Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos, etc

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi,


You have been given the results of an internal survey by CBI, and now you want more, and you want our very own vendors to test their own diamonds against each other. Why would anyone agree to this? We don't need the height of competition to reach the shores of Pricescope.

I do have a question that I have been dying to ask. The very high end jewelers,: tiffany, Cartier. Graff, HW, et al, do not have a super ideal brand. They do an internal evaluation of their stones and I I have never heard of anyone saying there stones were anything, but, beautiful. They don't seem to care about the Categories we are discussing, for them its enough to say its from Cartier, so it must be beautiful.

There is a Tiffany ring on Diamond Bistro or Loupe Troupe that has a grading report from Tiffany. I cannot read it, except it does say excellent, excellent, excellent and give the angles which is not clear on my computer. The ctw is 1.45 vs1, I think H color. We all know the price of these jewelers is out of this world, but eliminating price, how do they sell non graded diamonds. By the way this ring is a good price for Tiffany. $18,000.

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

Annette

Annette,
I hope you didn't see this as me personally asking for more. I am thankful John shared the findings of their ongoing CBI survey. BUT, that doesn't mean that the survey was designed to answer the questions posed in this thread. He was kind enough to share what they found, and we are thankful for that. Myself and others are simply stating that in order for the questions of this thread to be answered fully, a more controlled study would need to be completed. We have offered some advice on how such a study might be structured.

I am not trying to make the vendors of PS compete. Not at all. Rather, such a study could be a collective effort of all the PS vendors of superideals. If they would work together to show in a more scientific study that consumers prefer superideals over regular AGS 000, they would all have a much stronger marketing point. If the science isn't yet able to quantify the differences with objective metrics, perhaps consumers eyes and opinions would show a trend towards the superideal in such a study.

P,
That would be like the collusion in the tobacco industry with companies putting out studies that say smoking is not harmful

I do not think that would be collusion Bryan. I think it is "doable" and it would be an excellent way to test and possibly even put much of this debate to bed.
Sergey and I have been discussing running a survey at the PS GTG in Vegas and also online with ViBox video's of real diamonds.
Would it make sense to test just two stones, or a larger number?
Should there be a new thread?

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi,


You have been given the results of an internal survey by CBI, and now you want more, and you want our very own vendors to test their own diamonds against each other. Why would anyone agree to this? We don't need the height of competition to reach the shores of Pricescope.

I do have a question that I have been dying to ask. The very high end jewelers,: tiffany, Cartier. Graff, HW, et al, do not have a super ideal brand. They do an internal evaluation of their stones and I I have never heard of anyone saying there stones were anything, but, beautiful. They don't seem to care about the Categories we are discussing, for them its enough to say its from Cartier, so it must be beautiful.

There is a Tiffany ring on Diamond Bistro or Loupe Troupe that has a grading report from Tiffany. I cannot read it, except it does say excellent, excellent, excellent and give the angles which is not clear on my computer. The ctw is 1.45 vs1, I think H color. We all know the price of these jewelers is out of this world, but eliminating price, how do they sell non graded diamonds. By the way this ring is a good price for Tiffany. $18,000.

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

Annette

Annette,
I hope you didn't see this as me personally asking for more. I am thankful John shared the findings of their ongoing CBI survey. BUT, that doesn't mean that the survey was designed to answer the questions posed in this thread. He was kind enough to share what they found, and we are thankful for that. Myself and others are simply stating that in order for the questions of this thread to be answered fully, a more controlled study would need to be completed. We have offered some advice on how such a study might be structured.

I am not trying to make the vendors of PS compete. Not at all. Rather, such a study could be a collective effort of all the PS vendors of superideals. If they would work together to show in a more scientific study that consumers prefer superideals over regular AGS 000, they would all have a much stronger marketing point. If the science isn't yet able to quantify the differences with objective metrics, perhaps consumers eyes and opinions would show a trend towards the superideal in such a study.

P,
That would be like the collusion in the tobacco industry with companies putting out studies that say smoking is not harmful

I do not think that would be collusion Bryan. I think it is "doable" and it would be an excellent way to test and possibly even put much of this debate to bed.
Sergey and I have been discussing running a survey at the PS GTG in Vegas and also online with ViBox video's of real diamonds.
Would it make sense to test just two stones, or a larger number?
Should there be a new thread?

We'd be happy to contribute a diamond/diamonds for this experiment/test.

The ViBox video output is so stellar, as is the DiBox - will they be on the floor at the Vegas show this year?

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I do not think that would be collusion Bryan. I think it is "doable" and it would be an excellent way to test and possibly even put much of this debate to bed. Sergey and I have been discussing running a survey at the PS GTG in Vegas and also online with ViBox video's of real diamonds. Would it make sense to test just two stones, or a larger number?
Should there be a new thread?

Garry, how could such a survey account for the following?

