Painting: Stop the madness

[JohnQuixote]

A comparison to internet color and clarity judgments:

We all know color grading, done from the side, is not absolute - since cut influences face-up appearance. A well-cut G (or lower) may face-up with little, if any, color.

Thanks to mature education Pricescope members realize this, and counsel accordingly. They don’t create fear about color. They give appropriate advice. As a seller of well-cut diamonds we are expected to report face-up color accurately when asked, just as we are expected to report accurately on ‘eye-clean.’ If we do not it will certainly come back to haunt us.

GIA’s painting judgment must be treated the same way. For now GIA still views diamonds from the side to see painting so (like color) there is no way to be sure how the diamond ‘faces up’ unless you have it in-hand.

(The AGS incorporates this judgment in their light performance grade: Any diamond not receiving the strict numerical values for brightness, dispersion, contrast and leakage will not get the AGS 0 Ideal grade. This is a logical, face-up assessment of painting.)

The ‘madness’

Seller X should not take aim at seller Y’s product, directly or indirectly, over judgments that can only be made with the individual diamond in-hand: These include face-up specifics of color or clarity from any lab, and brillianteering the way GIA approaches it at this time.

Example: Our company would not warn people away from competitors’ GIA SI1 diamonds, claiming they can have inclusions and our eye-clean judgment is more elite. We would not warn that competitors’ GIA H rounds could show more tint than ones we would approve. To do so would be idle speculation, and a breach of etiquette.

Pricescope is self-patrolled. As sellers, we earn our reputations through truthful representation and delivery of diamonds that delight and perform; to intelligent and very discriminating consumers who post here.

We will not enjoy a top reputation if we misrepresent things. It is that simple.

If sellers use blanket judgments to attack competitor’s products they don’t actually have in-hand the animosity and fear created may threaten the environment we currently enjoy on Pricescope.

 

[WinkHPD]

Well said my friend, I think I shall have to buy you a beer tomorrow!

I am in accord with you, sell the diamond, not the paper. If the diamond rocks and has great paper too, then that is a bonus. To take away from a rockin rock is wrong, especially if the one doing the taking away has not seen the rock.

I think I will pay more attention in English classes in my next life so I can write as well as you do.

Wink, getting ready to leave for Vegas mode.

P.S. Are we there yet?

Are we there yet?

 

[Lynn B]

Interesting subject, for sure. Thanks for the post, John.

 

[dhog]

someday the messenger will get the message
and realize that those of us who prefer this
form of beauty will fight to protect what we
believe in.

As a wise fisherman once said:
He who paints the best lures
will land the most fish.

It''s the performance of the lure
and not the hype that catches the
biggest fish.

 

[strmrdr]

I agree the painting madness has gotten totally out of hand mainly because of personal attacks and a couple peoples hatred for gia but it is still a legit topic for discussion.

Its fine for a vendor to say that I don''t sell si1-si2 diamonds because they can be non-eye-clean while another vendor carries them all the time.
The same its fine for a vendor to say Im not going to carry painted diamonds because GIA doesn''t like em and I agree.
While another vendor may sell them.

The pictures of apes, outhouses and the name calling are far worse for PS than that.
Its unprofessional in the extreme and confuses the issue and cast doubt on the credibility of the people doing it and the board.
Its been a long time since a rational discussion has been possible on the subject here.

So before any fingers are pointed about talking about a competitors product there is a heck of a lot that needs to be addressed that created the situation in the first place.

 

[belle]

Date: 5/30/2006 9:14:20 PM
Author: strmrdr

I agree the painting madness has gotten totally out of hand mainly because of personal attacks and a couple peoples hatred for gia but it is still a legit topic for discussion.

that is far from the reason the painting madness has gotten out of hand.
it got out of hand because rhino is deliberately implying that all painted diamonds are bad and you are taking it upon yourself to spread the message by going into thread after thread, including this one, to say the same. when fear creating untruths are being heinously broadcast by one who stands to benefit from them, things get out of hand.

Date: 5/30/2006 9:14:20 PM
Author: strmrdr

Its fine for a vendor to say that I don''t sell si1-si2 diamonds because they can be non-eye-clean while another vendor carries them all the time.
The same its fine for a vendor to say Im not going to carry painted diamonds because GIA doesn''t like em and I agree.
While another vendor may sell them.

using your si example, what is NOT fine is for a vendor to say ''all si1-si2 diamonds are not eye clean'' without ever looking at the diamond itself to judge. you cannot make a blanket statement about eye-clean and you can NOT make a blanket statement with painting.

Date: 5/30/2006 9:14:20 PM
Author: strmrdr

So before any fingers are pointed about talking about a competitors product there is a heck of a lot that needs to be addressed that created the situation in the first place.

let''s address what created the situation.
1. rhino implying that all painted diamonds are bad
2. you agreeing with this even though you have admitted to not seeing many (any?).

should we also address exactly what you have based your claims on, since you never answered me in the other thread?

