Help me sleep at night! Comparing (2) G.O.G. H&A [pics]

[Rhino]

Date: 7/27/2006 2:00:16 AM
Author: Mara
GIA allows some light painting of the stones without dinging the cut grade but where that ''fine line'' is drawn who really knows. My stone is a VG GIA cut grade and it''s only lightly painted really...but it''s one of the most beautiful stones I have seen thus far.

I love painted stones but I wouldn''t toss a classic style out of bed either if the IS image was hot. Both of those look very nice.

Isn''t it kind of odd that only one side of the left stone would be painted???

Hi Mara,

That may be due to the slight tilt in the photograph. When I get up to the store later this afternoon I can retake it and recheck.

On a side note, and as Mara has pointed out diamonds with painted girdles that even do not qualify as GIA Ex''s are not, by any means ugly stones so please do not take what I said in the wrong vein. There are folks who see them and do indeed like or prefer them. Our counsel has and always will be that if you''re considering 2 stones, and one is a GIA VG based on painting/digging, to see and make the comparison for yourself next to an unpainted/undug stone. If you like/don''t like ... puchase what pleases your eyes most.

Peace,

 

[Beacon]

Thanks for this detailed info. I never knew about this area of difference between GIA and AGS. It''s very interesting. Sounds like you have a very honest policy regarding this issue.

 

[David0722]

Whelp, I went with the 1.36!

Thank you all for your help and guidance - have a great weekend everyone.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Aww, that''s great, David! Congrats and please remember to take pictures for us!!!

 

[mrssalvo]

congrats David..can''t wait to see pictures of the finished ring, if you''ll come back and post them

 

[David0722]

Date: 7/28/2006 4:12:36 PM
Author: mrssalvo
congrats David..can''t wait to see pictures of the finished ring, if you''ll come back and post them

You know I will!!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/28/2006 3:40:51 PM
Author: David0722
Whelp, I went with the 1.36!

Thank you all for your help and guidance - have a great weekend everyone.

congrates!!!

 

[gladstone]

Hi Johnathan,

Will we find any dug out or girdle cheated stone in your cherry picking inventory? Is it part of your analysis that you weed them out? I would like to know if we still have to go through all those data that you provide for each stone to find these thing for ourselves or we can count on you, WF, NiceIce, etc. to filter out these out.

 

[Eva17]

Oh man, that Gary LOVES to stir up the pot!!!!!!

 

[aljdewey]

....Edited: Didn't realize this thread was a bit aged, so input on selection not relevant......

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 7/27/2006 12:29:09 PM
Author: Rhino

I don''t think Garry was joking becuase a very faint degree of painting does exist in the 1.368ct. which can be seen in our photography.

In fact the painting is so faint on the 1.368ct that the Helium Scanner doesn''t even pick it up and it is very sensitive to reporting the features of girdle cutting.

I''m glad that this was clarified....especially given these assertions:

Strmrdr: "You been drinking again? They are both slightly tilted in the DX photos but I dont see any painting or digging."

Carlotta: "Based on the helium scan, the stone on the left is not painted....."

I think this succinctly illustrates that seeing images of a stone isn''t a substitute for actually seeing it. Pictures, measurements, etc. don''t tell the whole story.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 7/27/2006 1:27:19 AM
Author: Beacon
Question regarding painting/ digging out. If the stone was painted or dug out wouldn''t that affect the cut grade strongly? Wouldn''t there be some sort of a comment like: ''cut grade is based on brillianteering of the half facets''. I don''t know about AGSL but GIA does this I think.

So wouldn''t that be disclosed to this buyer via the reports?

This is EXACTLY the fear that many of us here in the trade are fearing. ONLY IF THE PAINTING is excessive is this a bad thing. Clearly Gary was yanking Jonathon''s chain a little since he is an anti-painting crusader, yet we now have people worrying if it is painted and if it is why is it not stated on the certificate.

It would only have such a statement if the stone were excessively painted. If not, there is no reason to mention something that has in fact enhanced the appearance of the diamond.

You would have to know Gary to hear the irony and tail twisting in his comments which is why he also added that "(H&A''s wont show that)" to his comment so you would know he was tweaking Jon.