1. The human physiology of individual eyesight.

Some people have a refined visual palate, others develop one, others don’t. One person may detect more in a diamond’s scintillation than others. That goes for color and clarity too. Some people are crazy color-sensitive while others are not. It’s the same with cut. Furthermore, palates like listening, tasting and seeing rely on live, hot cognition. I don't know if you have perfect pitch, a nose for wine or an eye for diamond nuances. Some people do. Some don’t. Some have one palate that’s more refined than their others... What’s certain is that one person cannot possibly determine the subtle nuances of what another will see (or hear or taste) based on his own palate. To that end, the in-store experiences of our showroom clients is in-keeping with this. Many decisively see and want our specific look. Others see it but have a different priority. Others may say “meh,” or don’t see it at all.

2. Longer exposure.

There’s the “immediate” reaction (as in showrooms). The “2-week rule” (per Karl_K) and then the “30-day-test” per some e-tailers. Going even farther, in the different time frames it would also be interesting to classify the background and mindset of people who not only perceived, but also those who valued a technical difference. As an example, engineers and architects are regularly attracted, but that makes sense from a left-brained precision perspective. On the other side, pro musicians are also regularly attracted, and speak of the visual aesthetics, which would seem right-brained.

Karl made it more succinct.

As always 2weeks plus in your own environment and life is the real exam for any diamond.

Many diamond buyers are investing a significant sum of money in this purchase. Time and again we are told it's not a judgment of a moment. In any "taste-test," how would you propose to overcome the above?

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I do not think that would be collusion Bryan. I think it is "doable" and it would be an excellent way to test and possibly even put much of this debate to bed. Sergey and I have been discussing running a survey at the PS GTG in Vegas and also online with ViBox video's of real diamonds. Would it make sense to test just two stones, or a larger number?
Should there be a new thread?

Garry, how could such a survey account for the following?

1. The human physiology of individual eyesight.

Some people have a refined visual palate, others develop one, others don’t. One person may detect more in a diamond’s scintillation than others. That goes for color and clarity too. Some people are crazy color-sensitive while others are not. It’s the same with cut. Furthermore, palates like listening, tasting and seeing rely on live, hot cognition. I don't know if you have perfect pitch, a nose for wine or an eye for diamond nuances. Some people do. Some don’t. Some have one palate that’s more refined than their others... What’s certain is that one person cannot possibly determine the subtle nuances of what another will see (or hear or taste) based on his own palate. To that end, the in-store experiences of our showroom clients is in-keeping with this. Many decisively see and want our specific look. Others see it but have a different priority. Others may say “meh,” or don’t see it at all.

2. Longer exposure.

There’s the “immediate” reaction (as in showrooms). The “2-week rule” (per Karl_K) and then the “30-day-test” per some e-tailers. Going even farther, in the different time frames it would also be interesting to classify the background and mindset of people who not only perceived, but also those who valued a technical difference. As an example, engineers and architects are regularly attracted, but that makes sense from a left-brained precision perspective. On the other side, pro musicians are also regularly attracted, and speak of the visual aesthetics, which would seem right-brained.

Karl made it more succinct.

As always 2weeks plus in your own environment and life is the real exam for any diamond.

Many diamond buyers are investing a significant sum of money in this purchase. Time and again we are told it's not a judgment of a moment. In any "taste-test," how would you propose to overcome the above?

John,
I won't speak for Garry but if I could also respond to these statements...

1. I don't think the point of such a study would be to prove an "all or none" sort of outcome. Certainly we can't understand how each person's vision differs from the next, but by surveying a fairly large sample of consumers we can be assured to get input from a variety of different "eyes". And by keeping those eyes blinded to what they are looking at, you will get bias free responses.

The members of this forum regularly give their input to help consumers who are purchasing online make a better informed decision. These consumers often do not have the ability to see the stones in person prior to purchase. It would serve them well to understand what portion of average consumers (above average if PS members are the consumers for a survey) are seeing and appreciating these differences.

2. I don't see how accomplishing this would be possible for a controlled survey/study as proposed. It would be too hard logistically to get everyone together for days or weeks at a time. Maybe you'd all want to compile a set of stones that can travel between PS appraisers across the country so we all have a chance to go view ? The best you can do is have as many different types of lighting present so consumers can compare the diamonds in all kinds of different lighting. I know Wink has that awesome deal where he will send a diamond to you without you being obligated to purchase, but that is only for 5 days I believe? I think viewing diamonds over a day or two in as many environments as possible would suffice for a study such as one at the PS get together.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Karl made it more succinct.

As always 2weeks plus in your own environment and life is the real exam for any diamond.

Many diamond buyers are investing a significant sum of money in this purchase. Time and again we are told it's not a judgment of a moment. In any "taste-test," how would you propose to overcome the above?