 

[Rhino]

So if a consumer comes on these boards and is looking for professional opinions, those who disagree with yours should not post? I assume you are writing this in response to the thread "Why would anyone object to painting?" A person asked a question soliciting opinions. I gave mine and the logical reasons behind my opinion. It would have never gone beyond that were it not for the continuing discussion and even in that continuing discussion you do not find me exhibiting bad etiquette. As long as freedom of speech exists, if a person is looking for an opinion (even if it was regarding color, clarity, SI1''s, SI2''s or whatever) I will share mine and shouldn''t be made to feel any different because my opinion differs on this matter. Not once in all the years I''ve been on these boards do I target a competitors product and knock it. The question regarded the issue of painting and I have my opinion and on a public forum there is nothing wrong with me to share it. That''s all I''ll say on the matter.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/30/2006 9:10:04 PM
Author: dhog
someday the messenger will get the message
and realize that those of us who prefer this
form of beauty will fight to protect what we
believe in.

As a wise fisherman once said:
He who paints the best lures
will land the most fish.

It''s the performance of the lure
and not the hype that catches the
biggest fish.

Agreed 110%. Having served this great country of ours and the freedoms it represents I would fight for your right to choose and purchase what pleases your eyes most dhog. During that time it included laying down my life for it too. If you have taken away anything from what I have written other than this then you are reading things in my words that do not exist.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/31/2006 11:07:40 AM
Author: belle

using your si example, what is NOT fine is for a vendor to say 'all si1-si2 diamonds are not eye clean' without ever looking at the diamond itself to judge. you cannot make a blanket statement about eye-clean and you can NOT make a blanket statement with painting.

let's address what created the situation.
1. rhino implying that all painted diamonds are bad
2. you agreeing with this even though you have admitted to not seeing many (any?).

should we also address exactly what you have based your claims on, since you never answered me in the other thread?

Apparently you have not paid attention to a single word I have written on this and you are judging me based on false and wrong information.

 

[strmrdr]

thanks belle for proving my point.

As too your question Iv answered it atleast a dozen times and if I dont feel like typing it out again thats my right :}

My position has been consistent on painting:
1: its a different look some like it better some don't. <--- John agrees there.
2: I don't care for the ones Iv seen and would buy an unpainted diamond. <--I have the right to my own opinion and can say I wouldn't buy painted diamonds even if they were better :}
3: there are far more important specs than girdle treatment. <--- John agrees here too.
4: I think GIA goes a little far in downgrading them. <--- John feels more strongly about it than I do but I don't think he would disagree with me.

So tell me again how im picking on WF?

If you had been paying attention where I side with Jon is on the diamond dock being a useful tool but with some limitations.
Frankly I disagree with both sides on painting and the correct answer is somewhere in the middle.

The GIA cut system is a proportion based system besigned to be easy to apply in the field by GIA trained GGs with min. equipment.
Proportion based systems have problems and the GIA system has those problems, the old AGS system had the same problems too.

 

[Rhino]

Hi John,

I''d like to comment on some of the things you have written.

Date: 5/30/2006 5:35:53 PM
Author:JohnQuixote

A comparison to internet color and clarity judgments:

We all know color grading, done from the side, is not absolute - since cut influences face-up appearance. A well-cut G (or lower) may face-up with little, if any, color.

Yes and while a G may face up to most people the same as an F or even a higher color, the grade is still determined face down against a flat white background under the appropriate lighting. That is where the grade and value is determined. Face up is considered but is not where the final grade is determined. Case in point, an H color with medium flourescence and superior cut may face up like an F but when it comes to absolute grading of the stone it is face down against flat white.

Thanks to mature education Pricescope members realize this, and counsel accordingly. They don’t create fear about color. They give appropriate advice. As a seller of well-cut diamonds we are expected to report face-up color accurately when asked, just as we are expected to report accurately on ‘eye-clean.’ If we do not it will certainly come back to haunt us.

Amen.

GIA’s painting judgment must be treated the same way. For now GIA still views diamonds from the side to see painting so (like color) there is no way to be sure how the diamond ‘faces up’ unless you have it in-hand.

So are you saying that GIA did not factor face up appearance of painted stones? You''re comments make it sound like all they do is look at the girdle, judge the painting and that''s it ... end of story? If so, then what was the purpose of garnering over 70k observations which included dug out and painted stones?

It is my professional opinion and counsel that if a person veers away from either AGS or GIA ideals that they should not do so blindly. They should see what it is they are purchasing. This has been my consistent counsel over the years I have been participating on forums and also in my store and I see absolutely nothing wrong with this counsel. Not only do I think it is sound counsel but even Marty agrees!

(The AGS incorporates this judgment in their light performance grade: Any diamond not receiving the strict numerical values for brightness, dispersion, contrast and leakage will not get the AGS 0 Ideal grade. This is a logical, face-up assessment of painting.)

Except for when it disagrees with human observation. Software and ray tracing are great. I am a strong advocate of technology except for when it disagrees with what peoples eyes.

The ‘madness’

Seller X should not take aim at seller Y’s product, directly or indirectly, over judgments that can only be made with the individual diamond in-hand: These include face-up specifics of color or clarity from any lab, and brillianteering the way GIA approaches it at this time.

In case anyone is in doubt I am seller X and never in my history have I taken aim at seller Y''s products and a simple search will reveal the veracity of my statement. In fact, in past threads when others attempted to involve and include brand names I was quick to point out that what I''m saying is not directed at any specific company or person. I will gladly discuss diamonds and features I am familiar with about them but I will never criticize or condemn another company or product in an effort to thwart business. That is ludicrous.

