewers approx. angle

You have to be careful there, you go too far and you get the jewelery store effect with the trick lighting that makes frozen spit look good.
Direct sunlight or bright direct lighting is not the best lighting for separating diamonds.

And if you want to get really sophisticated, using an unbiasing 5000+ point envirionment (not 12 LEDS) that simulates natural shady conditions under a tree, like what I was funded by EightStar to develop as a consistent, unbiased envirionment, then you can start to see what is going on with fire versus cut.

Top row actual photos, bottom row stones put on a black background and composite increased in saturation. These were done with the original prototype device i built, and I''ll be building a more inexpensive model (the patent is now mine solely, the prototype in others hands right now), as we no longer have to increase the saturation to show the effects of fire. (The stone on the left was rotated slightly for the bottom composite.)

As you rotate any stone about its table to culet axis, each facet might light up an entirely differnt color. The more assymetrical the stone, the smaller the patches of fire, and you get dead areas, like the stone on the right, as opposed to the broadflash fire in optically symmetric stones like that on the left. You also appear to get color mixing with assymetric stones, such that they start to appear muddy and more earth tone, rather than purer spectral hues.

By the way, the source is white light with a high color temperature simulating that of the shade. The stones were all photographed in the SAME envirionment, from the SAME overhead perspective, with the SAME dappled lighting envirionment, containing over 5000+ points of light. To give one a perspective, the grayish background is a pure white, spectrally flat, NIST reflectance standard. Lest anyone complain, I also have shots with a pure black background (NIST standard), but I don''t have the time to dig those out, but they show the same qualitative effects of symmetry and precision in cutting.

EDIT: I might note that these are greatly reduced quality images to meet the 100K posting limits

Absolutely gorgeous shots Marty.

Kudos.

Would I be correct in saying that the lighting best mimics the mix of natural ambient daylight with a little bit of direct sunlight?

 

[dhog]

Date: 3/20/2006 9:41:02 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 3/20/2006 9:30:45 PM

Author: dhog

Date: 3/20/2006 4:33:17 PM


Author: strmrdr



You have to be careful there, you go too far and you get the jewelery store effect with the trick lighting that makes frozen spit look good.



Direct sunlight or bright direct lighting is not the best lighting for separating diamonds.

since you know so much about lighting


lets go fishing.



on page 7 of this thread I posted a photo of


my wifes rings and asked for answers. You might


want to go look at the photo.



lets assume that the lower part of the photo is the location of your head when viewing the diamond dock.



next lets assume that the sunny part at the top


of the photo is the light at the top of the diamond


dock.



since fish are attracted to lures in the same


color as the inside of the diamond dock and by


the way this lure just happens to be the same


color as the background on P/S.



I need you to cast the lure out of the photo


and tell me where it landed. pretty cool



happy fishing

Id rather go shooting :}

ok second part of the fishing trip

a guy told me if I would put a bright
sparkly fiery lure on, yes you guessed it
that would be the diamond in the photo above
and quit fishing in the shade, not only will
I be able to see where I made my cast but the
fish and all other living things could see
this also.

so would you agree that the bright lure caught
the fish or that stepping out of the shade of the
tree allowed the fish to see my shadow,or #3 that
the angle that I presented the bait allowed the fish
to see it better.

another true story

 

[strmrdr]

dhog,
You caught the fish because you put something that looked like something it wanted to eat close enough that it was willing to work to get it.
He could have just as well been sitting in the shade.
Btw largemouth bass love shade lines up north.
If your on a good bass lake in fairly warm water run the edge of the shadows a couple times.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 5:12:40 PM
Author: tarssarb

Rhino: I just wanted to say that i found your comments about black background for closed bezel and grey for open back mountings to be simple and insightful for the average shopper. However, I think the consumer trust issue with the jeweler''s lighting needs much improvement.

Thanks tarssarb. I agree with you on the jewelers lighting issues. My feelings are that if you''re showing diamonds to consumers in the jewelry store atmosphere you want to find lighting that best represents the appearance they will see in most circumstances. Of course it is impossible to show them how it will appear in all circumstances as people need to buy them and experience those elements of the observations for themselves to ensure they are happy, especially in the lighting environments they find themselves in most often.

The subject of leds has been brought up and while I would agree its not the equavilent of direct sunlight (as those flashes will be much stronger) it does at least show the consumer the elements of fire/scintillation and if they are comparing 2 diamonds under equal led brightness they can at least see and judge this element which is so beautiful to observe in diamonds.

