Question on contrast deduction on DQD

[Lorelei]

Date: 4/25/2008 11:43:47 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 4/25/2008 11:14:46 AM
Author: strmrdr
So what?
People dont buy stones for a variety of reasons.

A few trade members rants on 41 pavilions cost a consumer over a grand on a perfectly awesome diamond I would love too own.
The 41 pavilion issue has far less merit than the painting issue.

Some place you got the idea that consumers are just here too drive sales for the PS vendors.
That is not the case.
The vendors are here to earn sales from the PS consumers.

woops I forgot im not allowed too have an opinion because im not in the trade.
guess I better log back out.

Of course it's not strm, I don't think any of us are saying that.

What is really at issue here, is that we as mere prosumers, must be careful not to state our personal preferences as fact. That's what this is really about.

I agree.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/25/2008 11:43:47 AM
Author: Ellen
Of course it's not strm, I don't think any of us are saying that.

What is really at issue here, is that we as mere prosumers, must be careful not to state our personal preferences as fact. That's what this is really about.

mere prosumer? You know more about diamonds than 99.999999% of the trade does don't sell prosumers short.

It is a fact that painting effects a diamond, going way back too the start of the other thread the area it effects it the most is on/off scintillation and contrast.
There is absolutely no question that it does.
The debate is over if its helps, hurts or is neutral.

Why Wink chose to rehash painting in a thread about providing consumers with cut score information is beyond me other than he has a bone too pick and chose this thread too lash out.

This thread isnt about painting its about information on reports.
I want the information and feel it should be on all reports.
Some in the trade are scared of that.

 

[niceice]

Date: 4/25/2008 12:37:29 AM
Author: strmrdr
I can hear it now, some random sales dude: hey this ags1 got nailed in (some area) you don''t want that you want too spend $500 more on this AGS0. You wouldn''t do that, you would explain the merits of both stones and let the customer decide. Other none PS stores... well.... I''m willing to bet that there are stores who keep an AGS1 around just for doing this. Have you spent time in other stores lately pretending too be a customer?

Thank you for the clarification, now I better understand your statement. Over the years, I have been shocked & amazed at some of the things I have seen occur in jewelry stores in an attempt to close a sale, where some of us approach selling a diamond or other jewelry item from the perspective of providing information so that our customers can make an informed decision, other people sell from the perspective of "trying to win" as opposed to actually being an asset to their trade and providing actual service for their customers. You''ll LOVE this (heavy sarcasm). A few years ago I was hanging out in the jewelry store of a bench jeweler who used to work for us and then went out on his own, we were catching up. A woman walks in and states that she is looking for emerald earrings, he tells her that he doesn''t have any, I mention casually that I might have "a pair of Chathams in my case". For those who don''t know, Chatham is a name brand of lab grown gems, that would be gems that are grown in a laboratory as opposed to growing deep down in the earth, it''s kind of like a rose grown in a hot house instead of in the ground. Anyway, the lady asks to see them and I bring them in to the store and hand them to "Mr. X" with an indication of price. He then shows them to the lady who loves them and decides to purchase them. All the while, not a word about the fact that they are lab grown, etc. As the woman is writing her check, she asks "What is Chatham?" and "Mr. X" replies "it is the region in Columbia where your emeralds were mined." And he winked at me as my jaw hit the floor. Needless to say that day marked the end of our relationship. I''ve sold a lot of Chatham lab grown gems, I think they are a very nice option to offer people, but I have always fully explained that they are lab grown gems. So yes, I can believe that somewhere, there is a jeweler who is a scrupulous shiester who will do anything to turn a buck. But I like to think that consumers are becoming more educated as the popularity of the internet increases and that such tactics will become less effective as people become more informed about the options that are available to them within our industry.

 

[strmrdr]

Todd thanks for sharing that story.
That is one problem I have is that PS is really a different world than the retail stores in my area I visit.
From listening too other consumers its the same all over with the rare exceptions.
The advise that works with the PS vendors may not work in the wider world of diamonds.
There are tons of people who read this forum and never log on that dont buy from the PS vendors.
The main PS vendors both internet and b&m/internet are the exceptions rather than the rule.

 

[niceice]

Date: 4/25/2008 12:29:25 PM
Author: strmrdr
The advise that works with the PS vendors may not work in the wider world of diamonds. There are tons of people who read this forum and never log on that dont buy from the PS vendors. The main PS vendors both internet and b&m/internet are the exceptions rather than the rule.