Example: Our company would not warn people away from competitors’ GIA SI1 diamonds, claiming they can have inclusions and our eye-clean judgment is more elite. We would not warn that competitors’ GIA H rounds could show more tint than ones we would approve. To do so would be idle speculation, and a breach of etiquette.

And where do I target WF?

Pricescope is self-patrolled. As sellers, we earn our reputations through truthful representation and delivery of diamonds that delight and perform; to intelligent and very discriminating consumers who post here.

We will not enjoy a top reputation if we misrepresent things. It is that simple.

And where do you find me misrepresenting?

If sellers use blanket judgments to attack competitor’s products they don’t actually have in-hand the animosity and fear created may threaten the environment we currently enjoy on Pricescope.

And where do you find me making blanket judgments about painting or digging and attacking competitors products?

I agree STOP THE MADNESS.

 

[Mara]

i am SO OVER this whole subject and conversation.

these discussions are such moot points. no one is going to change their point of view or their preference to suit someone else nor is anyone else going to have a blinding epiphany about what they *really* want to see in their diamond based on what is said here.

where i see people doing a disservice to the customers are when they blanket statement all of the painted stones aka 'i don't like painted stones'. or tout GIA as knowing what they are doing by dinging painted stones by saying that they MUST be overpainted to be dinged. i have a stone right here on my hand that is not overpainted and it was dinged by GIA. go figure?

let the customer choose by their own eye or their own requirements. all this confusion and discussion led one of the PS'ers here to buy one of each in order to try to determine what HIS eyes saw. while that is fabulous, not everyone should have to do that in order to determine if their eye will dislike a painted stone. it's splitting hairs between absolutely amazingly well-cut stones. IMO having seen many of both types of stone (which is more than can be said by many consumers here), both styles are beautiful, amazing, stunning. i would be happy with either style of cut. INVENTORY may play a huge part in if a consumer ends up with a classic-ish or painted kind of stone. i don't think that people should be narrowing down the field of inventory from an already small funnel into an even smaller one.

lastly, rhino, you could be viewed as touting GIA and dinging the painted stones because you pretty much ONLY CARRY classic stones!! whereas WF sells both. of course both of you believe very strongly in your own product. so that is where the vendor discussing other vendor's goods really comes into play. i do see influence trying to happen couched in high-brow terminology, but that has always really been the case to me...this is nothing new. but this discussion on the painted vs non, the good and the bad, how many threads have there been on this stuff? and they ALWAYS end up the same way. it's just an old, tired song.

 

[dhog]

Date: 5/31/2006 11:27:00 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/30/2006 9:10:04 PM

Author: dhog

someday the messenger will get the message

and realize that those of us who prefer this

form of beauty will fight to protect what we

believe in.


As a wise fisherman once said:

He who paints the best lures

will land the most fish.


It''s the performance of the lure

and not the hype that catches the

biggest fish.

Agreed 110%. Having served this great country of ours and the freedoms it represents I would fight for your right to choose and purchase what pleases your eyes most dhog. During that time it included laying down my life for it too. If you have taken away anything from what I have written other than this then you are reading things in my words that do not exist.


Peace,

the message I get from your posts I think in my own
opinion goes deeper than this.

I really have tryed to stay out of these posts as I
like to have fun on these boards and not take things
so serious but must stand up for my painted stones.

look at the following quote and tell us why you can''t
let the issue of painting and digging rest peacefully.
you have been on a crusade for along time now.

Date: 11/11/2005 4:29:51 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Mara,


I have some interesting answers to this with graphics to accommodate but I am not at liberty to comment on competitors diamonds. Whatever I say in response to this could be construed in a wrong manner by some which are not my intentions. If you either edit your post or post a new thread to ask about ''painted girdles'' as opposed to ''classic girdles'' instead of ACA ''new line'' vs ''classic line'' I can answer your questions if you''re interested in hearing my input. If not, no prob and disregard this completely. If you do please drop me a pm/email and I''ll head back to answer at my earliest convenience.


Kind Regards,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/31/2006 11:58:46 AM
Author: Rhino
Hi John,

I''d like to comment on some of the things you have written.

Thanks to mature education Pricescope members realize this, and counsel accordingly. They don’t create fear about color. They give appropriate advice. As a seller of well-cut diamonds we are expected to report face-up color accurately when asked, just as we are expected to report accurately on ‘eye-clean.’ If we do not it will certainly come back to haunt us.

Amen.

GIA’s painting judgment must be treated the same way. For now GIA still views diamonds from the side to see painting so (like color) there is no way to be sure how the diamond ‘faces up’ unless you have it in-hand.

So are you saying that GIA did not factor face up appearance of painted stones? You''re comments make it sound like all they do is look at the girdle, judge the painting and that''s it ... end of story? If so, then what was the purpose of garnering over 70k observations which included dug out and painted stones?

It is my professional opinion and counsel that if a person veers away from either AGS or GIA ideals that they should not do so blindly. They should see what it is they are purchasing. This has been my consistent counsel over the years I have been participating on forums and also in my store and I see absolutely nothing wrong with this counsel. Not only do I think it is sound counsel but even Marty agrees!