Peace,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/20/2006 9:58:19 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 3/20/2006 9:30:45 PM

Author: dhog


I need you to cast the lure out of the photo

and tell me where it landed. pretty cool


happy fishing

The smallest ''Al''s Goldfish'' always seemed to work for me with ultralight setup.

As for storm''s ''shooting'', a 22cal Hammerli with a 2 gram trigger pull for shooting the pits out of olives or punching holes in very small 10 rings

ot:
yum he said Hammerli they are sweet :}
For now iv got to settle for my Ruger mk2 that I did a trigger job on that has over 300000 rounds thru it.
When I really want to hit something with a handgun the super blackhawk hunter comes out.
What it hits stayes hit.
What is fun is blowing apart gallon jug size ice blocks with the 44 then switch to the 22 and blast the small chunks before they ment.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 7:20:13 PM
Author: adamasgem

There probably weren''t any questions because people didn''t perceive it as a Shell game.. It was what it was, two SAME stones (CZ''s) under different lighting conditions. Just as in Sergey''s thread. A balanced perspective.

Hi Marty,

In our survey we only used 2 stones. If you were you under the impression we showed more please forgive my lack of clarification. A couple of other comparisons came up in these threads but the survey I held in my store was only with the 2 original stones I originally posted.

I have held other surveys with different stones but I''ll leave that for another thread and another time.

Peace,

 

[strmrdr]

I think we should use muzzle flash as the light source for testing diamonds :}

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 8:24:24 PM
Author: strmrdr

Think simple.
When I tried to come up with a complicated answer to the problem it made no sense.
Went simple and its falling into place.
Remember GIA said the goal was that it could be applied using the lowest quality tools and by appraisers in the field where AGS you need the high end scanners and today''s scanners are barely acceptable, helium is too slow and sarin is less precise and ogi well I don''t want to get sued :}

LMAO!

A lot of the answers are staring us in the face:
Why did GIA allow steep deeps.. industry observers liked them, Them asking Jon have you looked at them lately backs that up.

Why did GIA ban painted girdles.. I think it may come down to the low end scanners cant handle them.

To my knowledge GIA does run a full Sarin DiaMension on the stones they grade. While certain Sarin''s do have a problem *seeing* painted girdles (recall our discussion on "What a Scanner Sees") A Sarin Diamension, especially accompanied with a 3D model and it is quite easy to see painting or digging and to what degree it has been done. My personal goal is being able to detect how much and how each degree of this impacts face up appearance. This is why Sergey''s, Mike Cowings comments on the "clicks" interests me.

In short strmrdr, the reason GIA bans certain degrees of both painted and dug out girdles is because they found observation testing of humans can detect these differences with their eyes once painting and digging reach a certain threshold.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 7:33:21 PM
Author: Wink
Marty,

I loved the photos! Thank you for sharing this at last with the public, and I can not wait for you to make me one of these new toys in an affordable version. I thiink it was at least two years, or was it three, when you first told me about this and I am so happy to see it coming to fruition.

Wink

Hi Wink!

I recall seeing the banner at 8*''s booth at either the last (or before that) trade show. I really admired the photography too. Absolutely beautiful job.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/20/2006 11:35:22 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/20/2006 8:24:24 PM

Author: strmrdr


Think simple.

When I tried to come up with a complicated answer to the problem it made no sense.

Went simple and its falling into place.

Remember GIA said the goal was that it could be applied using the lowest quality tools and by appraisers in the field where AGS you need the high end scanners and today's scanners are barely acceptable, helium is too slow and sarin is less precise and ogi well I don't want to get sued :}


LMAO!



A lot of the answers are staring us in the face:

Why did GIA allow steep deeps.. industry observers liked them, Them asking Jon have you looked at them lately backs that up.


Why did GIA ban painted girdles.. I think it may come down to the low end scanners cant handle them.

To my knowledge GIA does run a full Sarin DiaMension on the stones they grade. While certain Sarin's do have a problem *seeing* painted girdles (recall our discussion on 'What a Scanner Sees') A Sarin Diamension, especially accompanied with a 3D model and it is quite easy to see painting or digging and to what degree it has been done. My personal goal is being able to detect how much and how each degree of this impacts face up appearance. This is why Sergey's, Mike Cowings comments on the 'clicks' interests me.


In short strmrdr, the reason GIA bans certain degrees of both painted and dug out girdles is because they found observation testing of humans can detect these differences with their eyes once painting and digging reach a certain threshold.


Peace,

hey man my explaination makes more sence than a lot of the other ummm crap that has been posted lately :}
And I can quote GIA press releases to back it up :}
Remember they said they had to round the lgf% to the nearest 5% because thats the best the low end scanners can do.
They aint gonna pick up painted girdles if they cant even measure the lgf right.

