Painting: Stop the madness

[Carlotta]

Date: 6/2/2006 3:57:48 PM
Author: 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

Thanks, Roc Doc, for your kind offer.......perhaps I did not communicate clearly, but I really have no doubt as to the quality of my diamond......I was more concerned that all GIA certs. were being put down by some...
I am glad that you showed up here, though.......I have enjoyed your posts and insights during my short time on Pricescope. However at this point I must admit that I am not totally sure of the extent of your objectivity in these matters.........the highlighted passage hints at bias to me, and I am also concerned about several of your comments on other recent threads....I am not questioning your skill, knowledge, passion or intellectual curiosity....I can tell that you care about what you do and are always willing help....I don''t want to offend you: I just want to share my perception as I read some of your posts.
I commend you and others for trying to work to change things.......as to the INTENT of the critics, I''m not sure any of us can speak for anyone else.....I don''t want to assume, one way or another....

 

[JohnQuixote]

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

Serg, very helpful. Your approach fostered good conversation with the GIA lab guys. I have specific numbers (EX/VG) I imagine I can discuss with you. I'll email you after speaking with them today.

It may not be possible for GIA to vary these numbers by proportion sets unless they will make a lot of change occur (?). Still, opening the range is better than nothing (?).

Also, the judgment is being made by analyzing Sarin numbers, which can be trouble with these girdle profiles.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/2/2006 3:31:59 PM
Author: Carlotta

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.

Carlotta,

I see where you are coming from. In January the high tide of GIA’s bribery/grading scandal, coupled with the shock of things we’re accustomed to now (width, steep-deep, rounding, etc.) resulted in a pretty strong statement. It was not intended to scare, but I agree that Brian’s wording was more than simple caution. This is ironic: If those words affected GIA vendors they affected us too, since we are one. Brian has been loyal to GIA’s services since long before Whiteflash.

So your point is well-taken. I plead guilty to overemphasis: As long as the cautions are marked it’s not necessary to burn the barn nightly.

Now, as for this issue I’d say the same except there are no tangible markers. It would be moot if the painting judgment was quantified. That’s the problem. If we could debate ‘painting level X’ as not influencing optics in Tolkowsky stones, while ‘painting level X+4 does,’ etc… I think we’d have (relative) peace. I’m not opposed to opinion, I’m opposed to fingering all stones as X+ when they may not be X+ at all. Serg’s approach, which allowed me to speak intelligently with GIA on this topic, may empower that where we have floundered here before.

For the record, David from GIA asked me what my overall position is on the new system yesterday. I’ll share with you what I told him: At first I was shocked that details did not cater to my boutique desires for precision within 0.1 degree and paradigms for a narrow range of top-graded proportions… Since then I have mellowed as I realize it’s not for me, or for Pricescope, it’s for the planet. In that sense, some rounding and a top grade allowing for a wide range is acceptable (maybe not quite so much at the s/d end). There are aspects like unreported naturals, plus a few other kinks I don’t see eye-to-eye on, but I am not hammering my clay stein on the bar. As long as we get the word to consumers (the word of caution, not fear) it serves. We still deal proudly in GIA graded diamonds. I agree with peers who believe that the overlapping ‘sweet spot’ AGS and GIA agree on is robust.

My one fight will continue to be the stereotyping of ‘X’ degree of painting as deleterious. I believe we need to know X decisively, and that X should not be the same for every proportions set.

The good news is that they may be hearing us.

Carlotta, I am very glad you were not put off from buying a GIA graded diamond. Others should not be either (just as they should not be put off by a current GIA painting judgment). Thanks for giving me this perspective.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/2/2006 6:05:44 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


Now, as for this issue I’d say the same except there are no tangible markers. It would be moot if the painting judgment was quantified. That’s the problem. If we could debate ‘painting level X’ as not influencing optics in Tolkowsky stones, while ‘painting level X+4 does,’ etc… I think we’d have (relative) peace. I’m not opposed to opinion, I’m opposed to fingering all stones as X+ when they may not be X+ at all. Serg’s approach, which allowed me to speak intelligently with GIA on this topic, may empower that where we have floundered here before.

For the record, David from GIA asked me what my overall position is on the new system yesterday. I’ll share with you what I told him: At first I was shocked that details did not cater to my boutique desires for precision within 0.1 degree and paradigms for a narrow range of top-graded proportions… Since then I have mellowed as I realize it’s not for me, or for Pricescope, it’s for the planet. In that sense, some rounding and a top grade allowing for a wide range is acceptable (maybe not quite so much at the s/d end). There are aspects like unreported naturals AND FACETS, plus a few other kinks I don’t see eye-to-eye on, but I am not hammering my clay stein on the bar. As long as we get the word to consumers (the word of caution, not fear) it serves. We still deal proudly in GIA graded diamonds. I agree with peers who believe that the overlapping ‘sweet spot’ AGS and GIA agree on is robust.

My one fight will continue to be the stereotyping of ‘X’ degree of painting as deleterious. I believe we need to know X decisively, and that X should not be the same for every proportions set.

The good news is that they may be hearing us.

Next a corporate name change to "The Gemological Institute Of The Planet".

Whether they may be hearing us and whether they will do anything to CORRECT it in an open manner are two different things. My experiance has been is that they (corprately) don''t like constructive criticism at all, technical or via illustrative satire.


Relative to "I believe we need to know X decisively, and that X should not be the same for every proportions set.", I personally don''t believe that with the crude parametric (compounded by rounding of averages) approach they took, after millions spent in research, they can do it at all properly, without going backwards quite a bit.

As seriously flawed as a small (relative to the market) proportion of scans may be, AGS''s ray tracing each stone, at least tries to account for the interaction of the facet set as a whole, and therefore GIA''s approach is much more "subjective" rather than "objective", just the opposite of AGS.

It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out.

 

[Carlotta]

Thanks, John, for the response....I had already purchased my stone before you posted that STRONG caution.....then I felt kind of like I do when I make some investment, and then the next day the markets crash!!!
Perhaps a lot of the thoughts, feelings, concerns and "passions" for certain positions expressed here are actully examples of our all being more alike than we are different in many ways.