It goes without saying that people should SEE what they are purchasing, but you distort what I told you Rhino. I specifically said to you that I would possibly recommend the INTERSECTION of both the narrow AGS0 and broad GIA EX sets. I might add that since GIA does the fudging of the data by averaging and then "rounding", I would put VERY LITTLE credence on their paper.

The NON LINEARITY of the whole problem, trying to correlate the "theoretical", mismodeled as they probably are, with "observational" studies (which throw a myiad of additional variables into the problem set), is the problem with the GIA system in trying to combine "preferences" with purely "science". A "system" where everyone is going to get a differnt answer is not a usable "system".

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/30/2006 9:14:20 PM
Author: strmrdr
I agree the painting madness has gotten totally out of hand mainly because of personal attacks and a couple peoples hatred for gia but it is still a legit topic for discussion.

Its fine for a vendor to say that I don''t sell si1-si2 diamonds because they can be non-eye-clean while another vendor carries them all the time.
The same its fine for a vendor to say Im not going to carry painted diamonds because GIA doesn''t like em and I agree.
While another vendor may sell them.

The pictures of apes, outhouses and the name calling are far worse for PS than that.
Its unprofessional in the extreme and confuses the issue and cast doubt on the credibility of the people doing it and the board.
Its been a long time since a rational discussion has been possible on the subject here.

So before any fingers are pointed about talking about a competitors product there is a heck of a lot that needs to be addressed that created the situation in the first place.

A picture is worth a thousand words Storm, given that some here who obviously can''t read (or understand what they read) very well.. Satire sometimes gets the point across, even though YOU (or maybe others) don''t like it.

I expect what you would call "professional" would be to give deference and homage to those who might be very very wrong, and NEVER admit their mistakes or purely political or money motivated decisions, convinient redefinitions to broaden grades, etc, etc, etc.

What created the situation in the first place was mis-management pandering to the trade, in my opinion, and (most probably) a few technical mistakes that are inevitable in a complex problem.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/31/2006 11:23:15 AM
Author: Rhino
So if a consumer comes on these boards and is looking for professional opinions, those who disagree with yours should not post? I assume you are writing this in response to the thread ''Why would anyone object to painting?'' A person asked a question soliciting opinions. I gave mine and the logical reasons behind my opinion. It would have never gone beyond that were it not for the continuing discussion and even in that continuing discussion you do not find me exhibiting bad etiquette. As long as freedom of speech exists, if a person is looking for an opinion (even if it was regarding color, clarity, SI1''s, SI2''s or whatever) I will share mine and shouldn''t be made to feel any different because my opinion differs on this matter. Not once in all the years I''ve been on these boards do I target a competitors product and knock it. The question regarded the issue of painting and I have my opinion and on a public forum there is nothing wrong with me to share it. That''s all I''ll say on the matter.

Jon

LOL...very time when this topic comes up, i think you better go hide in your BAT CAVE !!! J/K

 

[belle]

Date: 5/31/2006 11:43:18 AM
Author: strmrdr

As too your question Iv answered it atleast a dozen times and if I dont feel like typing it out again thats my right :}

no you have not. you have never answered the question about how you knew the diamonds you saw were painted.

rights? i think fellow consumers who follow your posts have the right to know how many painted diamonds you have seen to base your claims on.

there is no better place than right here to post that. you don''t have to go through any laborious ''typing it out'' exercise either. the character numeral is fine.

Date: 5/31/2006 11:43:18 AM
Author: strmrdr

My position has been consistent on painting:
1: its a different look some like it better some don''t. <--- John agrees there.
2: I don''t care for the ones Iv seen and would buy an unpainted diamond. <--I have the right to my own opinion and can say I wouldn''t buy painted diamonds even if they were better :}
3: there are far more important specs than girdle treatment. <--- John agrees here too.
4: I think GIA goes a little far in downgrading them. <--- John feels more strongly about it than I do but I don''t think he would disagree with me.

again, how many diamonds have you personally seen to base this on and how did you know they were painted?
actually, skip the number. i know you said you''ve ''seen a few'' and you also said you have not seen any aca''s. that only leaves the question of how you knew that the few diamonds you saw were painted.

Date: 5/31/2006 11:43:18 AM
Author: strmrdr

So tell me again how im picking on WF?

so tell me again how i said you were?

Date: 5/31/2006 11:43:18 AM
Author: strmrdr

If you had been paying attention where I side with Jon is on the diamond dock being a useful tool but with some limitations.
Frankly I disagree with both sides on painting and the correct answer is somewhere in the middle.

i know exactly where you side with jon. the question was not how you agree or disagree with gia, it was ''how did you arrive at your discriminating conclusion about painting?''

