IDEX Closes News Forum JKD/GIA Stafford Case

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/5/2008 4:51:49 AM
Author: DiaGem
Can you take nitrogen out of the yellow Diamond material? You don''t remove nitrogen, by HPHT you can either break up or associate aggregates of nitrogen to either remove color (single substitutional nitrogen aggrgated to nitrogen pairs) or form aggregates with more color creating capability to change and intensify the color.

Is it possible to make a slightly yellow tinted Diamond white by cutting it in certain facet degrees? You can make it appear whiter by shortening the average absorption pathlengths, or you can intensify and concentrate the color in certain areas by lengthening the average pathlengths Sergeys analysis here is very valuable, BUT IT DOESN''T NECESSARILY apply (meaning tell you how to do it) for zoned (Inhomogeneous) material, and I would consider it generally as macroscopic rather than microscopic analysis technique, even though it is the best and most valuable that we have at this time. Management says concentrate on solving 95% of the problems, maybe not realizing that perhaps the total $$ value in fancies may be overwhelmed by that 5% that can''t be addressed now by a limited analysis.

I really don''t know, just an educated guess based on huge price differences for the rarer colors.

 

[diagem]

Date: 7/5/2008 6:04:40 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 7/5/2008 4:51:49 AM
Author: DiaGem
Can you take nitrogen out of the yellow Diamond material? You don''t remove nitrogen, by HPHT you can either break up or associate aggregates of nitrogen to either remove color (single substitutional nitrogen aggrgated to nitrogen pairs) or form aggregates with more color creating capability to change and intensify the color.

Only through treatment..., right? No other way possible...

Is it possible to make a slightly yellow tinted Diamond white by cutting it in certain facet degrees? You can make it appear whiter by shortening the average absorption pathlengths, or you can intensify and concentrate the color in certain areas by lengthening the average pathlengths Sergeys analysis here is very valuable, BUT IT DOESN''T NECESSARILY apply (meaning tell you how to do it) for zoned (Inhomogeneous) material, and I would consider it generally as macroscopic rather than microscopic analysis technique, even though it is the best and most valuable that we have at this time. Management says concentrate on solving 95% of the problems, maybe not realizing that perhaps the total $$ value in fancies may be overwhelmed by that 5% that can''t be addressed now by a limited analysis.

I really don''t know, just an educated guess based on huge price differences for the rarer colors.

Just like you can make a brownish-pink appear pinker..., correct? You can''t make it pure pink am I understanding it correctly? Just like you cant cut a yellowish tinted Diamond into a colorless Diamond! (unless you treat it via HPHT).

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/5/2008 7:05:34 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 7/5/2008 6:04:40 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 7/5/2008 4:51:49 AM
Author: DiaGem
Can you take nitrogen out of the yellow Diamond material? You don''t remove nitrogen, by HPHT you can either break up or associate aggregates of nitrogen to either remove color (single substitutional nitrogen aggrgated to nitrogen pairs) or form aggregates with more color creating capability to change and intensify the color.

Only through treatment..., right? No other way possible...

Is it possible to make a slightly yellow tinted Diamond white by cutting it in certain facet degrees? You can make it appear whiter by shortening the average absorption pathlengths, or you can intensify and concentrate the color in certain areas by lengthening the average pathlengths Sergeys analysis here is very valuable, BUT IT DOESN''T NECESSARILY apply (meaning tell you how to do it) for zoned (Inhomogeneous) material, and I would consider it generally as macroscopic rather than microscopic analysis technique, even though it is the best and most valuable that we have at this time. Management says concentrate on solving 95% of the problems, maybe not realizing that perhaps the total $$ value in fancies may be overwhelmed by that 5% that can''t be addressed now by a limited analysis.

I really don''t know, just an educated guess based on huge price differences for the rarer colors.

Just like you can make a brownish-pink appear pinker..., correct? You can''t make it pure pink am I understanding it correctly? Just like you cant cut a yellowish tinted Diamond into a colorless Diamond! (unless you treat it via HPHT).