To expand on that a little.
Most people have what I call the "wow pretty mode" when viewing diamonds.
Even if they don't care for diamonds as a concept there is something about shiny rocks that attracts people even as little kids.
Have you ever passed around well cut cz to kids? (mounted in a way they can not swallow them for younger children). They will swarm to them.
They have no concept of cz and or diamonds but the shinny rocks attract them strongly.
I have it pretty strong to this day when I see a diamond my first reaction is wow shinny rock I have to force myself to evaluate them objectively.
To be honest wow shinny rock is way more fun and I hope I never lose it entirely.
The 2 week rule allows enough time to move from "wow shinny rock" to a more critical evaluation under real world conditions for that person.
That is why on the spot evaluations will not be accurate because to many people will be in "wow shinny rock" mode.
Some people have got insulted because they think I am saying they are not smart.
It has nothing to do with smarts some of the smartest people I know have a very strong "wow pretty mode" and actually I think in some cases smarter people have it more than others.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John and all,
the crowd at the PS get together are a mix of expert consumers and expert trade. I can not imagine a better bunch to make such a study on. Karl, they are mostly over wow'ed

I will make a portable ViBox similar lighting environment and test it with diamonds that have been video'ed in ViBox.

The stones used for the survey can be video'ed in ViBox, and the same survey can be done online. That survey could be by invitation on PS, or promoted to a wider audience.

Of course there would be a lot of detail to iron out.
But I suggest that none of the stones be supplied by any vendors. this should not be seen as a sales support or company bashing exercise.

 

[tmorrow]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I would want the stones cut to similar "ideal" proportions.

Pfunk I think you ask some great questions but you will never get even close to the answers you desire from the participating trade here and I'll tell you why and provide context below in my not so humble opinion. Now of course this could all be conjecture below or I could have a pretty good idea of the context and bias upon which a lot of these posts in this thread are based.

CBI and Mr. Pollard does not want to present information that highlights the possibility that the CBI premium over WF ACA, GOG H&A, BGD is not justified. Further that a strong likelihod exists for a large set of customers all of those lines don't have a justified premium or substantial difference over most generic AGS 000 or even a fair part of the GIA XXX range. After all they sell CBI diamonds first and formost and are not an educational non profit entity.

Rockdiamond sells anything but Tolkowsky "Ideal" diamonds and does not want to present information that highlights the possibility that these "Ideals" have superiority in many areas over the "Chaotic" diamonds he may prefer and sell.

Rhino sells diamonds that perform well in the GIA diamond dock(where most of his videos are shot) and may not want to present information that highlights the weaknesses of how he chooses to do comparisons(sell) diamonds.

Bryan from Whiteflash promotes the way in which they choose to sell "in house" diamonds and does not want to draw attention to the likelihood that these diamonds may be indistinguishable from some of his competitors here on this board and may even be sourced from the same cutters in Atwerp. If that "theory" was given more weight price competition would further increase on pricescope and the regulars could quickly recommend the best price as the overiding criteria and "value" or "premium" for a WF ACA might erode.

Garry Holloway and Serg sell Vibox, Dibox(I really can't keep track of what they are calling the latest iteration),Diamcalc and other diamond evaluation tools and post to promote their research together. The answers, posts, and studies you get from them will often attempt to tear down the constructs and tools currently used to evaluate the round brilliant(and fancy) diamonds (GIA and AGSL cut grading) which is what is needed if they want to sell the next "black box" system or some "new" comparison equipment for comparing diamonds.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I would want the stones cut to similar "ideal" proportions.

Garry Holloway and Serg sell Vibox, Dibox(I really can't keep track of what they are calling the latest iteration),Diamcalc and other diamond evaluation tools and post to promote their research together. The answers, posts, and studies you get from them will often attempt to tear down the constructs and tools currently used to evaluate the round brilliant(and fancy) diamonds (GIA and AGSL cut grading) which is what is needed if they want to sell the next "black box" system or some "new" comparison equipment for comparing diamonds.

FYI, Sergey and I disagree about some of these cut related issues (and HCA results) and we would like to test for the testing sake.
You are welcome to your opinion tmorrow, but in my case you are barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

tmorrow,
I feel slighted you didn't include me along with everyone else. :}
I get what your saying and have been a wild card influence for a long time.
Some would have called it a wild cat at times... lol.
But honestly while there are some grains of truth in what you say, but many of the people you mention are also passionate about research, learning and educating for the sake of finding factual information and evidence.
It is a real shame that cut grading and AGS cut grading in particular has stalled much of the research and many people view it as settled.
Well it is not, and there will be a small group that will move forward just because they are driven to it by curiosity. It will be a slow however.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I would want the stones cut to similar "ideal" proportions.

Pfunk I think you ask some great questions but you will never get even close to the answers you desire from the participating trade here and I'll tell you why and provide context below in my not so humble opinion. Now of course this could all be conjecture below or I could have a pretty good idea of the context and bias upon which a lot of these posts in this thread are based.

CBI and Mr. Pollard does not want to present information that highlights the possibility that the CBI premium over WF ACA, GOG H&A, BGD is not justified. Further that a strong likelihod exists for a large set of customers all of those lines don't have a justified premium or substantial difference over most generic AGS 000 or even a fair part of the GIA XXX range. After all they sell CBI diamonds first and formost and are not an educational non profit entity.

Rockdiamond sells anything but Tolkowsky "Ideal" diamonds and does not want to present information that highlights the possibility that these "Ideals" have superiority in many areas over the "Chaotic" diamonds he may prefer and sell.