 

[Small]

Date: 5/31/2006 12:20:41 PM
Author: Mara
i am SO OVER this whole subject and conversation.

these discussions are such moot points. no one is going to change their point of view or their preference to suit someone else nor is anyone else going to have a blinding epiphany about what they *really* want to see in their diamond based on what is said here.

where i see people doing a disservice to the customers are when they blanket statement all of the painted stones aka ''i don''t like painted stones''. or tout GIA as knowing what they are doing by dinging painted stones by saying that they MUST be overpainted to be dinged. i have a stone right here on my hand that is not overpainted and it was dinged by GIA. go figure?

let the customer choose by their own eye or their own requirements. all this confusion and discussion led one of the PS''ers here to buy one of each in order to try to determine what HIS eyes saw. while that is fabulous, not everyone should have to do that in order to determine if their eye will dislike a painted stone. it''s splitting hairs between absolutely amazingly well-cut stones. IMO having seen many of both types of stone (which is more than can be said by many consumers here), both styles are beautiful, amazing, stunning. i would be happy with either style of cut. INVENTORY may play a huge part in if a consumer ends up with a classic-ish or painted kind of stone. i don''t think that people should be narrowing down the field of inventory from an already small funnel into an even smaller one.

lastly, rhino, you could be viewed as touting GIA and dinging the painted stones because you pretty much ONLY CARRY classic stones!! whereas WF sells both. of course both of you believe very strongly in your own product. so that is where the vendor discussing other vendor''s goods really comes into play. i do see influence trying to happen couched in high-brow terminology, but that has always really been the case to me...this is nothing new. but this discussion on the painted vs non, the good and the bad, how many threads have there been on this stuff? and they ALWAYS end up the same way. it''s just an old, tired song.

very well said!!!!!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/31/2006 1:26:52 PM
Author: adamasgem

GIA’s painting judgment must be treated the same way. For now GIA still views diamonds from the side to see painting so (like color) there is no way to be sure how the diamond ‘faces up’ unless you have it in-hand.

So are you saying that GIA did not factor face up appearance of painted stones? You''re comments make it sound like all they do is look at the girdle, judge the painting and that''s it ... end of story? If so, then what was the purpose of garnering over 70k observations which included dug out and painted stones?

It is my professional opinion and counsel that if a person veers away from either AGS or GIA ideals that they should not do so blindly. They should see what it is they are purchasing. This has been my consistent counsel over the years I have been participating on forums and also in my store and I see absolutely nothing wrong with this counsel. Not only do I think it is sound counsel but even Marty agrees!

It goes without saying that people should SEE what they are purchasing, but you distort what I told you Rhino. I specifically said to you that I would possibly recommend the INTERSECTION of both the narrow AGS0 and broad GIA EX sets. I might add that since GIA does the fudging of the data by averaging and then ''rounding'', I would put VERY LITTLE credence on their paper.

The NON LINEARITY of the whole problem, trying to correlate the ''theoretical'', mismodeled as they probably are, with ''observational'' studies (which throw a myiad of additional variables into the problem set), is the problem with the GIA system in trying to combine ''preferences'' with purely ''science''. A ''system'' where everyone is going to get a differnt answer is not a usable ''system''.

I was referring to our conversation in this thread Marty.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-cut-grading-problems-with-diamond-dock.41869/page-5

I had stated:

Which is why, as always, the consumer must do their homework as well as the gemologist. While experts may agree/disagree on certain issues in each of the cut grading systems, the consumer who doesn''t feel like looking into these things is safest getting a stone that falls into the top grade of both. My suggestion of course, if there are disparaging opinions, would be to view both side by side and pick the stone they like best of course.

Your response:

I agree

If you meant something different or have changed your opinion I respect that but this is what I remember.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/31/2006 2:28:43 PM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 5/31/2006 11:23:15 AM
Author: Rhino
So if a consumer comes on these boards and is looking for professional opinions, those who disagree with yours should not post? I assume you are writing this in response to the thread ''Why would anyone object to painting?'' A person asked a question soliciting opinions. I gave mine and the logical reasons behind my opinion. It would have never gone beyond that were it not for the continuing discussion and even in that continuing discussion you do not find me exhibiting bad etiquette. As long as freedom of speech exists, if a person is looking for an opinion (even if it was regarding color, clarity, SI1''s, SI2''s or whatever) I will share mine and shouldn''t be made to feel any different because my opinion differs on this matter. Not once in all the years I''ve been on these boards do I target a competitors product and knock it. The question regarded the issue of painting and I have my opinion and on a public forum there is nothing wrong with me to share it. That''s all I''ll say on the matter.

Jon

LOL...very time when this topic comes up, i think you better go hide in your BAT CAVE !!! J/K

LMAO. I hear ya DF. God forbid the day comes to this forum when an individual is made to feel less than human because they share a differing opinion and God forbid it agrees with anything GIA has done!

Those evil anti-painting conspiring GIA people!!! I am convinced they have an anti-painting agenda!

I''ve had enough of this topic already if you want to know the truth.

I agree with Mara ... I''m so over this already.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/31/2006 4:55:52 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/31/2006 1:26:52 PM
Author: adamasgem

GIA’s painting judgment must be treated the same way. For now GIA still views diamonds from the side to see painting so (like color) there is no way to be sure how the diamond ‘faces up’ unless you have it in-hand.

So are you saying that GIA did not factor face up appearance of painted stones? You''re comments make it sound like all they do is look at the girdle, judge the painting and that''s it ... end of story? If so, then what was the purpose of garnering over 70k observations which included dug out and painted stones?

It is my professional opinion and counsel that if a person veers away from either AGS or GIA ideals that they should not do so blindly. They should see what it is they are purchasing. This has been my consistent counsel over the years I have been participating on forums and also in my store and I see absolutely nothing wrong with this counsel. Not only do I think it is sound counsel but even Marty agrees!