True, but I believe that the traditional retail jewelry trade IS slowly evolving, if for no other reason than they have to in order not to appear stupid in front of their customers who seem to be learning faster than they are

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 4/25/2008 11:43:47 AM
Author: Ellen

What is really at issue here, is that we as mere prosumers, must be careful not to state our personal preferences as fact. That's what this is really about.

Ellen, a HUGE THANK you for so eloquently stating in one single sentence the meat of the issue.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/25/2008 1:25:07 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 4/25/2008 11:43:47 AM
Author: Ellen

What is really at issue here, is that we as mere prosumers, must be careful not to state our personal preferences as fact. That's what this is really about.

Ellen, a HUGE THANK you for so eloquently stating in one single sentence the meat of the issue.

What does that have too do with putting data on grading reports?

 

[Allison D.]

Date: 4/25/2008 1:35:25 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/25/2008 1:25:07 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 4/25/2008 11:43:47 AM
Author: Ellen

What is really at issue here, is that we as mere prosumers, must be careful not to state our personal preferences as fact. That''s what this is really about.

Ellen, a HUGE THANK you for so eloquently stating in one single sentence the meat of the issue.

What does that have too do with putting data on grading reports?

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?
Too prevent questions like this one and give the illusion that all AGS0 cuts are equal.

This is your opinion; it''s not a fact.....even though it''s stated in a way that suggests it is. Unless you have that on authority from someone at AGS, it''s a speculation, not a fact.

If you want to get really hair-splitting, no two diamonds are exactly identical and therefore not truly ''equal''.

The point of a grading system is to communicate that a given stone has been evaluated by credentialled, professionally trained, qualified experts, and found to meet THAT grading system''s requirements to earn its assigned grade.

If AGS determines that a diamond falls within their tolerances to earn its coveted AGS0 grade, then it''s an AGS0. Period. Suggesting that there is an intent to give an illusion is akin to suggesting they are trying to stones by that don''t actually fit the AGS0 tolerances.

That, too, might be your opinion, but it''s not fact.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/25/2008 1:56:08 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 4/25/2008 1:35:25 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/25/2008 1:25:07 PM
Author: Allison D.

Date: 4/25/2008 11:43:47 AM
Author: Ellen

What is really at issue here, is that we as mere prosumers, must be careful not to state our personal preferences as fact. That's what this is really about.

Ellen, a HUGE THANK you for so eloquently stating in one single sentence the meat of the issue.

What does that have too do with putting data on grading reports?

Date: 4/24/2008 4:17:11 AM
Author: DiaGem
What made AGS decide to stop listing a detail from their overly detailed reports?


Too prevent questions like this one and give the illusion that all AGS0 cuts are equal.

This is your opinion; it's not a fact.....even though it's stated in a way that suggests it is. Unless you have that on authority from someone at AGS, it's a speculation, not a fact.

in your opinion

If you want to get really hair-splitting, no two diamonds are exactly identical and therefore not truly 'equal'.

in your opinion

The point of a grading system is to communicate that a given stone has been evaluated by credentialled, professionally trained, qualified experts, and found to meet THAT grading system's requirements to earn its assigned grade.

in your opinion

If AGS determines that a diamond falls within their tolerances to earn its coveted AGS0 grade, then it's an AGS0. Period.

in your opinion

Suggesting that there is an intent to give an illusion is akin to suggesting they are trying to stones by that don't actually fit the AGS0 tolerances.

in your opinion

That, too, might be your opinion, but it's not fact.

talk about splitting frog hairs
The day you label everything you post as opinion then you can complain.
Shall I go over everything you posted in the last week and label the opinions?
Or is the rule different now that your openly working for the trade?

 

[strmrdr]

Wait I get it now only trade can post opinions!
Every post on this board is an opinion.
Even when facts are presented its an opinion/interpretation of those facts.

 

[oldminer]

We have a convention in the diamond trade that accepts certain labs, with high levels of qualifications and years of experience, provide their laboratory generated documents as evidence of the quality characteristics of diamonds. Only a limited number of labs qualify for this status and we all are familiar with their initials. There aren't many.

All conventions and grading categories are artifices, not part of the natural world, but man-made categorizations to help us quantify our surroundings and objects in them, diamonds included.

