Rhino’s Diamond Doc Video - Brightness

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/30/2006 11:43:27 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 4/29/2006 10:50:14 PM

Author: strmrdr

dealer lighting clear tray.

using this lighting to sell diamonds would be deceptive.

Storm You are posting pictures, Question, do you have a Diamond Dock and the stones?????

They are screen shots from the vid.
Nope dont have a Diamond Dock im poor and its over priced

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/1/2006 12:00:47 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 4/30/2006 11:43:27 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 4/29/2006 10:50:14 PM

Author: strmrdr

dealer lighting clear tray.

using this lighting to sell diamonds would be deceptive.

Storm You are posting pictures, Question, do you have a Diamond Dock and the stones?????

They are screen shots from the vid.
Nope dont have a Diamond Dock im poor and its over priced

I''m with you there on both accounts

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 4/30/2006 4:01:54 AM
Author: strmrdr
Notice the differences in the images.
Garry shot his standing over the DD at a steep angle.
Jon shot his from the angle of someone seated infront of the D.D. as GIA shows is the way they want it done.

I guess then that GIA wants the "grading" done by people of only a certain body type.
Do they sell an adjustable height chair or adjustable height table with the DiamondDock also?
I guess RockDoc (5'5?" and I (6'2") (or Neil 6'3") would get two different results sitting down and looking at the same two stones, as to get a face up view of the stone the lighting angles would have to be different...

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/2/2006 11:55:31 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 4/30/2006 4:01:54 AM

Author: strmrdr

Notice the differences in the images.

Garry shot his standing over the DD at a steep angle.

Jon shot his from the angle of someone seated infront of the D.D. as GIA shows is the way they want it done.

I guess then that GIA wants the 'grading' done by people of only a certain body type.

Do they sell an adjustable height chair or adjustable height table with the DiamondDock also?

I guess RockDoc (5'5?' and I (6'2') (or Neil 6'3') would get two different results sitting down and looking at the same two stones, as to get a face up view of the stone the lighting angles would have to be different...

yea its an issue in my post after that I addressed it a little:
"Actually this points out a weakness unless they calibrated the eye height and distance for each viewer.
Your going to have that weakness in any environment however.
Also since each viewer could move them around each would see something slightly different.."

It is an issue and I have no idea is they addressed it when doing observations.

further I stated:
"Which brings us back to whose preferences are represented by the GIA cut grade.
imho with the possible exception of the led only lighting slightly messing things up the D.D. isnt the reason the GIA cut grading is the way it is"

There are other issues that are far more troublesome than the D.D. lighting to me about the GIA system.

1: proportion and not performance based
2: using rounding in a proportion based system ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
3: mosty trade doing the observation
4: lack of communication
5: the wrong grade being put on some certs.
6: arbitrary grading of features.
I could list 10 more.

Those are in my opinion far bigger problems than the tube lighting in the D.D. which in my opinion is atleast decent.

 

[Rhino]

Hey guys,

Sorry for not being able to come here sooner. Was busy this weekend. In answer to your questions Garry.

Date: 4/29/2006 6:02:10 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Just one initial question Rhino.

Why did you choose such a stone?
It has very very poor symmetry - 7 degree crown angle and 3.4 degree pavilion angle variation??
Because of it the stone does not have a clearly dfined ''ring of death''.

The ring of death is there nonetheless. Why this stone? A few reasons.

1. It''s here in my inventory. Convenience.

2. In an earlier thread on this subject Sergey states regarding my other comparison/survey...

"Rhino,
You took two similar and very good diamonds and try to proof What DD GIA can easy show which diamond is better.
Garry took one good and one very bad CZ and try to show what DD GIA can not easy show which CZ is better.

Sergey''s assestation was that the DD could not differentiate between a good diamond and a not so good diamond. This video plus photography of the same comparison proves this statement to not be true. It indeed is easy to show which is better except in my case I use actual diamonds while in yours cz''s were used.

3. A 3rd reason is because I note in your cz''s that it is both a steep/deep PLUS has dug out girdles. My steep/deep, like your cz also had dug out girdle facets.

4. And lastly because of a prior statement I had made and your response which I hadn''t answered until this video...

I stated ...