It goes without saying that people should SEE what they are purchasing, but you distort what I told you Rhino. I specifically said to you that I would possibly recommend the INTERSECTION of both the narrow AGS0 and broad GIA EX sets. I might add that since GIA does the fudging of the data by averaging and then ''rounding'', I would put VERY LITTLE credence on their paper.

The NON LINEARITY of the whole problem, trying to correlate the ''theoretical'', mismodeled as they probably are, with ''observational'' studies (which throw a myiad of additional variables into the problem set), is the problem with the GIA system in trying to combine ''preferences'' with purely ''science''. A ''system'' where everyone is going to get a differnt answer is not a usable ''system''.

I was referring to our conversation in this thread Marty.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-cut-grading-problems-with-diamond-dock.41869/page-5

I had stated:

Which is why, as always, the consumer must do their homework as well as the gemologist. While experts may agree/disagree on certain issues in each of the cut grading systems, the consumer who doesn''t feel like looking into these things is safest getting a stone that falls into the top grade of both. My suggestion of course, if there are disparaging opinions, would be to view both side by side and pick the stone they like best of course.

Your response:

I agree

If you meant something different or have changed your opinion I respect that but this is what I remember.

Peace,

And I, Rhino was referring to what you wrote "It is my professional opinion and counsel that if a person veers away from either AGS or GIA ideals that they should not do so blindly. " as a statement that I CANNOT agree with, in that, I can''t compare a GIA EX grade to an AGS 0.

A GIA EX grade is, by itself, meaningless to me as a comfortatble assurance of quality cutting..

Now your statement you have backtrack to another thread on "the consumer who doesn''t feel like looking into these things is safest getting a stone that falls into the top grade of both. " I CAN AGREE with..

Two different statements....

 

[Serg]

"Your liberty to wave of hands is over on the nose boundary of your opponent".
Can anybody give original expression of judge who investigate case about scuffle in the Great Britain Parliament at the beginning of its foundation?
GIA is free to create any cut grade systems. At the same time GIA surely beat somebody''s nose under any created system.
Accordingly the observers will divide into different groups depending on their relation to beaten noses. Somebody will glad that their nose is safe. Somebody will glad that competitor beaten nose . For somebody it doesn''t matter. Somebody will be indignant why liked for him nose had been beat. Somebody will be not satisfied that not liked for him nose is safe.

Somebody will ask: is it possible to behave more carefully and deliberately?

Rhino,
we have liberty of choice of camp. Unfortunately at present moment we belong to different camps. And when somebody talk to you (evidently or not) that you are from another camp then it is statement of fact but not attack on your nose. Greatly more global and not controlled by you processes threaten your nose like for example GIA actions.
we are in different camps because
1) we differently estimate future prospect of GIA System. I consider probable changing of GIA position in the area of Painting in the nearest 5 years.
I consider that it is possible to create infrastructure for limitation of casual wave of fists in which Labs brands have been transformed (not Labs but exactly their brands).
2) we differently draw border between statements and arguments.
3) we differently behave toward foreigner arguments.
4) we have different understandings what is scientific experiment.
Rhino,
I suggest you to think why technology of Painting spread on the market in spite of opposition from the GIA side.
Yield can not be the reason (here GIA was mistaken showing its total incompetence in given question).
The leakage decreasing and marketing tricks are not enough reasons to go against GIA.
So why it happens?
We are disagree in the consequences of this phenomena.
May be it is better to find the reason?

Also think about this: in the classic RBC the angle between main facets and girdle facets is exactly 11.25 degrees.
Is the reason of choice of this angle enough to consider that it is optimal angle for RBC?
What were really alternatives?
For what proportions (for example, table size) this angle had been choose among other possible combinations?
How have alternatives been changed for this angle since then?
I recommend to think about these questions before you will continue your Mission.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/1/2006 8:14:48 AM
Author: Serg

we have liberty of choice of camp. Unfortunately at present moment we belong to different camps. And when somebody talk to you (evidently or not) that you are from another camp then it is statement of fact but not attack on your nose.

AMEN, Serg!

Disagreeing with one''s philosophy/opinion isn''t an attack on the person, it''s simply a disagreement of positions.

I''d expect to hear "I''m being picked on" or "I''m being personally attacked" on a schoolyard playground.....not in a discussion of seasoned professionals. It doesn''t do much to foster respect, either.

 

[fire&ice]

Not that I really have anything constructive to add to this ad nauseum discussion EXCEPT that these nano spec discussions SUCK THE LIFE out of diamonds.

I''m really waiting to see a thread on "What effects/affects will my diamond have if I bake a Lemon Pie?" What if I eat it?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Gosh, I'm with you on that, Fire and Ice!

I am totally neutral...have never seen a painted stone in my life. I've seen two hearts and arrows stones in my life. Have seen a few ideals at Tiffany's. My feeling as a diamond shopper is that each of you has a right to stock whatever diamonds you like best and which ones you think will sell best, for whatever reason!!! I think you have a right to state those opinions on this forum and it shouldn't be inferred to be a slam on anyone else's stock. Let me add: I DO NOT CARE if there is more than one opinion on painted stones! Not all dress shops carry the same brands...it doesn't matter!!! I actually might like more than one style of dress and may buy from BOTH shops!!!