From my point of view, looking soley at the pictures, either of these stones looks to be in the top 1% of 1% of all diamonds sold, along with most of the H&A offerings here on Pricescope. I sometimes wonder if the people here realize what a very tiny microcosm of diamonds we discuss here as we all (myself definitely included) obsess over tiny things not visible to the eye.

Wink

 

[Rhino]

Hi gladstone,

Date: 8/16/2006 7:56:12 AM
Author: gladstone
Hi Johnathan,

Will we find any dug out or girdle cheated stone in your cherry picking inventory?

You will not find any stones in our inventory that are dug out or painted to the degree wherein it would take a hit in the GIA system with the exception of perhaps 2 stones that I am aware of that feature this type of girdle cutting which AGS allows and GIA does not. On each of those stones respective pages (both happen to be AGS stones) we list the estimated GIA Cut Grade as being "Very Good" since we are familiar with the degree of painting that takes the hit in their system.

Is it part of your analysis that you weed them out? I would like to know if we still have to go through all those data that you provide for each stone to find these thing for ourselves or we can count on you, WF, NiceIce, etc. to filter out these out.

I can''t speak for my compadres but yes ... this is something we do as part of our filtering process. About 99% of our inventory falls in the zenith of both labs top grades but if we find features in GIA graded stones that we know would not qualify in AGS system as Ideal we''ll list the diamond with an estimated AGS grade as being Excellent instead of Ideal and vice versa. Any stones like this in our inventory not only will we list that info but we can also point you to the details that would disqualify it from making either labs top grade.

Thanks for the question.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/16/2006 10:28:38 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 7/27/2006 12:29:09 PM
Author: Rhino

I don''t think Garry was joking becuase a very faint degree of painting does exist in the 1.368ct. which can be seen in our photography.

In fact the painting is so faint on the 1.368ct that the Helium Scanner doesn''t even pick it up and it is very sensitive to reporting the features of girdle cutting.

I''m glad that this was clarified....especially given these assertions:

Strmrdr: ''You been drinking again? They are both slightly tilted in the DX photos but I dont see any painting or digging.''

Carlotta: ''Based on the helium scan, the stone on the left is not painted.....''

I think this succinctly illustrates that seeing images of a stone isn''t a substitute for actually seeing it. Pictures, measurements, etc. don''t tell the whole story.

Glad you did see this Alj. It clarifies further what I''ve stated in other thread. Happy to see that you realize I''m not proclaiming the sky is fallling.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/16/2006 12:55:53 PM
Author: Wink

Date: 7/27/2006 1:27:19 AM
Author: Beacon
Question regarding painting/ digging out. If the stone was painted or dug out wouldn''t that affect the cut grade strongly? Wouldn''t there be some sort of a comment like: ''cut grade is based on brillianteering of the half facets''. I don''t know about AGSL but GIA does this I think.

So wouldn''t that be disclosed to this buyer via the reports?

This is EXACTLY the fear that many of us here in the trade are fearing. ONLY IF THE PAINTING is excessive is this a bad thing. Clearly Gary was yanking Jonathon''s chain a little since he is an anti-painting crusader, yet we now have people worrying if it is painted and if it is why is it not stated on the certificate.

It would only have such a statement if the stone were excessively painted. If not, there is no reason to mention something that has in fact enhanced the appearance of the diamond.

You would have to know Gary to hear the irony and tail twisting in his comments which is why he also added that ''(H&A''s wont show that)'' to his comment so you would know he was tweaking Jon.

From my point of view, looking soley at the pictures, either of these stones looks to be in the top 1% of 1% of all diamonds sold, along with most of the H&A offerings here on Pricescope. I sometimes wonder if the people here realize what a very tiny microcosm of diamonds we discuss here as we all (myself definitely included) obsess over tiny things not visible to the eye.

Wink

Thanks Wink. Just so you know I am not on a crusade against any kind of cutting in particular.

You know me well and know I am an advocate of precision goodies and have never knocked anyones product over another. Since we feature detailed educational content it would be unfair of me to address the elements of the GIA system and censor just one. As I have expressed in other threads I don''t purposely seek to give unbalanced attention to one particular cutting feature over another. Our signature, as stated in our banner ad has always been "the top grades from both GIA and AGS". With all the questions coming up on the subject regarding painting, I realize it appears that perhaps I''ve addressed this more than others and most recently in a question I had answered on the subject offered my apologies to those who were perceiving me to "crusade against painting". I''m really not doing anything differently than I always have bro. You know I have no beef with factories cutting them. In fact, in times past I''ve spoken rather favorablly of them regardless of personal preference. You know this. Just wanted to clarify there friend. I have no chip here. There''s plenty to go around for everyone. All the best to you Wink.