Date: 3/15/2006 4:41:57 PM
Author: Rhino
I appreciate a healthy dose of skepticism and I am a firm believer in putting any technology through rigorous testing, primarily how it corellates to human observation. I am all for that.

My question is simple.

What if you take a pair of comparison stones and observe them for brightness in

a. Standard daylight environments such as outside on a cloudy day.
b. Outside in sunlight but in the shade.
c. Standard overhead office lighting (overhead fluorescents)
d. Diffuse LED''s (as opposed to direct)
e. Then lastly the GIA DiamondDock
and you see the same exact optical phenomena in each and every instance?

You responded ...

Rhino we never saw this material - it would address the concerns that I had. I believe your video was made without the microphone turned on - but I am sure you could air some contnet with a voice over?

Or do it again?

However from my few days with Diamond Dock I doubt you see the same exact optical phenomena in each and every instance?

The video shows why I made the statements I did quite plainly. Not to mention the fact that it has also been confirmed by a respected consumer on these boards who has seen the same comparison with his own eyes.

But as to the reason why this stone looks bad in Diamond Dock - it is because it does not gather light from the areas where the light is in Diamond Dock.

As Sergey says - you can design a lighting to make any stone good or bad. You can also find other bad stones for any lighting and you did Rhino.

You''re totally missing the point Garry. This isn''t a lighting environment made to make certain diamonds look good and other certain diamonds bad. If a diamond is suffering in the optical characteristic/metric of brightness in many environments that depict brightness IT TOO will suffer under diffuse daylight in the DD or any other environment that depicts brightness. You are singling out the DD but what you are failing to recognize Garry is that the same assessment is made in any environment that accurately shows brightness. Not just the DD.

If we change ASET from 30 degrees blue to 49 degrees blue, and the red from 90 dergees to 100 degrees - then your stone shows mainly green and very little red.

Contrast that with the GIA graded Excellent steep deep that I used and that stone in an ASET lighting that looks like GIA DD - and hey presto - it has lots of red.

Now Storm you will say that the stone was being rocked. For that arguement to hold true you would need to rock the camera and the diamond in the face up position to see what I mean. If you do that Rhino - you will be stunned.

Garry ... now you are concocting new scopes to try and prove a point that is absolutely moot and uneccessary. Why? Becauase human observation concurs the same results no matter which environment you bring the same comparison stones into. If a technology ... even if you created what people deemed the super-duper scope of all time ... if it does not corelate with what human eyes see that scope is good for one thing. The trash. You are boxing yourself into a corner with the scopes Garry. You don''t need to modify the ASET, the IS or anything ... JUST LOOK AT THE DIAMONDS. One is crapola one isn''t. Each of the environments I brought both stones into clearly show these differences. I don''t think there is a layman on these boards who can''t tell them apart. It''s quite easy I think.


Regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 4/29/2006 10:38:53 PM
Author: strmrdr
Bright cloudy day:
the well cut diamond look bigger the bad cut diamond is very dark at the edges but towards the center the light is too bright to accurately separate the diamonds.
Not a very good grading environment.

Interesting note ... the darkness around the edges is due to digging which is a good example of why digging takes a hit in the system. The same darkness is observed in the DD and most other viewing environments as well. While there is a bright spot under the table, the leakage is easily seen with the eyes as they are in that photograph strm.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 4/29/2006 10:50:14 PM
Author: strmrdr
dealer lighting clear tray.
using this lighting to sell diamonds would be deceptive.

Which is why when I ask a dealer if the diamond is a bright stone I take that with a grain of salt. Jewelry store lighting is worse.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 4/29/2006 10:47:19 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/29/2006 9:05:09 PM
Author: strmrdr
Which am I gonna believe my own eyes or a birdscope?
Just like someone can find a diamond to look bad in any giving lighting someone can invent new theories and present them as fact to discredit anything.
Your own video proved to me that I can seperate diamonds out from one another under DD light conditions.
Also has that AGS data been verified its not like they are an unbiased party is this?
Im getting tired of crap science maybe the DD is and maybe it isnt but saying its just like this POS light box when just by looking at it they are different designs dont help much.
Neither does having to invent untested and unverified tools.
Neither does taking data as fact from a rival group.