Rhino sells diamonds that perform well in the GIA diamond dock(where most of his videos are shot) and may not want to present information that highlights the weaknesses of how he chooses to do comparisons(sell) diamonds.

Bryan from Whiteflash promotes the way in which they choose to sell "in house" diamonds and does not want to draw attention to the likelihood that these diamonds may be indistinguishable from some of his competitors here on this board and may even be sourced from the same cutters in Atwerp. If that "theory" was given more weight price competition would further increase on pricescope and the regulars could quickly recommend the best price as the overiding criteria and "value" or "premium" for a WF ACA might erode.

Garry Holloway and Serg sell Vibox, Dibox(I really can't keep track of what they are calling the latest iteration),Diamcalc and other diamond evaluation tools and post to promote their research together. The answers, posts, and studies you get from them will often attempt to tear down the constructs and tools currently used to evaluate the round brilliant(and fancy) diamonds (GIA and AGSL cut grading) which is what is needed if they want to sell the next "black box" system or some "new" comparison equipment for comparing diamonds.

Tmorrow,

I have much higher ambition than to Sell Vibox, Dibox, Diamcalc.
Our main goal to design( and sell of course) new Fancy cut diamonds with High performance for Human Vision( We designed several cushions, Marquise , Emerald)
to understand which diamonds have better Performance we( it is much bigger team than just me and Garry) designed Diamcalc, Vibox, Cutwise and many other tools which we do not sell( I also want to stop sell diamcalc, just because support is too expensive ).

Coming Garry survey is result our 7-10 years old debates About Diamond A and Diamond B( You can find many such Debates on PS in very old PS threads , Between Me and Garry, Between me and some PS vendors)/

Shortly:
1)Garry thinks that Diamonds B is defiantly worse than Diamond A
2) I think that Diamond A and Diamond B are different , and some consumers who likes fire will more often select diamond B instead diamond A( in blind and correct comparison conditions)

we decided to do survey and receive consumers opinion( this information is very important for our main joint goal: New Fancy cuts with very hight performance).
And How are You? Who are You?

 

[teobdl]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

The information gathered from the survey suggests that slightly informed customers repeatedly see "performance" differences in a single sitting. If these results are to be taken seriously, then the next logical step includes more rigorous studies... not in spite of the fact that the survey wasn't scientific but precisely because it wasn't scientific.

If the survey was simply a gauge of how good the sales pitch is, then fine let it be that. But if the survey was to learn whether consumers see a real difference, then let the results stand up to further scrutiny.

 

[Medical]

Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos, etc

The information gathered from the survey suggests that slightly informed customers repeatedly see "performance" differences in a single sitting. If these results are to be taken seriously, then the next logical step includes more rigorous studies... not in spite of the fact that the survey wasn't scientific but precisely because it wasn't scientific.

If the survey was simply a gauge of how good the sales pitch is, then fine let it be that. But if the survey was to learn whether consumers see a real difference, then let the results stand up to further scrutiny.

A couple things that will help maximize detection of differences if a company was to carry out a more rigorous study:

Have as large a study population as possible. The higher the n, the more power the study has to detect small differences.

Have a number of categories of ranking, that forces subjects to really look at and scrutinize each diamond based on whether it's producing fiery color, bright white scintillation, etc. The more variables being considered, the more opportunities for the special cuts to shine.

May seem simple, but you'd be surprised how many scientists still don't seem to grasp these points.

One issue I can see being a real problem is controlling the stone quality difference. There are GIA 3xs that would qualify as AGS 000, and GIA 3xs that could be pretty horrid. Perhaps stones used for comparison could include a GIA 3x that qualified as AGS 100, etc etc? Finding a way to ensure the stones have the same difference in quality as the average GIA3x vs the average AGS000 vs the average super ideal would be tricky and probably requires Garry's and others expertise in the matter.

 

[teobdl]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I will make a portable ViBox similar lighting environment and test it with diamonds that have been video'ed in ViBox.

The stones used for the survey can be video'ed in ViBox, and the same survey can be done online. That survey could be by invitation on PS, or promoted to a wider audience.

I don't know how ViBox works, but the tests would need to include different lighting environments and difference distances

I'm concerned about the validity of internet viewing vs real life viewing, but I guess ViBox somehow reduces these differences? I remember a discussion about ViBox a while back, but haven't seen anything substantial in probably 1.5 years. Any more info you can offer?

The study would need to control for level of knowledge/exposure to diamonds.

Please allow people on PS with different scientific backgrounds (e.g. engineering or medical research) to weigh in on methods before undertaking such a study.

 

[teobdl]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

A couple things that will help maximize detection of differences if a company was to carry out a more rigorous study:

Have as large a study population as possible. The higher the n, the more power the study has to detect small differences.

Have a number of categories of ranking, that forces subjects to really look at and scrutinize each diamond based on whether it's producing fiery color, bright white scintillation, etc. The more variables being considered, the more opportunities for the special cuts to shine.