 

[Rhino]

Sorry I missed this from ya John.

Date: 3/20/2006 1:13:03 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Rhino I''m trying to follow what you posted photo-wise and gemfile-wise.

Please confirm: br118kvs2painted and br118kvvs1gem (you posted them on page 5 of the prior thread) are the files for these 2 diamonds:

Thinking about this ... Apologies and let me clarify.

In that thread I had posted that shot because it was on my laptop and I didn''t have a shot of the 2 stones used in that survey on my laptop.

1. Sergey asked to see .dmc files of the 2 stones in that picture (not the original survey stones).
2. The 2 stones in that picture are of a 1.18ct K VS2 painted, which Sergey noted was *too painted*. That stone we recently received back from GIA gets a GIA "Very Good" due to brillianteering ... Sergey and GIA actually agree here.
3. The exact diamond in my ring is a 1.51ct. Since I didn''t have a Helium scan of the diamond in my ring I forwarded to Sergey a .dmc file of a Helium scan I have of a 1.18ct K VVS which is cut from the same manufacturer and identical specs of the diamond in that ring which I normally use for the comparison as it faces up identically the same.
4. I explained this to Sergey in email when forwarding him the .dmc files he was asking for. Sergey will confirm. During the course of these threads Sergey and I have been exchanging some emails and files with each other and when doing so I have always been clear to him what I was sending.

So my deepest apologies if I did not clarify this in the thread. If you would like to see photography of the two 1.18ct stones which are loose (the one painted stone GIA VG), and the one cut from the same manufacturer as the diamond in my ring in the shade where I took that shot in, say the word John and I''ll do what I can to help. I can tell you the comparison is identical.

The other 2 photo''s I posted (not the one from my front porch) are however of the two 1.18ct K VS and 1.18ct K VVS.

The comparison in each photo are of 2 H&A diamonds, one painted one without.

Thank you for asking and bringing this to my attention.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 11:22:12 PM
Author: strmrdr
I think we should use muzzle flash as the light source for testing diamonds :}

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/20/2006 11:48:57 PM
Author: strmrdr

hey man my explaination makes more sence than a lot of the other ummm crap that has been posted lately :}
And I can quote GIA press releases to back it up :}
Remember they said they had to round the lgf% to the nearest 5% because thats the best the low end scanners can do.
They aint gonna pick up painted girdles if they cant even measure the lgf right.

LOL... Have you seen an OGI scan on a painted girdle?

While it has big time trouble resolving the upper halves, you can see an obvious signature in the girdle graph. I''ll see if I can dig one up when I get to the store. Did you read my article on the subject and the easy ways to detect these features?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/21/2006 12:07:49 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/20/2006 11:48:57 PM

Author: strmrdr


hey man my explaination makes more sence than a lot of the other ummm crap that has been posted lately :}

And I can quote GIA press releases to back it up :}

Remember they said they had to round the lgf% to the nearest 5% because thats the best the low end scanners can do.

They aint gonna pick up painted girdles if they cant even measure the lgf right.

LOL... Have you seen an OGI scan on a painted girdle?


While it has big time trouble resolving the upper halves, you can see an obvious signature in the girdle graph. I''ll see if I can dig one up when I get to the store. Did you read my article on the subject and the easy ways to detect these features?

Yea I have from the higher end model but.....

from the $4000 model nope, just the number printout.
Remember they downgraded the measurements to meet the lowest performing device. :}

 

[dhog]

Date: 3/20/2006 11:15:25 PM
Author: strmrdr
dhog,

You caught the fish because you put something that looked like something it wanted to eat close enough that it was willing to work to get it.

He could have just as well been sitting in the shade.

Btw largemouth bass love shade lines up north.

If your on a good bass lake in fairly warm water run the edge of the shadows a couple times.

ok now were going to go marlin fishin in
cabo. to catch a marlin in 300 ft. of water
we need a big bright flash as in low visibility
in 300 ft of water.

I look through all the shops for the best
all around lure that I think will give me
the biggest broadest flash that will work
down deep and in shallow water.

do you think I need one with a big bright
flash or a lure with a black hole in middle
surrounded by a big white wrapper with all kinds
of storys of great fish catching ability.

as a marlin is the ultimate jewel of the sea
and can catch a glimps of a flash
a mile away you might consider the ultimate
performance lure to catch his eye

Look into the eyes of this fish and tell me
if you could trick him with a lure with a black
hole it with no flash

the moral of the story is a keen fisherman
knows what it takes to catch fish and he also
knows what lures are gimics



in regards to shooting the black hole surrounded
by the white box would be a easy target bullseye
for my 300 mag.

have you noticed how easy it is to see a deers
black eyeball at 300 yds.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/20/2006 11:01:53 PM
Author: Rhino

Absolutely gorgeous shots Marty.