Yes and No , there is not a one size fits all answer to your question, pardon me for appearing to waffle but I''m not, your question can''t be technically answered with a strict yes or no, and that is a fact.

Recuting only

1) IF you make any size stone smaller it gets whiter and looses its intensity of color unless you also change its relative proportions and then it may or may not appear whiter or have less saturation of color. Beers law applies.

Take it to its limit and opaque stones thin enough become transparent.

2) You can make a brownish pink deeper or lighter in tone. (Homogeneous model) But you may reguire drastic SIZE changes to effect an overall hue change, i.e. remove apparent brownness or the brown modifier designation, making it less apparent.

3) In a zoned stone like Pinks you could theoretically remove the color causing zone or move the ray path such that a color zone may not effect the overall appearance as much, and yes, then maybe pinker and less overall browner. Theory versus practicality is the issue.

The simplest example is the drop of nailpolish or ink on the girdle to color a stone. That little "color zone" can have dramatic effects on the face up appearance or localized as you know.

Or the other example of a small zone of color at the culet of a sapphire, and the stone is magnificent.

That is why I can''t understand the attitude that it is not important to model, even if the model is coarse.
What about inclusions in a "homogeneous" stone. What does the homogeneous model have to say about their effect. Don''t take me wrong, the homogeneous model is extremely usefull.

HPHT

Anything goes, depends on the diamond type.

Natural material..
You remove the brown by breaking up the clustered vacancies that appear to be the root cause of "brownish" coloration in Type IIa''s and IaB''s. Other mixed types you start geting vacancies interacting and forming nitrogen vacancy groups which can cause intensified yellow greens and yellows.

Add radiation and heat you can get red and pinks and blues and greens all more saturated in color than the starting material.

 

[adamasgem]

Back on topic, another email from the NY dealer, and this guy is serious stuff folks, I''ve spent a very very lot of time talking to him.

***********
Marty ,
I know for a FACT that a diamond dealer in NYC bought 35 diamonds 1.00 to 2.00 cts diamond on the phone because he was overseas from one of the BRIBERS. WHEN HE CAME HOME AND VIEWED THE DIAMONDS HEY OFF REALLY OFF ON COLOR AND CLARITY SO BAD THAT HE WENT PERSONALLY TO THE PERSONS OFFICE AND PUT THEM ON THE DESK AND TOLD THE PERSON HE IS RETURNING THEM AND BREAKING MAZEL. this happened to a very important player in the market. You may want to post this so they understand how far this s**t went. This happened 3-4 years ago and the person bribing did not give a s**and took back the diamonds without saying a word. This was a briber who has been doing it for aleast 13 years.

***********

Now this guy has had his life threated, has had sit downs with the GIA honchos who supposedly gave him nothing but lip service, and have alegedly said things that would have caused ME to reach across the table a choke the living s**t out of the person, and has personally been effected by intentional downgrading, a little game NY played, I am told.

To wit, "so and so has a fancy that should be an iintense but he''ll never get the grade. Now if YOU resubmit it, that is another thing." is how it worked sometimes. CONTROL of important stones. It will all come out eventually.

GIA is only delaying the inevitable.

The Stafford case is starting the crack in the dam.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

DiaGem has kindly moved the technical colour issues here

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/changing-the-hue-of-a-fancy-colored-diamond-by-re-cutting-the-continuation.89287/

Sorry for aiding the confusion - but my lopez comment was ''sort of'' relevant.

Thanks for the furthher clarification of your associates opinion Marty.
Of course if you can get this person to agree to share with Chaim, and to testify, then GIA''s day in the search light would move closer. But we know that there are many fears and reasons why these big dealers / cutters are too frighttened to do so

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/6/2008 12:14:18 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

DiaGem has kindly moved the technical colour issues here

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/changing-the-hue-of-a-fancy-colored-diamond-by-re-cutting-the-continuation.89287/

Sorry for aiding the confusion - but my lopez comment was 'sort of' relevant.