But I do feel that that one jeweler's intergity has been attacked here and on another thread by claiming he was specifically attacking the products of others for his own gain...which I cannot see whatsoever, and it was also stated by one poster at least that he probably misrepresents his diamonds just to sell them. I think that is uncalled for and terribly inaccurate as he has as much or more information on his stock than any other company here.

I haven't bought a diamond yet. I have had contact with 4 or 5 of these vendors in my search. And I am watching as to who I think has intergrity or not.

 

[Mara]

Date: 6/1/2006 10:22:36 AM
Author: fire&ice
Not that I really have anything constructive to add to this ad nauseum discussion EXCEPT that these nano spec discussions SUCK THE LIFE out of diamonds.

I'm really waiting to see a thread on 'What effects/affects will my diamond have if I bake a Lemon Pie?' What if I eat it?

That really depends. Did you paint the edges of your diamond's crust with egg white before baking? Because you know non-painted au naturel crust pies are WAY BETTER than the painted crust pies. Or so I hear anyway...

 

[JohnQuixote]

In the time I’ve been at JCK there has been strong reaction here. I’m glad for the opportunity to hear and address different perceptions.

First, thank you for all opinions.

DiamondSeeker: I’m sorry if it seems I am posting frivolously. I did not explain that our company is receiving regular inquiries regarding ‘painted’ diamonds as a result of late discussions here. In more than one case a customer has eliminated a wonderful candidate from his/her search based on no more than feelings of doubt. You actually may have seen painted stones before, but they’d not be identified as such in the mainstream. They can be indistinguishable from others. Sadly the impression given on this forum is that ‘painting’ is something which is always identifiable, like a different style of dress. It’s not.

F&I: I understand, re: nano-spec discussions. This particular ‘nano’ overlaps with broad consumer choice. Mara, Belle, Dhog, Lynn B, Stephan, MikeMaz (off the top of my head) or any number of consumers who adore their diamonds might have excluded them from consideration based on empty fears if they entered the PS forum today. That is what is occurring because of the ‘buzz.’ In our case it’s resulting in needless worry, extra time and sometimes extra expense for customers. I hope this details our concern.

Strm: I don’t think any vendors have posted pictures, called names or hate the GIA. We have a long-standing relationship with GIA and still send them diamonds, despite concerns with the new system. I would be interested in you viewing diamonds with different proportions/degrees of painting to broaden your perceptions about them.

Rhino: I can illustrate your historical inconsistencies and patterns if you like, but I’d prefer to stay on-topic. My point is simple: Among professionals participating in this internet sales medium it’s not proper to create doubt about an aspect of a competitor’s product that must be seen to be determined. Do you agree?

(warning…nano-tech follows)

Perhaps a solution: If you can develop a reference of azimuth deviation for superideals close to Tolkowsky (1 degree is too much, 5 is too much, 7 is too much) we can begin to speak intelligently in terms of what may or may not influence performance. Until you do so, blanket use of this term will continue to be a problem other vendors must address, especially considering the information I received yesterday indicating that common ACA New Line examples, and another manufacturer’s diamond, would not receive deductions.

A business is best built by working to create trust and faith in your own product. Such trust is hard to create when generalities are being used to describe something specific. Broad use of the word ‘painting’ is profiling and (in the words of the great Ron White) ‘profiling’s wrong.’

Sorry for the late bump... If you’re sick of this subject I hope you never made it this far.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

John,

I wouldn't consider it frivolous, but I just don't see what is wrong with someone stating an opinion that is contrary to another person. I'll tell you the truth, I wasn't sure at all whether I would even like a hearts and arrows stone period until I ordered one to look at (and it was not from any of the vendors on this thread, just FYI). It had a GIA cert and was classified excellent, so I am assuming from this conversation that it was not overly painted according to their standards. I loved the stone..it was gorgeous, but I didn't keep it because it didn't totally match what I wanted (but it took seeing one to narrow down those specs). My doubts about H&A stones were not alleviated by everyone here saying they were great. I had to see one for myself to be sure you don't see black arrows.

As far as painting goes, I'd have to see one and compare it just as Kenny is doing to have any idea whatsoever whether I'd like it. My doubts have zero to do with whether you or Jonathan like them. I just can't tell from photographs on the internet whether I like them or not. I can't even be positive what COLOR I like without seeing stones, and even that has proven to be difficult.

The internet gives us a tremendous advantage to be able to have access to the finest available diamonds and information about them. But the bottom line is that each of us will have preferences based on what we see personally, and I will continue to have doubts about various characteristics until I can actually see some to compare! (And I am sure everyone at PS would love for me to do that so I would finally make a decision!)

 

[Carlotta]

Date: 6/2/2006 2:51:19 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

In the time I’ve been at JCK there has been strong reaction here. I’m glad for the opportunity to hear and address different perceptions.

First, thank you for all opinions.

DiamondSeeker: I’m sorry if it seems I am posting frivolously. I did not explain that our company is receiving regular inquiries regarding ‘painted’ diamonds as a result of late discussions here. In more than one case a customer has eliminated a wonderful candidate from his/her search based on no more than feelings of doubt. You actually may have seen painted stones before, but they’d not be identified as such in the mainstream. They can be indistinguishable from others. Sadly the impression given on this forum is that ‘painting’ is something which is always identifiable, like a different style of dress. It’s not.