Kudos.

Would I be correct in saying that the lighting best mimics the mix of natural ambient daylight with a little bit of direct sunlight?

Thanks Rhino.. That''s a compliment, especially after some of or interchanges

Technically, it is SHADE under a tree... where the diamond is not overwhelmed by glare and bright sunlight so that you loose distinctions between stones.. Qualitatively, they correlate rather well with the older AGS cut classifications..

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/20/2006 11:20:14 PM
Author: strmrdr


ot:
yum he said Hammerli they are sweet :} I remember well, sort of almost a sexual experiance slipping my hand into its stock, I even had mirror sights. Sold it in the 70''s to another member of the P&R club at the institute..

For now iv got to settle for my Ruger mk2 that I did a trigger job on that has over 300000 rounds thru it.
When I really want to hit something with a handgun the super blackhawk hunter comes out.
Still have my vintage blackhawk I got in 1962 damnd quick draw rig won''t fit around my slightly expanded belly though...

What it hits stayes hit. Yup.. but way too damn much punishment for shootin papaer. Kick myself for not buying the 50cal GyroJet way back then
What is fun is blowing apart gallon jug size ice blocks with the 44 then switch to the 22 and blast the small chunks before they ment. Use to use cherry bombs as targets, didn''t need a spotter then..

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 3/21/2006 12:21:00 AM
Author: dhog

in regards to shooting the black hole surrounded
by the white box would be a easy target bullseye
for my 300 mag.

have you noticed how easy it is to see a deers
black eyeball at 300 yds.

If you gonna put food on the table, like farmers I used to know, the 300mag will surely do the job..

Now, for really reaching out and touching someone, I would suggest...... Oh well we are digressing..

Getting back on subject, I''m waiting to see rings with leds mounted under the stone..
UV Leds are neat for this if you have a strong fluor stone....

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Do you guys mind dropping guns as a fun topic.
Outside USA this is not generally considered as a topic of conversation

Date: 3/20/2006 11:35:22 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/20/2006 8:24:24 PM
Author: strmrdr

Think simple.
When I tried to come up with a complicated answer to the problem it made no sense.
Went simple and its falling into place.
Remember GIA said the goal was that it could be applied using the lowest quality tools and by appraisers in the field where AGS you need the high end scanners and today''s scanners are barely acceptable, helium is too slow and sarin is less precise and ogi well I don''t want to get sued :}

LMAO!

A lot of the answers are staring us in the face:
Why did GIA allow steep deeps.. industry observers liked them, Them asking Jon have you looked at them lately backs that up.

Why did GIA ban painted girdles.. I think it may come down to the low end scanners cant handle them.

To my knowledge GIA does run a full Sarin DiaMension on the stones they grade. While certain Sarin''s do have a problem *seeing* painted girdles (recall our discussion on ''What a Scanner Sees'') A Sarin Diamension, especially accompanied with a 3D model and it is quite easy to see painting or digging and to what degree it has been done. My personal goal is being able to detect how much and how each degree of this impacts face up appearance. This is why Sergey''s, Mike Cowings comments on the ''clicks'' interests me.

In short strmrdr, the reason GIA bans certain degrees of both painted and dug out girdles is because they found observation testing of humans can detect these differences with their eyes once painting and digging reach a certain threshold.

Peace,

Rhino as I have mentioned a number of tines in this discussion - to do an observation based analysis of painting and digging effects is a more complex study than GIA''s original 50,000 comparisons. Just as it is complex to compare the impact of upper and lower girdle halfs - the indexing issue has more impact and the interactions are far more complex.

With due respect to GIA - they have not done this work - they appear to have simply have decided it is too hard.
Again I post this image where indexing greatly improved a bad stone and made it OK.
Blanket statements that it is good and bad are simply wrong.

 

[dhog]

Date: 3/20/2006 4:33:17 PM
Author: strmrdr


Direct sunlight or bright direct lighting is not the best lighting for separating diamonds.

are you so sure that it is a diamond

Date: 3/15/2006 5:33:15 PM
Author: strmrdr

What your missing is that all 6 could use different lighting and give different results.

The top 5 things affecting observed diamond performance are:

lighting

lighting

lighting

envirment

cut





Paint the girdles and lower the lgf% and you get better low light performance at the expence of other conditions.

back to fishin again, when you jumped out of the water on this post I seen a big fish that has been lurkin for along time.