Thanks for the furthher clarification of your associates opinion Marty.
Of course if you can get this person to agree to share with Chaim, and to testify, then GIA's day in the search light would move closer. But we know that there are many fears and reasons why these big dealers / cutters are too frighttened to do so

Was Way, way ahead of you on that Garry, I did those introductions a long long time ago, which were definately the cause of some of the writings I know of.

I'm on it..

 

[adamasgem]

For those wanting to follow all the court records

The state cases..

http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/

The main case is 2005 CV07059
The first denied appeal is CA022770
The newest appeal and request for injunction is CA022817

The origianal diamond case now transferred to federal court is 2006 CV08379

Unfortunately the Federal case is part of the Federal Pacer Court record system but may be accessed for a fee after you log in at
https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl?243070055613377-L_432_0-1

and then run a query

https://ecf.ohsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/iquery.pl query case 3:06-cv-371


More should be breaking soon..

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Marty,

Are you able to report the federal case without contravening the feee rules?

(We would hate to need to send you diamond impregnated files)

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/7/2008 4:56:38 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Thanks Marty,

Are you able to report the federal case without contravening the feee rules?

(We would hate to need to send you diamond impregnated files)

As far as I know, court records are public records, once you have them you are free to do what you want with them.
Sort of like patents, I think.
Besides it is fair use, for educational purposes.

 

[adamasgem]

All the gory details regarding the injunction request are now online at

http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/image_onbase.cfm?docket=13139654

The parties have untill July 11th to apparently file briefs in response to the motion..

 

[adamasgem]

Why the motion for injunction should be denied....

http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/image_onbase.cfm?docket=13155221

Remember, the JKD motion for injunction is a delaying tactic relating to the Federal case, but eventually and hopefully, the names of the bribers should come out, if GIA doesn''t think of some other lame brain excuse not to release them, protecting the guilty.

The retailers out there who unknowingly bought from these crooks are sitting on a ticking financial time bomb, as those who bought stones (and were defrauded) are entitled to the value of what they thought they bought, specific performance of a contract, and the value, at today''s prices, not the prices of 8 or 10 years ago, when they bought it.

Need we also mention treble damages for fraud in a lot of states.

And then the jeweler has to go after the wholesaler, who may not exist under the same corporate entity.

Just like the "Vivid Collection" closing abuptly after the Pincione case.

http://www.jckonline.com/blog/870000287/post/640026264.html

 

[adamasgem]

Another bit of hypocricy from the GIA

From: http://www.gia.edu/about/42/copyright__trademarks.cfm

"Finally, former GIA staff, including instructors, technical staff, and administrators, may not advertise their former GIA employment status or years of service (past or present) in any type of advertising and/or other printed or electronic materials."

Now, as if GIA was truly unaware..

From: http://www.worldjewelrycenter.com/billboyajian.php

"Few people in this generation have had more impact on the gem and jewelry industry than Bill Boyajian. In his 31-year tenure with the Gemological Institute of America (GIA), 20 years as President, Mr. Boyajian has influenced the lives and careers of thousands of people and left a legacy that is larger than life."

If GIA has the balls and the convictions of their word (which I doubt) they should force Billy Boy, the past seat of cover-ups and alleged corruption, and the World Jewelry Trade Center to remove this violation of GIA policies..

Have a nice day ...

 

[adamasgem]

JKD doesn't want to let THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG

PLEADS for a SINGLE JUDGE to prevent GIA from following a single Judges' order.. AGAIN, HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE EXPECTED TO COME OUT OF GIA..

http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/image_onbase.cfm?docket=13164637

Argument (whining) From JKD

http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/image_onbase.cfm?docket=13164614


Temporary Stay of Order Requiring Production Of Documents From GIA..

http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/image_onbase.cfm?docket=13165723

 

[Rank Amateur]

Once a person has sold his integrity, what has he left?

I don''t understand it. Even though I know it''s big money, I still don''t understand.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/18/2008 11:31:14 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
Once a person has sold his integrity, what has he left?

