IDEX Closes News Forum JKD/GIA Stafford Case

[adamasgem]

In an abrupt change of openness, IDEX online, a mostly industry web site, has closed its news forum, which was there for readers to comment on editorials, like those of Chaim Even-Zohar, which exposed a lot of the GIA bribery corruption.
A good guess is that too much as coming to light as to the dirt behind GIA and there was pressure.

http://www.idexonline.com/portal_Forum_Type.asp?id=31

Recently, there have been two lawsuits in the US, a federal and a state case, in which in the state case both Julius Klein Diamonds (JKD) and the Gemological Institute of America have refused to respond, under court ordered deposition, as to whether JKD had lost its submission privileges in association with the GIA bribery scandal. Both JKD and GIA have dug in their heels with regard to answering a simple question, did JKD loose its submission priviledges because of the bribery.

GIA refuses to be deposed
http://www.adamasgem.org/pdfs/stafford/giadep.pdf


Motion to reopen discovery in federal case
http://www.adamasgem.org/pdfs/stafford/jkdgia.pdf


JKD virtiually admits (states) that anything GIA would have to say would be extremely prejudicial to them
http://www.adamasgem.org/pdfs/stafford/6-23-08.pdf

 

[adamasgem]

This was an email I just got..

----- Original Message -----
From: diamond watcher
To: adamas
Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:10 AM
Subject: GIA shut down Idex

In a conversation 30 minutes ago, I learned that GIA threatend IDE on Friday with a lawsuit.

Today, Idex is shutting down forum. You were mentioned for posting several legal papers for public view.

Now where to we go to read the truth.

Grader in the know and oh boy what I know about GIA, counterfiet paper, 2nd 9lost) copies not marked copy, etc.

 

[diagem]

Thanks Marty for bringing it here and keeping the issue on a flame...

Thank you Andrey for giving this IMPORTANT issue an open stage!

These issues need to be seen, heard and dealt with..., with no obstructions...

 

[diagem]

Date: 6/30/2008 10:56:08 AM
Author:adamasgem
In an abrupt change of openness, IDEX online, a mostly industry web site, has closed its news forum, which was there for readers to comment on editorials, like those of Chaim Even-Zohar, which exposed a lot of the GIA bribery corruption.
A good guess is that too much as coming to light as to the dirt behind GIA and there was pressure.

http://www.idexonline.com/portal_Forum_Type.asp?id=31

Recently, there have been two lawsuits in the US, a federal and a state case, in which in the state case both Julius Klein Diamonds (JKD) and the Gemological Institute of America have refused to respond, under court ordered deposition, as to whether JKD had lost its submission privileges in association with the GIA bribery scandal. Both JKD and GIA have dug in their heels with regard to answering a simple question, did JKD loose its submission priviledges because of the bribery.

GIA refuses to be deposed
http://www.adamasgem.org/pdfs/stafford/giadep.pdf


Motion to reopen discovery in federal case
http://www.adamasgem.org/pdfs/stafford/jkdgia.pdf


JKD virtiually admits (states) that anything GIA would have to say would be extremely prejudicial to them
http://www.adamasgem.org/pdfs/stafford/6-23-08.pdf

I guess this is a symptom of Chaim''s selling a piece/portion of IDEX....

 

[adamasgem]

On 6-26-08 in the Stae case, the GIA was ORDERED by the judge to prepare and present in-camera (judge and attornies eyes only) the requested documentation pertaining to JKD.

JKD immediately filed an appeal ( in this pdf), and in separate filing has requested an injunction preventing execution of the court order (as I read it).

Now JKD has already stated in other court documents, that GIA''s response would be EXTREMELY PREJUDICIAL to JKD, so they know something. Any funny, GIA has already refused to supply the requested documentation in deposition, so lets see how they will try to defy this State court order.

http://www.adamasgem.org/pdfs/stafford/s6-26-08.pdf

Now GIA is SUPPOSED TO ACT as a public trust by virtue of its tax exempt status, but it sure doesn''t act like one, or in the PUBLIC INTEREST, in defying the original deposition with an arrogant lame excuse that these communications between it and JKD (supposedly suspending submission priviledges because of alleged involvment in the bribery) were somehow priviledged business records. (I really liked that one, evidence of alledged bribery is a priviledged business record).