Give me video and pictures and first hand accounts anyday over invented facts that the only backing is someone says its that way cuz it seems that way to me.

The braintrust at PS is better than that.

It seems you really want to support DD Storm?

Garry ... forget for a moment that GIA''s name is in front of the darn thing AND LOOK AT THE DIAMONDS. This is not about supporting GIA or AGS or whoever. It is about agreeing with what our eyes see. I think your opinion is being skewed by the fact that you have personal issues against GIA. Forget those issues man and look at the real issues. Is the DD showing corelating views or leading to faulty conclusions? Is it making bad diamonds look good as has been purported on this forum? Absolutely not. You can post charts and altered scope views all day long ... that will not convince a person what their eyes are telling them is true, especially mine! Garry ... would you consider for a moment that you have misjudged? You have only worked with the DD for an extremely limited time of 3 days. I have been working with it and inspecting/analyzing all kinds of diamonds under it now for 4 months 5 out of 7 days of each week.

Do you realize you are arguing against human perception in diffuse daylight environments?

If there was ever a lighting environement to argue against I can think of others with which to spend the time and energies on but certainly not one that corelates to accurate assessments and show the same phenomena each and every time. As I expressed to jason earlier ... this isn''t even an arguement in my mind because the assessment is the same just as I had stated above and in the previous thread.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 4/29/2006 11:23:03 PM
Author: strmrdr
Finally the DD.
As iv noted before the DD gives a slightly more gray appearance to the diamonds than some of the more open environments.
You can also see the angle of the lighting more than in some of the others.
As a cut grading tool id place it between the in the shade on a bright day and the office lighting and above the rest.
Not a bad place to be.

While I dont think it won the shot-out it is a reasonable lighting envirement.
Does that mean I agree 100% with the GIA system NO but the tube lighting in the DD isnt the reason for it.
Im looking forward to doing this with the led lighting and the mixed lighting in the DD.

Interesting you should say this strm.

My assessment with the eyes were the same. In all of the environments I prefer outside in the shade or diffuse daylight (not in shade). However any insured jewelry store (and any store with common sense) will not bring loose diamonds outside to be viewed. I know jewelers who were robbed for thousands attempting to do so which is why insurance companies have policies against this. The indoor lighting environments (desk lamp, microscope etc.) can do the job but my personal opinion was that the DD was brighter and better for the job insofar as indoor grading is concerned. Not as bright as outside yet not as dark as office which in my professional opinion is a balanced view to judging brightness. This is my opinion unless I see real evidence showing otherwise.

Peace,

 

[headlight]

Rhino,
Very impressive video. You''ve sold me on "ideal" and even more so on H & A stones.
With that said...
Why did you compare such a top cut stone to such a dog? It doesn''t take a special viewer or light box or "what have you" to see the difference, from my amateur estimation.
What I would be interested in seeing is an ideal cut stone versus a so-called premium cut stone and see how they fare in comparison amongst the various lighting environments. As a consumer, I am extremely curious to see the difference between a top-notch cut and one just outside of ideal.
Would love to hear your insight.
Thank you!

 

[Rhino]

Hi Leo,

Thanks for helping to simplify. To answer your questions/points.

Date: 4/30/2006 12:54:19 PM
Author: Pricescope
We have two or three issues/questions here so let''s simplifying the discussion by separating them first.

When Jonathan sent me the video I asked what point he is trying to make with it. Jonathan replied that he wants to compare the observations of brightness in many various environments to see if the Diamond Dock is showing a conflicting view as others are suggesting.

Point #1. Compare observation of brightness. It is rather broad subject though and what the video actually does is comparing two specific stones: close to Tolkowski and very deep cut.

Indeed, the video shows that these diamonds look different in all 5 or 6 lightning conditions including GIA Diamond Dock. I hope we are in agreement here.

Me too. I thought the comparisons were rather obvious.

Point #2. Does Diamond Dock shows conflicting view. Jonathan and Strmrdr answer is ''no''. My question is: conflicting with what?

Possible conflict #1: one of the diamonds looks better in some lightning and worse in some others. NO, we didn''t see this type of conflict with these diamonds. The poor deep sucker looks bad in all testing conditions in the video.

Amen. These were my observations.