These points are incredibly important.

The study must not be a matter of preferences principally, but rather detection: do people actually see a difference in qualities x, y, z. Matters of preference are a different category, and preference could be asked separately. It could be possible to get a whacky result: People did not detect a difference but they preferred diamonds of category C.

 

[tmorrow]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I don't know how ViBox works, but the tests would need to include different lighting environments and difference distances

I don't know either, there were some past discussion threads on PS on the LED lighting used in the box(and how it could be changed) but I don't know if these discussions are current or relevant now.

What I do find puzzling is that:

http://www.lexusindia.in/products/gb-ViBOX.aspx

Under clients we see RCDC COPR (DIAMONDS BY LAUREN) USA

Otherwise known as Rockdiamond in this thread.
Yet I don't see any images or videos taken from this box published or used to sell diamonds on their website.

You would think someone who buys a 12000 Euro system plus extras

1. Canon EOS 6D Camera body or Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera body
2. Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro Lens
3. Kenko make PRO 300 AF DGX 1.4x Telephoto converter

Probably around $20,000 - 25,000 USD with everything would be using it commercially?

Maybe Serg or Rockdiamond can shed some "light" on this. (no pun intended).

 

[tmorrow]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I have much higher ambition than to Sell Vibox, Dibox, Diamcalc.
Our main goal to design( and sell of course) new Fancy cut diamonds with High performance for Human Vision( We designed several cushions, Marquise , Emerald)
to understand which diamonds have better Performance we( it is much bigger team than just me and Garry) designed Diamcalc, Vibox, Cutwise and many other tools which we do not sell( I also want to stop sell diamcalc, just because support is too expensive ).

I think that is a worthwhile cause and when you are ready to publish and link to videos in the VIBOX of these new designed diamonds I would watch them.

However I think it would be better marketing if they came with an AGSL platinum report and failing that videos in plain and ASET filtered lighting from your VIBOX. I've seen some examples on the Lexusindia site I linked above.

I don't know why they have to be viewed in "your" system they should stand on their own in the customer's lighting environment and using the current evaluation tools. (ASET, H&A, AGSL AGSPGS etc.)

It may be quite counter-productive to on one hand be disparaging AGSL cut grading and on the other trying to sell diamonds and "your" evaluation system at the same time. Afterall the AGSL is an integral part of the marketing of many of these "Light Performance" brands and this would be an easy and established path to selling yours.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

We do indeed have an amazing VIbox
If you look more closely at our site- or our YouTube channel you will see it in action.

We are working on a new website that will feature more Vibox videos and images.
One aspect of the box which is both a positive and a negative is that it standardizes the manner of taking pictures to some extent. There are different settings that affect the outcome to some degree- but not all that much. .
It's a positive as it removes variables.
It's a negative because I have found that different diamonds respond to different lighting in ways that are informative. We always feature varied views of the items on our site.

This relates to the subject at hand because this variation in diamond performance based on environment complicates surveys.
This is also why a numerical system to grade diamond performance will always fall short. It would have to take into account the many different environments people view their diamonds in.

 

[tmorrow]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

tmorrow,
I feel slighted you didn't include me along with everyone else. :}

I am not interested in slighting anyone (although I may easily have done it my style is blunt ), but I think proper context and an understanding of bias is important for any debate or discussion.

I get what your saying and have been a wild card influence for a long time.

I must say I learned a lot and appreciated your posts as Strmrdr. I don't know what you do in the diamond trade, what you sell (except Octavia) and as far as I know you don't have a horse in the game when it comes to Round Brilliant diamonds and performance nuances. If I am misinformed as to what you are selling (or not selling) I would be happy to hear it but that is why you weren't included in my post above.

It is a real shame that cut grading and AGS cut grading in particular has stalled much of the research and many people view it as settled.

What I find a shame is that you don't reach out to Peter Yantzer or Jason Quick or someonelse from the AGSL lab and discuss with them a collaboration or discuss in technical detail what the problems you are having with their cut grading. You might even post in detail your summary of the conversation afterwards so that others on this board can understand the issues you have with them.

From my basic understanding they are very much into helping diamond designers and on evaluating and optimizing new designs for educational and for future grading work that might come to the lab.

It would appear you had some issues with step cuts and the way they are evaluated by the laboratory but does this need to translate to a vague but general denouncement of the lab's cut grading in every "Cut Research" thread.

In my mind it isn't the lab holding anyone back at all, you don't like them, lots of LP brands (like Bluenile Signature rounds) don't use their grading reports and market in other ways which seems to work out just fine.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I have much higher ambition than to Sell Vibox, Dibox, Diamcalc.
Our main goal to design( and sell of course) new Fancy cut diamonds with High performance for Human Vision( We designed several cushions, Marquise , Emerald)
to understand which diamonds have better Performance we( it is much bigger team than just me and Garry) designed Diamcalc, Vibox, Cutwise and many other tools which we do not sell( I also want to stop sell diamcalc, just because support is too expensive ).