GIA should loose their tax exempt status for the laboratory FOR NOT ACTING IN THE PUBLICS'' BEST INTEREST BY NOT NAMING THE BRIBERS. Instead they paid off Pincionne with non taxable dollars and contributions, and made the case against JKD and others mysteriously go away, and have spent $8 million or so in legal fees to make all this happen.

It is in the publics (and trades) interest to know who they were dealing with, such that potential frauds may be discovered without further delaying tactics (COVER-UPS) by either potential bribers, bribees or GIA corporate weenies protecting their on rear ends, as is patently obvious to all but the most brain dead.

The trade needs to know what kind of scumbags they were dealing with (if they haven''t figured it out already), and the public certainly deserve their money back, with damages and potential appreciation (which is big time over the last few years, like 50 to 100%), if in fact they were sold Certifigate Era stones.

I might add to those private consumer readers out there, that it is only the atypical consumer who bought either 1) larger stones (> 3cts) or 2) ANY fancy colored diamonds or 3) High color/clarity combinations (D colors especially), that, it appears would have had a much higher likelihood of being defrauded as a results of the Certifigate scandal.


Supposedly GIA is in fear of being sued for releasing names, as maybe they could or could not "prove" their case, but they INTENTIONALLY blew the chance to release the name(s) without fear of reprisal, because they were doing so under court order, and if they do so on the stand, they are similarly protected. They are just stating facts, as they currently see (or saw) them. Refusal to honor a court subpeona was pure arrogance.

AND DeBeers should honor their Best Practice Principles, and have those firms involved loose their sights, as they said they would.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Marty it is also possible that IDEx closed the Forum because they did not like the tone and how it reflected on them.

At JCK in Vegas Edahn asked me why I stopped posting there, and asked if i would again. i said that there was no respect there anymore. He promised to try to do something about it - so I said i would come back on if he did.

Unfortunately a couple of other Assuies got into a slanging match, that I was involved in also, as well as a few anon posters who were very rude. So I fully expect they were just sick and tired of it. That thread was turning into a legal case too and involved personal abuse of another journalist doing what seems to me to be a good job.

(I would add that your posts seemed to have been more polite - a far better way to achieve the goal of outing GIA and the certifigate issue, which really should be a lanced boil by now).

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/1/2008 1:10:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

(I would add that your posts seemed to have been more polite - a far better way to achieve the goal of outing GIA and the certifigate issue, which really should be a lanced boil by now).

Now I won''t stand for that, accused of being polite

I imagine both JDK and GIA arn''t too pleased with either Chaim or myself with publishing public documents which make them look like blithering idiots and/or crooks, whichever the case might turnout to be once the Federal Case gets to court.

What amazes me though is GIA''s stance on not being deposed, in direct opposition to the so called new GIA. Seems nothing much has changed, only the leadership of the gang.

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/1/2008 1:10:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Marty it is also possible that IDEx closed the Forum because they did not like the tone and how it reflected on them.

At JCK in Vegas Edahn asked me why I stopped posting there, and asked if i would again. i said that there was no respect there anymore. He promised to try to do something about it - so I said i would come back on if he did.

Unfortunately a couple of other Assuies got into a slanging match, that I was involved in also, as well as a few anon posters who were very rude. So I fully expect they were just sick and tired of it. That thread was turning into a legal case too and involved personal abuse of another journalist doing what seems to me to be a good job.

(I would add that your posts seemed to have been more polite - a far better way to achieve the goal of outing GIA and the certifigate issue, which really should be a lanced boil by now).

So true..., thats the reason I stopped too

.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/1/2008 1:10:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Marty it is also possible that IDEx closed the Forum because they did not like the tone and how it reflected on them.

Garry..
I personally THINK there were other pressures that reared their ugly head again, as suggested strongly in the email I got above.

Whether the pressures originated from GIA or one of those involved with JKD is anyone''s guess.

Of course no one in charge is not going to admit the true reason. There is nothing new that would have precipitated the abrupt closure.

Remember the "non apology" from Chaim regarding the Lopez Pink that was most probably a result of some legal threats.

Too bad Chaim didn''t NAME who he was apologizing too.
That would be interesting to know, especially if there is a direct Certifigate related nexus.

I think there is a short list of the players, who have been named in the trade press and in legal cases, but because of GIA''s fear of reprisal or self incrimination and liability, haven''t been officially named.

http://www.idexonline.com/portal_FullEditorial.asp?TextSearch=&KeyMatch=2&id=29815

 

[EmeraldCutQuest]

This might be a naive question -- but I suspect others are wondering also ...