Possible conflict #2: Diamond Dock shows conflicting view of each diamond comparing to the other real life lightning environments. I think the answer is YES.

Amen to this too. I would add that every single lighting environment is never identically the same as there are many variables that come into play. Intensity, objects in the atmosphere. position of the lighting etc.

Except the bright luminescent desk lamp lighting (diamond dealers'' environment) (which is obviously similar to DD because of the bright luminescent tube close to the diamond), each particular diamond look different in the daylight (shade or sun) and office lightning. See picture below.

In answer to your question Leo, "conflicting with what" in the context with which I meant it would be your point #1. Ie. Does one diamond appear worse than the other in all other viewing environments except DD lighting. The reason for this point and the demonstration of the video was to show that the DD is not showing a conflicting view of the examination of brightness when the same comparison is made in each of the environments depicting brightness. Your communication of my point was right on and thanks for offering an alternative as well.

Insofar as brightness examined under the dealers desk lamp, I don''t see a problem with this but I would encourage a neutral colored backdrop against the stones and not necessarily the white paper pad that is usually found as it offers a kind of back lighting which isn''t typically found in daylight environments, although in mounted rings (non bezel set) there is a certain degree of backlighting.

Point #3. (Subjective) Does the video shows diamonds correctly? (It is my personal/subjective opinion and other people might see it differently) I think the diamonds in the real life (daylight, office, etc) look differently than in the video. There might be different reasons for that: real size of the sparkles, stereo vision, human eye adaptation, etc. Again, it is my subjective opinion and other folks can disagree on that.

Good point. If I haven''t stated it already a certain limitation to both video and photography is it is a mono-scopic view. When using stereo vision one actually sees approx. 1.5-2x the amount of sparkles and bright flashes. I feel the video accurately conveys appearance in each of these environments especially the varying views one sees in each of these environments but there are definetely aspects one can appreciate even moreso with stereo scopic viewing. Thank you for pointing this out Leo.

I suggest the following conclusions:

a. The video shows that this poorly (very deep) cut diamond looks worse than ideal cut stone in such lightning conditions as daylight, office, desk lamp and Diamond Dock. No ''conflicting view'' for these particular stones. The video might be helpful for consumers who have never seen or compared diamonds especially poor cut next to ideal cut stones.

b. The video shows that each diamond in the Diamond Dock look somewhat similar to the diamond dealers lightning environment and different in other real life conditions (daylight, office). Therefore, there is ''conflicting view''.

c. The video does not support Jonathan''s comment that it demonstrates the logic behind GIA research. Quite contrary, the video shows that each diamonds look different in Diamond Dock and in different real life lightning conditions. Therefore, the video doesn''t prove that Diamond Dock can be used to predict any diamond appearance in other lightning conditions.

I suppose a question I would have to offer at this point is this. If the identical conclusion is drawn under DD lighting than it is in all the other viewing environments depicting brightness why is the DD the only environment with which one cannot judge brightness?

Ie. If I can make a determination that one diamond is brighter than another in say, office lighting and I know for a fact that the same assessment will be seen and made in all other environments depicting brightness, why is the DD any different?

d. As Garry demonstrated above and Sergey stated a while ago, there are different combinations of proportions that won''t look good in Diamond Dock while can look good in other real life lighting. Therefore, more observations of different diamonds (different combinations of proportions) in different lighting conditions is required in order to derive to reliable conclusions about usability of the Diamond Dock and accuracy of the GIA cut grading system.

Garry and Sergey have demonstrated that different combinations of proportions don''t look good in DD lighting?!? If so, where and have they considered the fact that those same stones will look like crap in common viewing environments? That is the comparison and evidence I''d like to see. I haven''t seen it. So far all the observation testing I''ve done only concurs one fact. If a diamond suffers in brightness in one viewing environment depicting such it will also suffer under the DD. If comparing 2 diamonds and one is brighter than the other in common viewing environments they will observe the same phenomena under the DD. The charts, graphs, and simulated views I am hearing from Garry and Sergey do not concur what the eyes see. I''d like to discuss this further if there is any doubt in your mind including the graphic Sergey introduced in an earlier thread attempting to discredit the lighting.