Peace,

 

[aljdewey]

Rhino, please don''t put "realizations" into my mouth. I realize exactly where you''re coming from, and it''s why we don''t get along. I don''t respect it.

Those under your tutelage are singing the campfire song you taught them, so it''s not really fair to point the finger at them as an example when it''s really you whose changed positions......again. They cannot be faulted for believing the sermon you preached previously just because you''ve decided a new and improved sermon has come along.

Saying "pictures and measurements don''t the tell the whole story" isn''t akin to saying "they don''t matter at all."

It''s like cake......the egg isn''t the only thing in the cake that will determine how the cake tastes. You cannot determine how the cake will taste from the EGG ALONE. However, that doesn''t mean the egg isn''t important and doesn''t contribute to the overall taste and appearance of the cake. If you don''t put the egg in.......no cake.

 

[gladstone]

You will not find any stones in our inventory that are dug out or painted to the degree wherein it would take a hit in the GIA system.

Can Rhino or anyone put some numbers up to explain the above statement? What would the % difference between the girdle measurements for it to get a hit in the GIA system?

How much leakage around the edge of the diamond are we talking about? Can you post a ideal-scope image?

Thanks...

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/16/2006 7:12:50 PM
Author: aljdewey
Rhino, please don''t put ''realizations'' into my mouth. I realize exactly where you''re coming from, and it''s why we don''t get along. I don''t respect it.

Those under your tutelage are singing the campfire song you taught them, so it''s not really fair to point the finger at them as an example when it''s really you whose changed positions......again. They cannot be faulted for believing the sermon you preached previously just because you''ve decided a new and improved sermon has come along.

Saying ''pictures and measurements don''t the tell the whole story'' isn''t akin to saying ''they don''t matter at all.''

It''s like cake......the egg isn''t the only thing in the cake that will determine how the cake tastes. You cannot determine how the cake will taste from the EGG ALONE. However, that doesn''t mean the egg isn''t important and doesn''t contribute to the overall taste and appearance of the cake. If you don''t put the egg in.......no cake.

Changed positions? On what exactly?

 

[Rhino]

Hi gladstone,

When I get up to the store tomorrow I''ll show ya one way how we determine this with the numbers.

Kind regards,

 

[gladstone]

1.36ct has all Very High in the BS. 1.46ct has score lower but as I recall he said it has a 9.8 ISEE2 score while the other one has a 9.1.

Uhmm... I have been waiting for a stone that has off-the-scale VH and 9.8 ISEE2 score. Now that I see this; I wonder if it matter at all. There is a different when you talk about low 91 and 98.

I now see why people trust the Ideal-Scope/Light-Scope best.

 

[Shay37]

David, congrats. You picked the one I would have picked too. I love fatter arrows (shorter lgf). slightly painted yummy. If the price had been the same for both, I would have told you to flip a coin.

shay

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/16/2006 7:44:25 PM
Author: gladstone
You will not find any stones in our inventory that are dug out or painted to the degree wherein it would take a hit in the GIA system.

Can Rhino or anyone put some numbers up to explain the above statement? What would the % difference between the girdle measurements for it to get a hit in the GIA system?

How much leakage around the edge of the diamond are we talking about? Can you post a ideal-scope image?

Thanks...

Hi Gladstone,

Please forgive the delay in my response.

There are a few different ways we do this. The easiet way for me to determine these features at the current time is with a new installment to the Helium scanner. Here are some attached graphics of example stones I have here with a portion of the new reports. In the attached graphic is the bottom right corner of the new Helium Illustrated Reports.

You''ll note on the top example it says "digging" and the description says "practical". Under the 2nd stone it says "painting" and says "Big".