I think that is a worthwhile cause and when you are ready to publish and link to videos in the VIBOX of these new designed diamonds I would watch them.

However I think it would be better marketing if they came with an AGSL platinum report and failing that videos in plain and ASET filtered lighting from your VIBOX. I've seen some examples on the Lexusindia site I linked above.

I don't know why they have to be viewed in "your" system they should stand on their own in the customer's lighting environment and using the current evaluation tools. (ASET, H&A, AGSL AGSPGS etc.)

It may be quite counter-productive to on one hand be disparaging AGSL cut grading and on the other trying to sell diamonds and "your" evaluation system at the same time. Afterall the AGSL is an integral part of the marketing of many of these "Light Performance" brands and this would be an easy and established path to selling yours.

1) we do not sell any Evaluation system( either cut grading or score system, etc) because we have not good enough auto grading system.( It is not so difficult to build system similar to ASG system and we had ability to do it since 2000).
2) disadvantages ASG approach became more visible after they used them system for Fancy cuts. these disadvantages will more and more clear, even if I do not say anything more .
3)most probably I need permission from PS admin to publish link to videos of our cuts, don't I ?. If it is allow , I am happy to do it .
4) I do not like use gimmick sales tools to sell diamonds, even so advance as AGS platinum report.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I don't know how ViBox works, but the tests would need to include different lighting environments and difference distances

I don't know either, there were some past discussion threads on PS on the LED lighting used in the box(and how it could be changed) but I don't know if these discussions are current or relevant now.

What I do find puzzling is that:

http://www.lexusindia.in/products/gb-ViBOX.aspx

Under clients we see RCDC COPR (DIAMONDS BY LAUREN) USA

Otherwise known as Rockdiamond in this thread.
Yet I don't see any images or videos taken from this box published or used to sell diamonds on their website.

You would think someone who buys a 12000 Euro system plus extras

1. Canon EOS 6D Camera body or Canon EOS 5D Mark III Camera body
2. Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 IS USM Macro Lens
3. Kenko make PRO 300 AF DGX 1.4x Telephoto converter

Probably around $20,000 - 25,000 USD with everything would be using it commercially?

Maybe Serg or Rockdiamond can shed some "light" on this. (no pun intended).

I am happy to light .
According my records had been sold 17 Vibox's/
several PS vendors have Vibox( 2 or 3, I do not know exactly because we do not sell anything directly. we are just developers)
Octonus has income 1000-2000$ from each Vibox. Octonus invested more then 300.000$ in Vibox .( we had not goal to return investments from Vibox sales )
We will continue investments in Vibox because we need repeatability in Stereo movie capture . we need movie from real diamond in consumer Fire light environments which match with Diamcalc movies with high accuracy ( of course when we use in Diamcalc Vibox HDR spheric light panorama ). It is very important for verification our research .

Anything else that I have to Light for You?
any answers to my question?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Btw the vibox and accessories were well over $30k - and in my opinion it's worth more. I have a lot of "history" with Garry. After experiencing this technology firsthand i have the utmost respect for Garry and Serg. Their work is nothing short of amazing.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I don't know how ViBox works, but the tests would need to include different lighting environments and difference distances

I don't know either, there were some past discussion threads on PS on the LED lighting used in the box(and how it could be changed) but I don't know if these discussions are current or relevant now.
.

Vibox has 5 Top LED rows and 1 Front LED row.
Top rows have 9 very Bright LEDs.
each LED can be individually switch on/off
+ changeable diffusers with patterns( between LEDS and diamond)

"
ViBox panorama
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oht7yp35rpkodmr/Fisheye_1X%2B2X%2B3WSH_WYWYW%2BL_AV16%2BTV1-30%2BISO100_OWWALL_MONO_110412-sm_hdr%20Filtered%20%5BN%3D16.00%20F%3D140.00%20FP%3D350.00%5D.hdr?dl=0

and two lighting conditions presets:
1) ViBox bright(for Fire observation )
https://www.dropbox.com/s/a7ucrdb6jddbblg/Lighting2-ViBox-HDR-2-bright.dmchdr?dl=0
2) ViBox dark (for fire calculations)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/k0aekc0nd22x4vt/Lighting2-ViBox-HDR-2-dark.dmchdr?dl=0
"

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi,


You have been given the results of an internal survey by CBI, and now you want more, and you want our very own vendors to test their own diamonds against each other. Why would anyone agree to this? We don't need the height of competition to reach the shores of Pricescope.

I do have a question that I have been dying to ask. The very high end jewelers,: tiffany, Cartier. Graff, HW, et al, do not have a super ideal brand. They do an internal evaluation of their stones and I I have never heard of anyone saying there stones were anything, but, beautiful. They don't seem to care about the Categories we are discussing, for them its enough to say its from Cartier, so it must be beautiful.

There is a Tiffany ring on Diamond Bistro or Loupe Troupe that has a grading report from Tiffany. I cannot read it, except it does say excellent, excellent, excellent and give the angles which is not clear on my computer. The ctw is 1.45 vs1, I think H color. We all know the price of these jewelers is out of this world, but eliminating price, how do they sell non graded diamonds. By the way this ring is a good price for Tiffany. $18,000.