How does all this impact us, the ''somewhat-informed'' consumers, who are not in the business, not experts, not GGs, etc?

Thanks.

--ECQ (no longer).

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/1/2008 7:09:42 PM
Author: EmeraldCutQuest
This might be a naive question -- but I suspect others are wondering also ...

How does all this impact us, the ''somewhat-informed'' consumers, who are not in the business, not experts, not GGs, etc?

Thanks.

--ECQ (no longer).

See my previous comment..

I might add to those private consumer readers out there, that it is only the atypical consumer who bought either 1) larger stones (> 3cts) or 2) ANY fancy colored diamonds or 3) High color/clarity combinations (D colors especially), that, it appears would have had a much higher likelihood of being defrauded as a results of the Certifigate scandal.

This thread is mostlly trade oriented as IDEX decided to close down the continuing commentary on editorial revalations regarding the GIA''s cover-up of the scandal, and the fact that NO ONE has been charged in one of the largest consumer frauds ever to occur. There evidently were a few people (bribers and bribees) making a lot of money based on consumers'' misplaced trust in fraudulantly obtained and generated GIA paper.

 

[strmrdr]

Thanks for the heads up Marty.
What I don''t get is what GIA thinks dragging this out is going to accomplish.
All it is doing is keeping a black cloud hanging over the industry.
They need to come clean, detail the steps they are taking to make sure it won''t happen again so people can move on.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/1/2008 11:55:30 PM
Author: strmrdr
Thanks for the heads up Marty.
What I don''t get is what GIA thinks dragging this out is going to accomplish.
All it is doing is keeping a black cloud hanging over the industry.
They need to come clean, detail the steps they are taking to make sure it won''t happen again so people can move on.

I might add that the crooks need to wind up in jail, and that isn''t going to happen without GIA''s cooperation, which doesn''t look forthcoming. So we give them a continual hot foot until they cooperate.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 7/2/2008 12:26:49 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 7/1/2008 11:55:30 PM

Author: strmrdr

Thanks for the heads up Marty.

What I don''t get is what GIA thinks dragging this out is going to accomplish.

All it is doing is keeping a black cloud hanging over the industry.

They need to come clean, detail the steps they are taking to make sure it won''t happen again so people can move on.

I might add that the crooks need to wind up in jail, and that isn''t going to happen without GIA''s cooperation, which doesn''t look forthcoming. So we give them a continual hot foot until they cooperate.

yes that too.
I never did get a reply to my email to the prosecutor handling the bribery case.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 7/1/2008 5:49:02 PM
Author: adamasgem


Remember the ''non apology'' from Chaim regarding the Lopez Pink that was most probably a result of some legal threats.

Too bad Chaim didn''t NAME who he was apologizing too.
That would be interesting to know, especially if there is a direct Certifigate related nexus.

Marty according to Sergey it is possible to change the hue of a diamond by recutting, especially he believes in the case of a pink like that.
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/fancycolor-5.phtml this page shows how absorpotion can remove certain colours as the ray path gets longer. I am sure you understand this better than me Marty and can explain it better?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/2/2008 1:57:05 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/1/2008 5:49:02 PM
Author: adamasgem


Remember the ''non apology'' from Chaim regarding the Lopez Pink that was most probably a result of some legal threats.

Too bad Chaim didn''t NAME who he was apologizing too.
That would be interesting to know, especially if there is a direct Certifigate related nexus.

Marty according to Sergey it is possible to change the hue of a diamond by recutting, especially he believes in the case of a pink like that.
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/fancycolor-5.phtml this page shows how absorpotion can remove certain colours as the ray path gets longer. I am sure you understand this better than me Marty and can explain it better?

Technically Sergey is correct, but lets take that discussion to another thread, even though it relates to Chaim''s article.
Too complex a discussion for this thread, and you mix the politics with the technical issues of what are the "just noticable differences", MacAdam uncertainties, and discrimination ability for minor weight loss.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Dear Marty,

I think this is an important issue because as I recollect, the issue with the Lopez stone was that it changed hue after it was sold back from the broken Lopez relationship - after being recut and regraded. The new hue was a more pure / less orangy brown pink.

In Chaim''s relevant article it was claimed that a fancy coloured diamond could not be recut to attain a different colour grade; and therefore GIA must have been bribed.