I thought to myself man that sure would be fun for a catch and release project.

most fish will sooner or later take the bait.

maybe I could fool you and get a nibble on a CZ lure

Date: 3/19/2006 8:07:03 AM
Author: strmrdr
After looking at the DD pictures and some others, I think the DD is looking like its a too dark envirement with all the gray which the diamond is picking up.

Even if the lighting was good the gray is making the diamonds look blah.

Id like to see the DD walls covered in red paper then take the picture.


Does it look that way in person?

if you can''t judge a C/Z lure from a sparklie lure in multiple
light conditions, how can you say that my bright lure may or may
not be judged in full sunlight.



on this fishing trip I showed you 3 examples of lighting
I showed you several enviroments
I showed you cut in my view

if we as fisherman allow big brother to tell us
what kind of fishing lures we must use,do you think
it may come a day when when the beauty of bright
fishing lures will be gone.

is this what we want for our kids and grandkids

If we can stop it now, we must

this is what sportfishing is all about
catch & release

I''m heading fishin

 

[strmrdr]

lol dhog, the best cut CZ will out perfrom the best cut diamonds in some light conditions if you sayin you used CZs in some of those pictures there isnt a person here that could tell you which is which from bright sunlight pictures.
In difused lighting where the facet junctions are visible maybe one or 2 would catch it.
Now uv light might be best for sorting it out in a picture,,, if it glows orange its one of the most common well cut cz''s out there.
But not all of em glow...

 

[dhog]

Date: 3/20/2006 10:48:20 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 3/20/2006 4:26:18 PM

Author: dhog

rhino


if the diamond dock could emulate real sunlight

you might be able to photograph real fire and at

the same time get a blue sky even with the stone

tilted in a viewers approx. angle

That is a beautiful picture depicting fire dhog. Is that with the Nikon?

1/4000 shutter speed yes on the nikon

and last would you like to go on a virtual
fishing tour

we could test all the lures using your tester
lined with maybe chartruse paper. if they test
out ok we would still need to test them for deep
water use.

since sunlight reflects off of water (this is what
we call sunburn in cali) and doesn''t penetrate that good
we would have to have a lure that would get us down to maybe 300 fathoms.

let me know

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 3/21/2006 12:00:58 AM
Author: Rhino
Sorry I missed this from ya John.

Date: 3/20/2006 1:13:03 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Rhino I''m trying to follow what you posted photo-wise and gemfile-wise.

Please confirm: br118kvs2painted and br118kvvs1gem (you posted them on page 5 of the prior thread) are the files for these 2 diamonds:

Thinking about this ... Apologies and let me clarify.

In that thread I had posted that shot because it was on my laptop and I didn''t have a shot of the 2 stones used in that survey on my laptop.

1. Sergey asked to see .dmc files of the 2 stones in that picture (not the original survey stones).
2. The 2 stones in that picture are of a 1.18ct K VS2 painted, which Sergey noted was *too painted*. That stone we recently received back from GIA gets a GIA ''Very Good'' due to brillianteering ... Sergey and GIA actually agree here.
3. The exact diamond in my ring is a 1.51ct. Since I didn''t have a Helium scan of the diamond in my ring I forwarded to Sergey a .dmc file of a Helium scan I have of a 1.18ct K VVS which is cut from the same manufacturer and identical specs of the diamond in that ring which I normally use for the comparison as it faces up identically the same.
4. I explained this to Sergey in email when forwarding him the .dmc files he was asking for. Sergey will confirm. During the course of these threads Sergey and I have been exchanging some emails and files with each other and when doing so I have always been clear to him what I was sending.

So my deepest apologies if I did not clarify this in the thread. If you would like to see photography of the two 1.18ct stones which are loose (the one painted stone GIA VG), and the one cut from the same manufacturer as the diamond in my ring in the shade where I took that shot in, say the word John and I''ll do what I can to help. I can tell you the comparison is identical.

The other 2 photo''s I posted (not the one from my front porch) are however of the two 1.18ct K VS and 1.18ct K VVS.

The comparison in each photo are of 2 H&A diamonds, one painted one without.

Thank you for asking and bringing this to my attention.

Kind regards,

No apologies necessary for this.

Trying to soak it in correctly: (1) Does ''br118kvs2painted'' correspond to the diamond I highlighted above? If so (2) is it the left or right diamond from the photo? (3) Did you post the file for the other diamond from the same photo? (4) You said in the other thread (reply to Shay, p5) that the diamonds in that photo were 2 superideals, 1 painted and 1 traditional - is this right?

Just trying to account for the files we''re analyzing and what''s in ''em. Appreciate whatever you can clarify.