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

Annette

Annette,
I hope you didn't see this as me personally asking for more. I am thankful John shared the findings of their ongoing CBI survey. BUT, that doesn't mean that the survey was designed to answer the questions posed in this thread. He was kind enough to share what they found, and we are thankful for that. Myself and others are simply stating that in order for the questions of this thread to be answered fully, a more controlled study would need to be completed. We have offered some advice on how such a study might be structured.

I am not trying to make the vendors of PS compete. Not at all. Rather, such a study could be a collective effort of all the PS vendors of superideals. If they would work together to show in a more scientific study that consumers prefer superideals over regular AGS 000, they would all have a much stronger marketing point. If the science isn't yet able to quantify the differences with objective metrics, perhaps consumers eyes and opinions would show a trend towards the superideal in such a study.

P,
That would be like the collusion in the tobacco industry with companies putting out studies that say smoking is not harmful

I do not think that would be collusion Bryan. I think it is "doable" and it would be an excellent way to test and possibly even put much of this debate to bed.
Sergey and I have been discussing running a survey at the PS GTG in Vegas and also online with ViBox video's of real diamonds.
Would it make sense to test just two stones, or a larger number?
Should there be a new thread?

Hi Garry,
Several of the posters in this thread are clearly members of the scientific community. As scientists and researchers yourselves, you and Serg must agree with the host of variables already identified here which must be controlled in order for such a study to be considered valid.

The act of conducting a survey will naturally produce some kind of results, whether accurate or not. And of course, conclusions will be drawn based upon whatever results are produced. Given the likelihood of inconclusive or errant findings from a non-rigorous survey, I do not see how such an exercise will further the goal of greater understanding. The effort is certain to fail to answer the questions that are being asked of the study in any kind of statistically significant or scientifically valid way.

In my view, while it might be a fun show-and-tell activity that many people will find interesting and entertaining, it would not be ethical to allow the impression that the exercise is anything but that, unless you are able to successfully implement the controls that a true study actually requires.

 

[smitcompton]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi,

I think there is a difference between a study and a survey. In a survey I would use regular visitors to the show as you can assume they have an interest in jewelry or stones. This would also be a larger population to garner info. I would keep the PS group and trade as a separate group. One question i would ASK WOULD BE: When was the last time you looked at or purchased a diamond.? I wouldn't have too many diamonds to look at, people are in a hurry, and I would do 5 stones, allowing the consumer to eliminate one at a time. I actually have no idea what the plan would be with fancy cuts. I think they should all be the same shape, with a variety of lab reports or grading that is similar. Id hope it would be ideal vs super-ideal.

A study is really hard. People self select if they like diamonds and you really want to measure a general perception of light performance by the average person. I did a study for an insurance company and to be statistically relevant we also had to choose a random case selection. We took every 12th case for a total population of 500 to make it valid. So even your consumer ought to be random.(every 12th person.)

I am happy to see so many people engaged in this endeavor.

Annette

 

[teobdl]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Bryan- every study, survey, exercise has limitations, and those limitations should be clearly laid out prior, during, and after. The limitations dictate the scope and generalizability of the results.

It is preemptive to say "The effort is certain to fail to answer the questions that are being asked of the study in any kind of statistically significant or scientifically valid way". The hypothesis or research question has not even been fully formulated, so it is impossible to even guess what would be statistically significant or scientifically valid.

Please be more specific about your concerns.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I do have a question that I have been dying to ask. The very high end jewelers,: tiffany, Cartier. Graff, HW, et al, do not have a super ideal brand. They do an internal evaluation of their stones and I I have never heard of anyone saying their stones were anything, but, beautiful. They don't seem to care about the Categories we are discussing, for them its enough to say its from Cartier, so it must be beautiful.

Good question, with a relevant answer. These companies were the very first on the map to embrace a cut-quality proposition. Tiffany was onboard years before Tolk's book or Kaplan's cutting, inspired by Henry Morse in Boston. The others have a similar "most beautiful and luxurious" perception that's become embedded in history. In some ways it's a double-edged sword. They will always source and sell amazing diamonds, but are unlikely to modernize any promotions to emphasize cut improvements. Doing that might infer "The Blue Box" now holds something that performs better than the one in your grandmother's day. I don't see any upside there.

Also...

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

...It's my bald head?

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Bryan- every study, survey, exercise has limitations, and those limitations should be clearly laid out prior, during, and after. The limitations dictate the scope and generalizability of the results.

It is preemptive to say "The effort is certain to fail to answer the questions that are being asked of the study in any kind of statistically significant or scientifically valid way". The hypothesis or research question has not even been fully formulated, so it is impossible to even guess what would be statistically significant or scientifically valid.

Please be more specific about your concerns.