I don''t understand it. Even though I know it''s big money, I still don''t understand.

It is about arrogance, and ultimate power, which is said to corrupt ultimately...

The Greedy Institute Of Arrogance filed something today, it won''t be until next week until we see what it says, but I fully suspect that it is pro JKD''s motion to "not let the cat out of the bag".

07/18/2008
ENTRY FILED
RESPONSE OF GEMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF AMERICA FILED. Attorney: WILLIAMSON, DAVID P (0032614)

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 7/17/2008 10:42:51 AM
Author: adamasgem
JKD doesn''t want to let THE CAT OUT OF THE BAG

PLEADS for a SINGLE JUDGE to prevent GIA from following a single Judges'' order.. AGAIN, HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL EVIDENCE EXPECTED TO COME OUT OF GIA..

http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/image_onbase.cfm?docket=13164637

GIA agrees it would let the cat out of the bag!!!!

What a hypocrite GIA has turned out to be.

http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/image_onbase.cfm?docket=13183928

 

[adamasgem]

08/14/2008
ORDER
DEC & ENTRY FILED DISMISSING APPEAL AND OVERRULING MOTION FOR INJUNCTION AS MOOT.


Looks like GIA will have to provide the JKD info to the state court.... Decision not posted yet

In the Federal case, the Fed court refused to reopen discovery, HOWEVER, it is my belief that it doesn''t prevent Stafford from asking some very embarassing questions of JKD (and maybe GIA).

 

[adamasgem]

Admissability of GIA Info..


I don''t think the Federal court can ignore the attached...

The Messica depo, taken in the state case, clearly outlines the importance of the GIA "cert", and JKD''s ability to get same under JKD''s supposed relationship with GIA. Now, letting the "cat out of the bag" doesn''t jive with Messica''s deposition.

I wonder who is going to be lining up for let''s make a deal?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

marty, for the benefit of those who will no longer bother to read this thread after experiancing your short hand, and so i know what is going on too, please explain what just happened in english (or American)

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/16/2008 5:04:22 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
marty, for the benefit of those who will no longer bother to read this thread after experiancing your short hand, and so i know what is going on too, please explain what just happened in english (or American)

In the state case the court ordered an in-camera (in chambers, secret) production of documents by GIA dealing with the ability of Julus Klein diamonds (JKD) to submit stones to GIA (Greedy Institute of Arrogance).

This followed GIA''s and JKD''s refusal to be deposed on this matter, i.e. bribery

Aledgedly, this priviledge was withdrawn by a letter banning business because of JKD''s supposed involvement in the Certifigate bribery scheme.

JKD appealed the courts ruling for production of documents by GIA, and JKD asked for an injunction preventing GIA from folllowing the court order until the appeal was head. GIA, of course, filed a motion concurring with Julius Klien, in effect thumbing its nose at the state trial court. The appeal was denied, and GIA has to provide the document to the court, or else probably face contempt of court sanctions.

Here is the state appeals court ruling.

http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/image_onbase.cfm?docket=13263338

Meanwhile, previously, on the other side of town, in the Federal case, where Stafford is suing JKD for the alledged theft of a 5+ carat pink diamond, , the federal court last week, said that Stafford did not have the right to re-open discovery (of GIA) , and Stafford''s attorney said in the thread above (admissability of evidence filing to the federal pdf attachment) that the issue of whether JKD had submission priviledges was pertenent to the case because, in effect, once a crook, always a crook.

Since now in the state case, the documents would have to be producced, it sort of implied that they (documents in the state case ordered by the state court) would now be submitted to the Federal court.

In a close to 200 page transcript of a deposition of a JKD employee in the state case, the emplyeee basically said that JKD had submission priviledges and would get a certificate for the Pink diamond..

Both GIA and JKD have been trying like heck to cover this up for the Federal case, because along with the theft of the diamond, are issues of tampering with evidence, which triggers (under state law) punitive damages which far exceed the value of the diamond, something to the tune of 15 million dollars, which was mentioned in a typical (and legal) lawyers demand of settlement letter, which was termed extortion by JKD''s lawyers in a filing and parroted (extortion as "fact") by the some of the trade press, as the courts so noted that in the federal case.