Since this is a brand new feature on the Helium we are currently investigating which measurements via the Helium (expressed in "notches" & "azimuth deviation from ideal") are actually taking the dings in the current cut grading systems. For instance the description of "practical" on the first digging example makes it sound to appear that its ok, when in fact this diamond has enough digging to disqualify it from both GIA and AGS''s current top grades (which I have confirmed with each of them and is visibly seen in diffuse daylight). I''ll be communicating with Sergey on what I feel may be more appropriate descriptions but currently you can read about those new features and descriptions here.

http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/helium/polish/history-helium3_80_74.phtml#1

If you have any further questions I''ll do what I can to help.

Kind regards,

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/18/2006 11:48:04 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/16/2006 7:44:25 PM
Author: gladstone
You will not find any stones in our inventory that are dug out or painted to the degree wherein it would take a hit in the GIA system.

Can Rhino or anyone put some numbers up to explain the above statement? What would the % difference between the girdle measurements for it to get a hit in the GIA system?

How much leakage around the edge of the diamond are we talking about? Can you post a ideal-scope image?

Thanks...

Hi Gladstone,

Please forgive the delay in my response.

There are a few different ways we do this. The easiet way for me to determine these features at the current time is with a new installment to the Helium scanner. Here are some attached graphics of example stones I have here with a portion of the new reports. In the attached graphic is the bottom right corner of the new Helium Illustrated Reports.

You'll note on the top example it says 'digging' and the description says 'practical'. Under the 2nd stone it says 'painting' and says 'Big'.

Since this is a brand new feature on the Helium we are currently investigating which measurements via the Helium (expressed in 'notches' & 'azimuth deviation from ideal') are actually taking the dings in the current cut grading systems. For instance the description of 'practical' on the first digging example makes it sound to appear that its ok, when in fact this diamond has enough digging to disqualify it from both GIA and AGS's current top grades (which I have confirmed with each of them and is visibly seen in diffuse daylight). I'll be communicating with Sergey on what I feel may be more appropriate descriptions but currently you can read about those new features and descriptions here.

http://www.octonus.com/oct/products/helium/polish/history-helium3_80_74.phtml#1

If you have any further questions I'll do what I can to help.

Kind regards,

Excellent graphic. This is a great feature of Helium.

The most useful numbers are the Avg degrees in crown and pavilion dev from normal indexing. Both of these diamond should receive penalties.

The crown-only digging to 3.8 degrees on the first example is a no-brainer. There will be definite negative influence on light performance.

The crown-only painting to 5.4 on the second example has nowhere near as much impact, but it's painted significantly enough that it would not qualify for GIA EX. Depending on the diamond's measurements it may or may not be able to qualify for 0 in light performance from AGS (they take overall configuration into account).

 

[Rhino]

Thanks John.


Peace,

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/18/2006 2:14:04 PM
Author: Rhino

Thanks John.

Peace,

No problem Rhino.

Here are ASET examples showing the relative difference between the 3.84 crown digging and 5.39 crown painting from above... Iff they were both near-Tolkowsky stones w/ top optical symm.

Edited to add: These graphics are not related to the diamonds which are the topic of this thread. Apologies for not being clear about that before.

 

[Rhino]

Excellent work John!

You are a certifiable DiamCalc GEEK.

hehe

Here are the actual ASET and IS images of those 2 particular stones based on the Helium models.

Which just brings to mind a conversation we were having in another thread I hadn''t responded to named "Ideal Numbers" where I posted an example of a stone with what had a seemingly perfect IS image and cherry numbers via Sarin. Sorry for not responding there sooner but that example was this dug out stone.

If you note in the IS image below you can vaguely make out the existence of digging (slightly paler reds via the model''s IS image). In actual IS imagery it can be difficult to ascertain. Thats when an ASET image brings out these features more obviously. In both of these stones we are able to visually assess the digging and painting.

Thanks once again compadre. Always a pleasure.

Kind regards,

 

[Carlotta]

OK...I think I''m a little lost/confused........Are the two stones you modeled the same two stones being discussed in the beginning of the thread????
(The 1.3 and 1.4??)

 

[Rhino]

My apologies Carlotta. I can understand how one could be confused about that. For clarification, gladstone was asking how we can differentiate between certain girdle cutting features. I introduced examples, not with the original 2 stones of this post. So the Helium results I posted were of 2 entirely different stones just to demonstrate Helium results of these cutting features. Thanks for asking. Hope that helps.

Kind regards,