One seeks to describe "things" with enough detail to separate them from one another, yet with not more detail than necessary since that sort of categorization is a waste of effort and won't lead to truly finer description. Since it does not lead to a finer description, one might consider too much detail or too much information to be confusing or masking the essential descriptors since they are mixed in with the unnecessary ones.

There is no reason at all not to describe items with as much possible detail as technology can provide us, but only a tiny portion of humanity would be sufficiently educated or so immersed in small details, that selling such information to the general public would truly have no value. When things have no value, no one is willing to pay for them. Free is fine, but when details cost sales time and confusion, you may end up with fewer sales and one might just blame it on too much detailed information to be able to make up one's mind about a purchase.

I think there are valid arguments for and against giving every last available detail which are valid. This is not a black and white situation where one way is right for everyone. A consumer wishing to know "why" is a challenge either to be satisfied or not. This is the choice of the laboratory, the educational system and the vendor. You can't expect a "trinket flogger" (thanks GH) to know enough to communicate accurate and correct information on high tech subjects to a curious, highly educated Engineer. It just won't happen.

That engineer needs to find a well educated seller who knows these extra details and how to explain them. Now, there may be no benefit at all to having these details, but if thats what a consumer wants, there is no harm except for the considerable extra time spend in relaying what amounts to potentially worthless added information. To the Engineer this data is never worthless and I respect their position.

The level of trust from vendor to consumer should not become an issue in the debate about how much information is the right amount. The pilot of a commercial jet doesn't advise the passengers of all the details. He just says, "we're having a bit of a technical problem and we are going to sit here until they fix it". For me, that's about enough. For someone else, it may set off some sort of desire to know more. Its a personality thing and not necessary for arriving on time at the other end of the flight.

When a consumer wants to know, give them the data. Don't make it more important than it is. Don't explain the unexplainable with simplistic talk which will make them suspicious. Let this sort of numbers driven person have the numbers and let them do their thing with it. It is what makes them happy and I'm for HAPPY.

 

[strmrdr]

Excellent post Dave!!
I have too say I agree with the majority of your opinion expressed in it.

 

[diagem]

Date: 4/25/2008 2:26:56 PM
Author: oldminer

When a consumer wants to know, give them the data. Don''t make it more important than it is. Don''t explain the unexplainable with simplistic talk which will make them suspicious. Let this sort of numbers driven person have the numbers and let them do their thing with it. It is what makes them happy and I''m for HAPPY.

 

[whatmeworry]

Date: 4/25/2008 8:56:42 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Dear all,
It is apparent from this discussion that there is a lack of fundemental reproducable testing of a scientific nature in our chsoen field of study.

In any other industry the gIA''s survey would be laughed at, and while AGS have worked hard and been much more open, they have not done the required observation and survey testing.

With virtually no resources and little time, the loosely formated Cut Group I work with have these stones now and we are about to start testing them.
http://www.octonus.ru/oct/mss/index.phtml
About $35k''s worth.

The prototype holders are shown here. They have been mounted with 5 stones close to each other on a skin coloured strip so that all face the observer.

Until computer generated data like AGS''s contrast scores have been fully tested by real observers the numbers are meaningless.

That is why OctoNus DiamCalc that has had all these numbers long before AGS and any other technology in this field has never said the output data is a grading system.

Garry, I have to disagree. I''m not in the industry and have found GIA'' study to be good and more importantly well documented. AGSL''s cut grading is nowhere close to being open. First off the cut grading is proprietary. This does not lend itself to openness. AGSL has never published a paper describing how they developed their cut grading (to the detail of GIA''s Brilliance and Fire papers). We now have 3 pages of posts talking about AGSL''s deduction of contrast and no one knows what it means to have contrast deduction. Or how meaningful the deduction is. Rhino thinks the contrast deduction means finding blue in an ASET generated picture where it expects red. Is this in fact the case?

All these cut studies should have expanded the universe of possibilities for diamond cut and added to the field of gemology. Instead they are used to tighten boxes and argue that my ideal is superior to your excellent. Sad.

 

[niceice]

Date: 4/25/2008 4:34:27 PM
Author: whatmeworry
We now have 3 pages of posts talking about AGSL''s deduction of contrast and no one knows what it means to have contrast deduction. Or how meaningful the deduction is. Rhino thinks the contrast deduction means finding blue in an ASET generated picture where it expects red. Is this in fact the case?

All these cut studies should have expanded the universe of possibilities for diamond cut and added to the field of gemology. Instead they are used to tighten boxes and argue that my ideal is superior to your excellent. Sad.