Summary: Although the video is helpful to those who never seen/compared different diamonds, it cannot be called ''education'' or ''tutorial'' in the real meaning of these words and doesn''t prove the concept behind using the Diamond Dock.

Personal comment: Such analysis of pros and cons is rather time consuming and since we have pretty serious differences in understanding what constitute true scientific experiment and drawn conclusions, I suggest anybody who submit educational materials (video, articles, etc.) for publishing on this site to keep it up to certain scientific standards.

Which brings me to my next question. What exactly would you do differently? I am doing my best to educate and sparing no expense in doing so including thousands in capital and precious man hours to produce this material. Granted I''m not Steven Spielberg, but I am honestly reporting and recording the facts as I see them in an attempt to help people come to a greater understanding of the subjects at hand. If I am doing something wrong or you are suggesting something different I''m open to your suggestions.

While I''m at it ... I ask both consumers and tradesmen alike. While I stated my reasons for using these 2 stones in the comparison video, are there any lighting environments you feel I''ve neglected in this experiment? Is there any lighting envionments depicting brightness you feel I should have included? Is there a different comparison that would interest you more to see if differences in appearance can be ascertained under each of these environments?

I am open to your suggestions and comments for future comparisons.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Moving along...

Date: 4/30/2006 3:59:40 PM
Author: strmrdr
Jon didnt mention my main questions and what I consider the most important question:
Is the D.D.with tubes only a reasonable environment for diamond performance grading/testing/observation?

I believe the answer to that at this point is yes.

Notice I said reasonable there is no perfect environment.

Does that make the GIA grading system 100% right? no
because the:
people they had make the judgements
what they did with the results
What diamonds were used in the study

They are all much bigger issues than the D.D. tube lighting.

My 2c :}

Ditto. With the amount of observations we''ve done under it at this point I can examine a diamond with it and know how it will appear in other environments depicting brightness. Reasonable is fair.

I just sent out a stone today to get cut to the loosest GIA standards. 36/41.4/56 and a 63 depth. THAT is the comparison I am curious to see. I''m sure I wouldn''t stock such a stone in our regular inventory but I will at least have the worst appearance constituting the GIA Ex grade.

How bad it is or how good it is ... you can be sure I''ll show a demonstration alongside others that fall in the center of the Ex zone.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/2/2006 11:55:31 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 4/30/2006 4:01:54 AM
Author: strmrdr
Notice the differences in the images.
Garry shot his standing over the DD at a steep angle.
Jon shot his from the angle of someone seated infront of the D.D. as GIA shows is the way they want it done.

I guess then that GIA wants the ''grading'' done by people of only a certain body type.
Do they sell an adjustable height chair or adjustable height table with the DiamondDock also?
I guess RockDoc (5''5?'' and I (6''2'') (or Neil 6''3'') would get two different results sitting down and looking at the same two stones, as to get a face up view of the stone the lighting angles would have to be different...

Hey Marty,

Hope you guys had a great time in Orlando. I am sorry I could not come.

I really appreciate your comment even though it may not have the intended effect.

In my discussions with Al Gilbertson we''ve talked about this a few times and your comment is right on.

Every individual brings a different perspective with them to the table so to speak. Some have larger body sizes, some not as large. Some have shorter focal lengths, some longer. Certain diamonds will appear differently to each individual which is why the grade emcompasses the span it does. Ie. folks with larger body types and shorter focal lengths may actually prefer a diamond whose main facets draw its light from the 45-75 degree spectrum instead of hte 75-90 degree spectrum (red instead of blue arrows in the ASET) while people with thinner bodies and longer focal lengths may prefer an AGS 4-5 or GIA good shallow stone such as Garry likes. No two human beings are alike and no two individual''s perception of beauty is always exactly the same. All we can do is test, ask for preferences and observe majority opinion. At times there will be no majority opinion and at other times there will. Al has stressed to me that "we are trying to encourage people to go look at diamonds and draw the comparisons for themselves". I think this is good advice. Hope this post finds you well.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/2/2006 5:32:04 PM
Author: headlight
Rhino,
Very impressive video. You''ve sold me on ''ideal'' and even more so on H & A stones.
With that said...
Why did you compare such a top cut stone to such a dog? It doesn''t take a special viewer or light box or ''what have you'' to see the difference, from my amateur estimation.
What I would be interested in seeing is an ideal cut stone versus a so-called premium cut stone and see how they fare in comparison amongst the various lighting environments. As a consumer, I am extremely curious to see the difference between a top-notch cut and one just outside of ideal.
Would love to hear your insight.
Thank you!