F&I: I understand, re: nano-spec discussions. This particular ‘nano’ overlaps with broad consumer choice. Mara, Belle, Dhog, Lynn B, Stephan, MikeMaz (off the top of my head) or any number of consumers who adore their diamonds might have excluded them from consideration based on empty fears if they entered the PS forum today. That is what is occurring because of the ‘buzz.’ In our case it’s resulting in needless worry, extra time and sometimes extra expense for customers. I hope this details our concern.

Strm: I don’t think any vendors have posted pictures, called names or hate the GIA. We have a long-standing relationship with GIA and still send them diamonds, despite concerns with the new system. I would be interested in you viewing diamonds with different proportions/degrees of painting to broaden your perceptions about them.

Rhino: I can illustrate your historical inconsistencies and patterns if you like, but I’d prefer to stay on-topic. My point is simple: Among professionals participating in this internet sales medium it’s not proper to create doubt about an aspect of a competitor’s product that must be seen to be determined. Do you agree?

(warning…nano-tech follows)

Perhaps a solution: If you can develop a reference of azimuth deviation for superideals close to Tolkowsky (1 degree is too much, 5 is too much, 7 is too much) we can begin to speak intelligently in terms of what may or may not influence performance. Until you do so, blanket use of this term will continue to be a problem other vendors must address, especially considering the information I received yesterday indicating that common ACA New Line examples, and another manufacturer’s diamond, would not receive deductions.

A business is best built by working to create trust and faith in your own product. Such trust is hard to create when generalities are being used to describe something specific. Broad use of the word ‘painting’ is profiling and (in the words of the great Ron White) ‘profiling’s wrong.’

Sorry for the late bump... If you’re sick of this subject I hope you never made it this far.

Well, I have been waiting to join this discussion, and perhaps this is a good time to do so, since for a long time I have had concerns that I would like to address with you, John. Personally, felt very offended when you and Brian made the huge Consumer Beware (of new GIA grading system) post. In my opinion, that was where the use of scare tactics regarding these issues actually originated...that was where the possible attack of other vendors'' products actually originated. I agree that consumers should be made aware of the limitations of the new GIA grading system, but I thought that post was somewhat extreme. (and some even jumped in to say "I won''t buy GIA stones anymore"...don''t you think THAT would affect other vendors????)
At the time of the post, I had recently purchased a GIA stone - a GIA excellent that I am quite certain would also be an AGS0. Based on what I have learned here, I knew enough to look at the actual/non rounded numbers/pictures/IS images, etc., but I can understand that others should be "cautioned." However, I also think consumers have a right to know there is such a thing as painting and that it CAN have a negative impact, as can rounded #''s/broad range of GIA grade. (It is interesting that AGS certs. eliminate this info.....a minus IMO....we have a right to KNOW at least.)
So, I guess I can identify with you and some consumers of painted stones, because YOUR emphasis in that post made it sound like GIA was so bad that all of our GIA stones would instantly lose value or something. It doesn''t feel good as a consumer to have your decision put down or questioned......But please know, I don''t think you are totally innocent of this. Perhaps for every consumer who questioned a painted stone of yours, the validity of a GIA stone may have been questioned by another consumer shopping with another vendor.
I still believe that most stones sold by PS vendors are probably far superior to anything in local markets. I have no real opinion on the painting issue, but for me, the "madness" started in the anti-GIA thread.

 

[RockDoc]

Hi Carlotta

Short of sending the diamond for grading to the AGS, if you are able to get either the Helium data file (.stl) or a Sarin data file (.srn) for your stone we are able to reasonably predict what the AGS grade would be.

To do this most accurately it does require personal examination of the polish and symmetry and of course the girdle of the stone, but IF ( and it is a big IF ) GIA polish and symmetry grade are used as an assumption, the NEW PGS software can ESTIMATE the potential AGS grading.

Some GIA's excellent will achieve the AGS 0 cut grade, and some won't, as GIA's method of assigning a cut grade is not a "tight" as AGS's, plus it is a bit skewed with the rounding up.

If you're curious about you stone's AGS grade get the two files I mentioned above and send them to me, and I'll run the software using multiple polish and symmetry assumptions, and let you see the results.

I think a lot of conusmers here misunderstand THE INTENT those who have "criticized" the cut grade system of GIA, and it appears evident, that GIA is making some strides to make it better. We'll see just what they do to correct it. I think most of the experts here - even the one's who criticized the GIA methodology of it, are also very open minded, and if it's shortcomings are adjusted are very open to saying so. I think most of us who have criticized it, have spurred a positive response, and maybe making a "big deal" out of it has provided GIA with some good criticism which will hopefully influence further study of it and corrective measures to improve it.

One person has commented on expert's ego, not being able to be in one room. It really is not ego's, but rather intense passion to inform each other as well as consumer readers what we each have observed and considered. For the most part, all the experts who do comment here, know each other, and in person help, inform, teach and participate in attempting to share what we do notice. With any complex subject discussion, there are always dissenting opinions, and to bring them to light is good, education and hopefully productive.

In the meantime, I will volunteer to run the analysis for you if you are interested, as I am interested in doing a study of stones to compare the grading results from the two systems.

If you can get those files, send them to my email at [email protected]

Hope this helps.

Rockdoc