But it seems possible (although not a cast iron case) that the hue could be changed from ray path lengthening.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/2/2008 5:49:29 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Dear Marty,

I think this is an important issue because as I recollect, the issue with the Lopez stone was that it changed hue after it was sold back from the broken Lopez relationship - after being recut and regraded. The new hue was a more pure / less orangy brown pink.

In Chaim''s relevant article it was claimed that a fancy coloured diamond could not be recut to attain a different colour grade; and therefore GIA must have been bribed.

But it seems possible (although not a cast iron case) that the hue could be changed from ray path lengthening.

Garry: Yes I know, and that is a technically incorrect statement.

One of the problems is that it appears the boundaries in fancy colored diamonds are a "dynamic situation" based on what they have seen in the past in certain fancy colors, like blues (and pinks).

This was admited to me by a highly placed GIA staffer in the 90''s with regard to blues and I would swear to it in a court of law under a polygraph and name the staffer if need be. An you could be on a grade naming boundary (such as they are).
Even the "grader" has an effect, with reflected light off his/her clothing or facial color or his visual deficiencies.

There are a 100 so called "legitimate" excuses for a "grade change", along with the illegitimate ones, like undue influence, favoratism and outright bribery.

I have also heard horror stories about intentional undergrading so someone favored could buy cheap and resubmit, and I believe them.

Technically you can either lengthen OR shorten the path, but the problem is that you have to try to figure out what the KEY color is, under which PARTICULAR ray path you are tracing, which may be different than the path the grader is "seeing" for grading. You can concentrate color and/or ALSO disperse it.

And the bigger problem is the color zoning, inhomogeneous nature of "color"(absorption) in pinks.
Modeling with any degree of confidence would be a nightmare.

You can generate ANY ANSWER YOU WANT depending on where you put the color spot(zone(s)), the lighting and lighting color temperature AND the aspect angle you choose to view and base the grade on, if you are doing the analysis statically, and if you are trying to find the most saturated color in a dynamic viewpoint viewer, you further complicate the "answer".

 

[adamasgem]

And NOW this morning, the IDEX forum archives are gone, so they have shut it down and made all the past discussions disappear.

 

[Serg]

Garry,
See example how Hue could depends from thickness( length raytracing)
Marty,
A lot of problem in color grading Fancy color come from Munsell system what is reflective system.( necessary transparence system without brightness level limitation and pure color for any brightness what is impossible in Munsell system )

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Sergey,

So in this case cutting the stone to a shape with a shorter ray path could reduce the amount of orangy brown and gain a better pink colour?

So a cushion or radiant would not be the best choice?

As I remeber the DiamCalc ColourPro software can caluculate the average ray trace and a scatter plot of face up colour in a 2D graph showing the likely grade range for each virtual facet?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/2/2008 8:24:16 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Thanks Sergey,

So in this case cutting the stone to a shape with a shorter ray path could reduce the amount of orangy brown and gain a better pink colour?

So a cushion or radiant would not be the best choice?

As I remeber the DiamCalc ColourPro software can caluculate the average ray trace and a scatter plot of face up colour in a 2D graph showing the likely grade range for each virtual facet?

Gary Please don''t go there, it is way too complicated for this discussion. Sergey''s theory is for a homogeneous medium,(although he could model zoning), which you normally don''t get in pinks (a lot of zoning)

 

[diagem]

Garry, Marty...

I have witnessed numerous times pinks/orange/browns or blues/grays inter-change hue''s and appearances just by absorbing the uncontrolled heat during the cutting process!

Not too long ago..., a friend who only wished to realign some facet junction on a fancy light blue Diamond was shocked to discover the Diamond turned into a gray shade loosing all/any of the blue color...

 

[Serg]

Date: 7/2/2008 8:24:16 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Thanks Sergey,

So in this case cutting the stone to a shape with a shorter ray path could reduce the amount of orangy brown and gain a better pink colour?

So a cushion or radiant would not be the best choice?

As I remeber the DiamCalc ColourPro software can caluculate the average ray trace and a scatter plot of face up colour in a 2D graph showing the likely grade range for each virtual facet?

yes. See round cut( same spectrum, same weight )

 

[Serg]

Date: 7/2/2008 3:51:58 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 7/2/2008 1:57:05 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/1/2008 5:49:02 PM
Author: adamasgem


Remember the ''non apology'' from Chaim regarding the Lopez Pink that was most probably a result of some legal threats.

Too bad Chaim didn''t NAME who he was apologizing too.
That would be interesting to know, especially if there is a direct Certifigate related nexus.