Hi headlight,

Thanks for your input. I used those in the video to demonstrate that the same conclusions can be drawn comparing these 2 diamonds in many environments depicting brightness and that the conclusions drawn about the optical characteristics are the same in each. I didn''t mean to have any one lighting environment stand out initially but it was being suggested in threads on this forum that one of these environments was actually making bad diamonds look good and vice versa. I wanted to demonstrate that this is not so. Otherwise the video was primarily intended to familiarize consumers with the appearance they can expect to see in various environments showing the optical characteristics of brightness and white light return.

Now ... I am more interested in drawing the comparison you are stating for perhaps our next experiment. What comparison would you like to draw? A GIA Ex/ AGS ideal alongside a GIA Very good? While certain dealers might vary in their opinion on what they consider "premium" I would think many would consider a GIA VG for light performance as one unless you have a different suggestion. I''ll keep an eye out for your response headlight.

Thanks for the feedback and the input.

Kind regards,

 

[headlight]

Thanks for your reply!
As for the comparison stone, you hold the knowledge on stones that "fall" short (but not to the extreme of the blatant "dogs") far better than I (I''m just a lowly ignorant consumer!!!). I guess I''m talking about the non-ideals whose specs fall just outside of the ideal proportions (or even in the former, broader definition of what constituted ideal), whether it be in just one category of measurement or many (or all).
I would imagine you saw the James Allen interview where they showed people strolling through Central Park three stones of equal weight and color and clarity and mounting, but with a small variance in specs. The passers-by had a very difficult time distinguishing the visual difference between the three -- even James Allen himself! Also, the stone that supposedly had the "darkest" middle (#2) actually received the most votes as being one''s favorite!
What I''m wondering here is if someone is seeking a larger stone, as many of us ladies are (!), and they have to compromise somewhere (aside from color and clarity), is the visual difference between the top quality ideal and a stone that falls just a little out of ideal (and, subsequently less $$$), going to appear that much "less" in everyday, real life.
In the video discussed here, the ideal clearly performed consistently amongst all lighting environments, whereas the sub-quality stone faired better under some lighting and definitely "struggled" (I guess for lack of a better term) under others! But, even that crummy stone did give some feedback. I''m wondering, when the wearer is out of the store and no longer comparing to other stones, if the stone would be satisfying to the owner.
For me, just seeing those incredible arrows really drove the point home in regards to an H & A stone!
It was so enlightening to see this "real life" video example to portray all the things I''ve been reading about here on PS for the past few years.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/2/2006 6:19:34 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/2/2006 11:55:31 AM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 4/30/2006 4:01:54 AM
Author: strmrdr
Notice the differences in the images.
Garry shot his standing over the DD at a steep angle.
Jon shot his from the angle of someone seated infront of the D.D. as GIA shows is the way they want it done.

I guess then that GIA wants the ''grading'' done by people of only a certain body type.
Do they sell an adjustable height chair or adjustable height table with the DiamondDock also?
I guess RockDoc (5''5?'' and I (6''2'') (or Neil 6''3'') would get two different results sitting down and looking at the same two stones, as to get a face up view of the stone the lighting angles would have to be different...

Hey Marty,

Hope you guys had a great time in Orlando. I am sorry I could not come.

I really appreciate your comment even though it may not have the intended effect.

In my discussions with Al Gilbertson we''ve talked about this a few times and your comment is right on.

Every individual brings a different perspective with them to the table so to speak. Some have larger body sizes, some not as large. Some have shorter focal lengths, some longer. Certain diamonds will appear differently to each individual which is why the grade emcompasses the span it does. Ie. folks with larger body types and shorter focal lengths may actually prefer a diamond whose main facets draw its light from the 45-75 degree spectrum instead of hte 75-90 degree spectrum (red instead of blue arrows in the ASET) while people with thinner bodies and longer focal lengths may prefer an AGS 4-5 or GIA good shallow stone such as Garry likes. No two human beings are alike and no two individual''s perception of beauty is always exactly the same. All we can do is test, ask for preferences and observe majority opinion. At times there will be no majority opinion and at other times there will. Al has stressed to me that ''we are trying to encourage people to go look at diamonds and draw the comparisons for themselves''. I think this is good advice. Hope this post finds you well.