I''m assuming that you read the post
Scientific Recognition for AGS Cut Grade Technology but just in case, there is a link to it. I believe that all of these cut studies will advance diamond cutting, but the change will not be overnight simply because of the expense of the transition in terms of equipment and training. Most diamonds are cut in phases, the diamond rough is sawn in one location, the diamond is bruted in another, then it is finished in a third location, building or room. Each phase of the cutting process is usually completed by a different person, one guy cuts the table, another guy cuts the pavilion, another person cuts the crown, etc. very few people take a single stone from start to finish.

One of the recent findings of the AGS studies was that a princess cut diamond cut with two chevrons often has better visual performance than the traditional princess cut which has three or four chevrons. Several cutting houses attempted to make the transition, but found that their staff simply couldn''t make the transition because they were trained to cut a princess "this way" and not "that way"... The solution? They intend to train the next generation of diamond cutters to cut the princess cut "like this" and it will work fine because they don''t know how to cut it "like that". Fortunately there are companies that are producing the two chevron version of the princess cut and it''s a beauty! And there are cutting firms which rely on a single craftsman to take each diamond through the cutting process from start to finish... I suppose that the difference in craftsmanship can be compared to a difference in how automobiles are made, most cars come off of a production line and a few brands build each piece of the inside by hand, one isn''t necessarily better or more functional than another, but each will appeal to different people depending on their preference and desires.

 

[whatmeworry]

Todd,
Thanks for the link, I never saw those. I stand corrected. Now off to do some reading.

 

[whatmeworry]

Okay, I remembered I did read those a while ago and it''s still not clear to me what they are doing. Like the brilliance metric for example. I think what they are doing is counting the red area in a computer generated ASET of the diamond. Same thing for contrast, I think they are counting the blue area (tilt or no tilt?) in ASET. Maybe someone can confirm?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/25/2008 5:22:50 PM
Author: niceice

Date: 4/25/2008 4:34:27 PM
Author: whatmeworry
We now have 3 pages of posts talking about AGSL''s deduction of contrast and no one knows what it means to have contrast deduction. Or how meaningful the deduction is. Rhino thinks the contrast deduction means finding blue in an ASET generated picture where it expects red. Is this in fact the case?

All these cut studies should have expanded the universe of possibilities for diamond cut and added to the field of gemology. Instead they are used to tighten boxes and argue that my ideal is superior to your excellent. Sad.

I''m assuming that you read the post
Scientific Recognition for AGS Cut Grade Technology but just in case, there is a link to it. I believe that all of these cut studies will advance diamond cutting, but the change will not be overnight simply because of the expense of the transition in terms of equipment and training. Most diamonds are cut in phases, the diamond rough is sawn in one location, the diamond is bruted in another, then it is finished in a third location, building or room. Each phase of the cutting process is usually completed by a different person, one guy cuts the table, another guy cuts the pavilion, another person cuts the crown, etc. very few people take a single stone from start to finish.

One of the recent findings of the AGS studies was that a princess cut diamond cut with two chevrons often has better visual performance than the traditional princess cut which has three or four chevrons. Several cutting houses attempted to make the transition, but found that their staff simply couldn''t make the transition because they were trained to cut a princess ''this way'' and not ''that way''... The solution? They intend to train the next generation of diamond cutters to cut the princess cut ''like this'' and it will work fine because they don''t know how to cut it ''like that''. Fortunately there are companies that are producing the two chevron version of the princess cut and it''s a beauty! And there are cutting firms which rely on a single craftsman to take each diamond through the cutting process from start to finish... I suppose that the difference in craftsmanship can be compared to a difference in how automobiles are made, most cars come off of a production line and a few brands build each piece of the inside by hand, one isn''t necessarily better or more functional than another, but each will appeal to different people depending on their preference and desires.

Thanks for answering What me Worry question for me Todd.

But here is an example - last year at Peter Yantzers excellent Vegas presentation and at his Cut Camp BBQ they discussed these findings about number of facets using single cuts in small sizes as an example.

I have always agreed with this idea, but never tested it, so I did the test.
I placed several rows of the same sized single cuts beside full cut rounds in a little box. In almost every lighting and from almost every observer the full cuts were preferred.

That is an example of what I mean about AGS relying on theory.quickly - it is from my phone - apologies for thatThis is the only photo i can find w