Marty according to Sergey it is possible to change the hue of a diamond by recutting, especially he believes in the case of a pink like that.
http://www.octonus.com/oct/projects/fancycolor-5.phtml this page shows how absorpotion can remove certain colours as the ray path gets longer. I am sure you understand this better than me Marty and can explain it better?

Technically Sergey is correct, but lets take that discussion to another thread, even though it relates to Chaim''s article.
Too complex a discussion for this thread, and you mix the politics with the technical issues of what are the ''just noticable differences'', MacAdam uncertainties, and discrimination ability for minor weight loss.

Marty,

Big possibility for "Politics" come from poor education
Labs have ugly grading system because most consumer and "professionals" do not see problems and reason of problems
GIGO
not enough just criticize Labs, if you want improve grading system
Better to educate consumers, professionals and help Labs build objective grading system.
Education is core of such process.
We could have a lot of politics discussions without any positive results.
Education, education, Education if you defiantly want do better grading standards

 

[Serg]

Date: 7/3/2008 2:44:47 AM
Author: DiaGem
Garry, Marty...

I have witnessed numerous times pinks/orange/browns or blues/grays inter-change hue''s and appearances just by absorbing the uncontrolled heat during the cutting process!

Not too long ago..., a friend who only wished to realign some facet junction on a fancy light blue Diamond was shocked to discover the Diamond turned into a gray shade loosing all/any of the blue color...

Yes, it could be reason too

 

[kroshka]

Date: 6/30/2008 7:34:10 PM
Author: adamasgem



I might add to those private consumer readers out there, that it is only the atypical consumer who bought either 1) larger stones (> 3cts) or 2) ANY fancy colored diamonds or 3) High color/clarity combinations (D colors especially), that, it appears would have had a much higher likelihood of being defrauded as a results of the Certifigate scandal.

Hmmm, so should anyone that has one of these be concerned? Before, I thought it was mainly a concern in larger sized colored diamonds. However being somewhat of a collector (that includes blues and pinks) what to do?

kroshka

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/3/2008 2:44:47 AM
Author: DiaGem
Garry, Marty...

I have witnessed numerous times pinks/orange/browns or blues/grays inter-change hue's and appearances just by absorbing the uncontrolled heat during the cutting process!

Not too long ago..., a friend who only wished to realign some facet junction on a fancy light blue Diamond was shocked to discover the Diamond turned into a gray shade loosing all/any of the blue color...

You treat fancy colors like each were a green, and we all know what happens when you overheat a green...

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/3/2008 11:43:13 AM
Author: kroshka

Date: 6/30/2008 7:34:10 PM
Author: adamasgem



I might add to those private consumer readers out there, that it is only the atypical consumer who bought either 1) larger stones (> 3cts) or 2) ANY fancy colored diamonds or 3) High color/clarity combinations (D colors especially), that, it appears would have had a much higher likelihood of being defrauded as a results of the Certifigate scandal.

Hmmm, so should anyone that has one of these be concerned? Before, I thought it was mainly a concern in larger sized colored diamonds. However being somewhat of a collector (that includes blues and pinks) what to do?

kroshka

Probable time frame for suspect paper from GIA is 1999 through 2006, from what I can determine from chatter.

Both bribery and detection (or lack thereof) of HPHT''d stones are of possible concern.

With high $ items, another "blind opinion" from a technically qualified lab (one with both the knowledge and required testing equipment) might be advisable. By "blind opinion" I mean that when you submit a stone, you specifically don''t tell them you have paper from another lab. There becomes a problem when the stone is laser engraved because one lab can soemtimes check with another if they know the "cert" number.

Issues are origin of color (treatments), and color designation and intensity.

One must remember, that laboratory reports are generally considered opinions and not guarantees, so professionals now sometimes request all supporting technical documentation that served as a basis for this opinion, which labs are now making more readily available.

I''m proud to have played a small part in this trend of technical openness by suppling SAS2000 equipment and software that enabled some labs to automatically include some of the necessary information on their reports since the late 1990''s.

And it is now not only the 800# Tax Exempt Gorilla that has the expertise, so cross checks on the gorilla''s sometimes bribed opinion, are more available and their tax exempt status is being called into question, especially when they (GIA) obviously don''t want to name the bribers, something that works AGAINST the publics right to know.

 

[adamasgem]

100% authenticated against certificate?

In my mind, no longer any wonder why IDEX wants any discussion of Certifigate Era bribery or incompetance to go away.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uoFebQE9mM