Kind regards,

Hi Rhino.. I guess what Al was tring to say to you is that the GIA grade is meaningless, based more on uninformed "preferences" around the world, rather than on the "science" they spent 15 years misanalysing. If you can''t come to a conclusion on the science use smoke and mirrors to generate better paper...

I think that one should take the advice and look at the stone. What my concern is, is that consumers get hoodwinked by the "EX grade" and the DiamondDock, just as they are by fluorescence, no mention of non callable extra facets, looser color and clarity grading, etc, etc , etc..

They had the opportunity and the money to do it and they blew it..They''ll just sell more paper overseas.. Such a shame..

 

[RockDoc]

RE: Rockdoc is 5''5" !!!

Not really .....I''m 5'' 6 1/2".... ( geez, talk about being cut even further down to size )

Maybe GIA should add a tilt mechanism for us short guys...that leans forward... or maybe a backwards tilt one for the guys who are taller than average. Maybe it needs an angle marker for where someone''s eye should be when observing the stones, so that it makes the obseravation "equal" for all different height people. Definately a lot less expensive than the telescoping chair or adjustable table.

But if one is seated, and has short or long legs making the body length less tall or more tall, that would be factored in too.

One thing for sure though.... people see different things..... even those of us who are in the trade. So where does the untrained and inexperienced consumer eye factor in to all this???????

Rockdoc

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/2/2006 8:52:24 PM
Author: adamasgem

Hi Rhino.. I guess what Al was tring to say to you is that the GIA grade is meaningless, based more on uninformed ''preferences'' around the world, rather than on the ''science'' they spent 15 years misanalysing. If you can''t come to a conclusion on the science use smoke and mirrors to generate better paper...

I think that one should take the advice and look at the stone. What my concern is, is that consumers get hoodwinked by the ''EX grade'' and the DiamondDock, just as they are by fluorescence, no mention of non callable extra facets, looser color and clarity grading, etc, etc , etc..

They had the opportunity and the money to do it and they blew it..They''ll just sell more paper overseas.. Such a shame..

Hi Marty,

No no... far from meaningless there is a definite science and commonality to the Ex grade. It emcompasses certain commonalities regarding face up appearance. You know what though ... regardless of where they set the boundaries there will always be a critic who disagrees and even I may not agree with the appearance at the boundary (have yet to see and make a judgement call on that) they had to draw the line somewhere. Can''t please everyone. While the Ex grade emcompasses a variety of appearances (sharing similar brightness, fire, scintillation characteristics) do you have the same to say regarding the variety of appearances in AGS system? Face up appearance in the AGS system seems to vary as much if not moreso than GIA''s.

Curious to hear your thoughts on that.

Regards,
Jon

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rhino you are a religious person. A well meaning, caring and nice genuine person.

I am not trying to change your religion from GIA to another one.
I respect GIA - especially the work Jim Shigley and his team do in treatmenrts and synthetics. It is real science and we know that it will stand peer review and the data and information is open and available for other scientists to reproduce their results.

But rather than try to change your views about what you do and believe (which is clearly impossible and rather frustrating):

Will you please try to change my mind (which is quite flexible - I want the best answer, not the one i am married to - I am even happy to change and believe slightly shallow stones are bad ) - I just need someone to show me why I am wrong.

Now for 2 months you have been going to publish a review on my Journal article.
Please just stop with all these long heard it all before posts and DO IT, just do it.

 

[Rhino]

Hi headlight,

Date: 5/2/2006 7:05:25 PM
Author: headlight
Thanks for your reply!
As for the comparison stone, you hold the knowledge on stones that ''fall'' short (but not to the extreme of the blatant ''dogs'') far better than I (I''m just a lowly ignorant consumer!!!). I guess I''m talking about the non-ideals whose specs fall just outside of the ideal proportions (or even in the former, broader definition of what constituted ideal), whether it be in just one category of measurement or many (or all).
I would imagine you saw the James Allen interview where they showed people strolling through Central Park three stones of equal weight and color and clarity and mounting, but with a small variance in specs. The passers-by had a very difficult time distinguishing the visual difference between the three -- even James Allen himself! Also, the stone that supposedly had the ''darkest'' middle (#2) actually received the most votes as being one''s favorite!