All the tip of the iceberg in the now becoming finally exposed Certifigate scandal.

The appeals have been an attempt by JKD to delay production of documents (GIA going along with it) , because the Federal case is supposed to start next month.

JKD had argued in one of the cases that they didn''t want to "let the cat out of the bag", by letting GIA testify that it no longer would do business with JKD.

Now, since the GIA was so successful in the past at NOT RELEASING NAMES of those involved in the Certifigate bribery scheme, things are starting to unravel, and maybe, just maybe, some of the participants willl start lining up to play let''s make a deal with the Feds.

Because it certainly smells like, and has all the elements of, an open and shut RICO case to me, and may force the NYC Feds to do their job.

It has been posited that there might have been some behind the scenes cover-up already, involving the Feds in NYC, as the whole thing mysteriously died after the Pincione "settlement", a "in house invesitgation" managed by an MCI/Worldcom lawyer hired by GIA, and lip service to the trade about releasing names of dealers and possibly sightholders who were, on a long term basis, bribing GIA for better grades in a multi milllion dollar scheme, that probably went to the very top of GIA.

What confuses the issue is that the state case, which opened up this whole thing, as I interpret it, was entirely unrelated to Certifigate, in that it involved a business naming squabble between brothers, both of whom are in competing jewelry businesses, one of whom (Jim) called a JKD employee (partner? who he had prior personal and business relationships with) as a character witness (and then withdrew his name) and the other brother John, who was hoodwinked into sending a potentially very valuable Pink diamond to JKD for possible purchase after "certification" by GIA, something they apparently were not able to do, at least under the normal straight forward business channels, because of the Certifigate scandal.

Is that clear enough Garry? It is somewhat convoluted, but it looks like GIA will be forced to release name(s) to the court, although if they reach the light of day is another thing.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Marty - that is a great half time update.
I think a lot of people will appreciate it

 

[adamasgem]

In the state case, after JKD (and GIA) exhausting the appeals process (so far), and getting their collective behinds whipped, the GIA apparently turned documentation over to the court ( in response to the courts order of 6/26/0 and the lawyers involved.

This is just a published receipt for same by one of the participating lawyers

http://www.clerk.co.montgomery.oh.us/pro/image_onbase.cfm?docket=13292982


Now will come the inevitable argument again that this information to wit: whether or not JKD had received a "banishment" letter from GIA because of grading bribery, will see public light.

This is important, because it could call into question the "true" grade of any diamond supplied to retailers and subsequent consumers, by JKD as well as a whole bunch of other wholesale diamond firms (which is my understanding).

Something GIA goes to great length to cover up..i.e.
1) GIA refusing to name the bribers
2) The federal government apparently doing nothing about the Certifigate scandal
3) Billy-Boy getting a > $750K golden handshake
4) The consumer and the retailers getting the shaft by a tax-exempt organization (GIA)

Tick-Tock, Tick-Tock...

 

[strmrdr]

thanks for the update Marty.
Any bets on that it will be sealed?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 9/2/2008 6:38:47 PM
Author: strmrdr
thanks for the update Marty.
Any bets on that it will be sealed?

Don''t venture a guess other than "observations" that both JKD and GIA apparently royally pi**ed off the state court judge by not answering questions at the depositions, which resulted in the state court order. I think that there is a better than 70% chance that it will be made public and get into the federal case.

Of course, if all of a sudden, the "Cat is let out of the bag", then I predict that JKD will be screaming all of a sudden for a "sealed" settlement in the Federal case.

From what I have heard, both from Certifigate and this extension case, some people belong in jail, but the Manhatten Federal Prosecutor has apparently not done their job in the original Certifigate case and cover-up.

But of course, there may have already been a sealed slap on the wrist federally. That was GIA''s spin doctors speciality (O''Niel), that is managing cover-ups.