In beginning We want compare 2 round diamonds ;
P34.5P40.7 and P34.5P41.2. around 1 ct

difference only in proportions.( Symmetry level H&A, same color, clarity, size, no FL, no Milkiness,..are same. Btw it is so difficult to find such pair)
of course better compare nine diamonds P34.5P40.7 with nine diamonds P34.5P41.2 but it is too complex and expensive for us.

latter we want add P34.5P41.2, P33P41.6
questions like( order is important)
1) Do you see difference? if yes, what difference do you see?
2) Which diamonds do you prefer? Why?
3) Do you see difference in Brilliancy? If yes, which diamond has more Brilliancy
4) Do you see difference ? If yes, which diamond has more Fire?
It is draft version. We can change its if receive valid suggestions

I happy to do it Open and transparent. I am agree that I and Garry are biased , but we biased to different round diamonds , so we control each other and have chances to do balanced survey. Everybody welcome to do this survey more valid .

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi Garry,
Several of the posters in this thread are clearly members of the scientific community. As scientists and researchers yourselves, you and Serg must agree with the host of variables already identified here which must be controlled in order for such a study to be considered valid.

The act of conducting a survey will naturally produce some kind of results, whether accurate or not. And of course, conclusions will be drawn based upon whatever results are produced. Given the likelihood of inconclusive or errant findings from a non-rigorous survey, I do not see how such an exercise will further the goal of greater understanding. The effort is certain to fail to answer the questions that are being asked of the study in any kind of statistically significant or scientifically valid way.

In my view, while it might be a fun show-and-tell activity that many people will find interesting and entertaining, it would not be ethical to allow the impression that the exercise is anything but that, unless you are able to successfully implement the controls that a true study actually requires.

Bryan, your points in bold are exactly my problem with a narrow numerical system of cut grading like AGSL.
Whatever data is garnered from scientific testing is evaluated to form the cut grade.
What someone else sees as a "0", I may not.
GIA did a survey- and came up with a far wider top cut grade.
And this is regarding round diamonds, which present far less challenges than Fancy Shaped Diamonds.
I believe Serg alluded to the issues with AGSL Fancy Shape Cut grading.
Aside from some purposeful uses of having them call a diamond "Ideal", which is a great sales tool- AGSL fancy shaped cut grading is embraced by very few sellers.
IMO it's far too narrow in scope- meaning some truly well cut, desirable stones will get second tier cut grades.

Good question, with a relevant answer. These companies were the very first on the map to embrace a cut-quality proposition. Tiffany was onboard years before Tolk's book or Kaplan's cutting, inspired by Henry Morse in Boston. The others have a similar "most beautiful and luxurious" perception that's become embedded in history. In some ways it's a double-edged sword. They will always source and sell amazing diamonds, but are unlikely to modernize any promotions to emphasize cut improvements. Doing that might infer "The Blue Box" now holds something that performs better than the one in your grandmother's day. I don't see any upside there.

Also...

John Pollack, you are so refreshing. You shine.

...It's my bald head?

Then there's this aspect: In the unlikely event everyone agreed that a given set of proportions is "best" would we be heading toward a diamond world where all cutters are producing stones that look exactly like the next one?
I would find that to be an incredibly boring diamond world.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Bryan- every study, survey, exercise has limitations, and those limitations should be clearly laid out prior, during, and after. The limitations dictate the scope and generalizability of the results.

It is preemptive to say "The effort is certain to fail to answer the questions that are being asked of the study in any kind of statistically significant or scientifically valid way". The hypothesis or research question has not even been fully formulated, so it is impossible to even guess what would be statistically significant or scientifically valid.

Please be more specific about your concerns.

My comments were made in the context of a proposed survey that is being conducted in conjunction with a pricescope social event with a small sample size and with uncertain controls. The variables are many and the challenge of controlling for them is rather daunting. Therefore, I cannot realistically see the effort yielding sound results. But I think it is very realistic to expect that those results will be used to support whatever position a person happens to be predisposed to. So, what cause does the effort advance?

It sounds more like a focus group for Gary and Serg's research and development, which is absolutely fine. But I think it would be important to keep the nature of the activity in proper perspective.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Bryan- every study, survey, exercise has limitations, and those limitations should be clearly laid out prior, during, and after. The limitations dictate the scope and generalizability of the results.

It is preemptive to say "The effort is certain to fail to answer the questions that are being asked of the study in any kind of statistically significant or scientifically valid way". The hypothesis or research question has not even been fully formulated, so it is impossible to even guess what would be statistically significant or scientifically valid.

Please be more specific about your concerns.

My comments were made in the context of a proposed survey that is being conducted in conjunction with a pricescope social event with a small sample size and with uncertain controls. The variables are many and the challenge of controlling for them is rather daunting. Therefore, I cannot realistically see the effort yielding sound results. But I think it is very realistic to expect that those results will be used to support whatever position a person happens to be predisposed to. So, what cause does the effort advance?

It sounds more like a focus group for Gary and Serg's research and development, which is absolutely fine. But I think it would be important to keep the nature of the activity in proper perspective.

Bryan, You are welcome to improve this survey. How can you do it ?
I hope it will 1st such our survey, not last .