Yes I noted that. While the 3 stones shared certain similarities I believe it was that one stone that didn''t make the AGS ideal grade out of the 3. Sergey noted this may be a flaw in the AGS system (ie not taking stereo vision into account in certain steep/deep combos) if memory serves me right.

What I''m wondering here is if someone is seeking a larger stone, as many of us ladies are (!), and they have to compromise somewhere (aside from color and clarity), is the visual difference between the top quality ideal and a stone that falls just a little out of ideal (and, subsequently less $$$), going to appear that much ''less'' in everyday, real life.

This would be a great comparison IMO. I am currently editing the 2nd part of the video of this thread on The Assessment of Fire and the various spot lighting environments people commonly find themselves is but once I''m through with the completion of this project your suggestion sounds like a good next one for me. Perhaps I''ll specifically focus on what is the next incremental step down in price, affected by cut and the optical differences between the 2.

In the video discussed here, the ideal clearly performed consistently amongst all lighting environments, whereas the sub-quality stone faired better under some lighting and definitely ''struggled'' (I guess for lack of a better term) under others! But, even that crummy stone did give some feedback. I''m wondering, when the wearer is out of the store and no longer comparing to other stones, if the stone would be satisfying to the owner.
For me, just seeing those incredible arrows really drove the point home in regards to an H & A stone!
It was so enlightening to see this ''real life'' video example to portray all the things I''ve been reading about here on PS for the past few years.

More than anything else headlight, I am glad you have learned and gained new insight into why myself and many of the folks here are cut nuts. If I had done all that and nobody learned from it, IMO it would have all been for naught and a waste. It is input like yours and from the common layman that I value most as you can view a video like this with no preconceived notions of how a diamond should or shouldn''t look and what your personal prefernce may be.

Regarding ultimate satisfaction by the owner ... I always advise to purchase with no regrets. Don''t purchase a diamond wishing you had gotten the better cut quality later. As another forum member (Dancing Fire) put it ... purchase a "mind clean" stone.

I''ll see if anyone else has a more specific comparison akin to what you''re asking yet covering the same criteria.

Garry ... any suggestions for the next comparison that may make things a little more interesting? I have to agree with headlight ... this one was too easy.

I''m also open to any suggestions you may have that you would have changed/added to this current video. Any specific lighting environment you''d like to see covered, etc.?

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/2/2006 10:52:31 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Rhino you are a religious person. A well meaning, caring and nice genuine person.

I am not trying to change your religion from GIA to another one.
I respect GIA - especially the work Jim Shigley and his team do in treatmenrts and synthetics. It is real science and we know that it will stand peer review and the data and information is open and available for other scientists to reproduce their results.

But rather than try to change your views about what you do and believe (which is clearly impossible and rather frustrating):

Will you please try to change my mind (which is quite flexible - I want the best answer, not the one i am married to - I am even happy to change and believe slightly shallow stones are bad ) - I just need someone to show me why I am wrong.

Now for 2 months you have been going to publish a review on my Journal article.
Please just stop with all these long heard it all before posts and DO IT, just do it.

Hi Garry,

Thank you for the kind words. At heart I think the best of you too man.

Tomorrow I'll be working from a remote location and while the video stuff is rendering I will complete the response. In fact I will not post again until that is done. You're too funny (religion of GIA). Seriously Garry, I really and sincerely do not take sides when it comes to AGS/GIA. I feel they both have their strengths and weakness. I make it my business to understand both and how the conclusions are arrived at and drawn within each system as I respect all players in the game. I really can't stand the us vs them mentality and believe there is plenty to go around for both labs. Have a great evening.

Peace mate,

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 5/2/2006 11:02:58 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/2/2006 10:52:31 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Rhino you are a religious person. A well meaning, caring and nice genuine person.

I am not trying to change your religion from GIA to another one.
I respect GIA - especially the work Jim Shigley and his team do in treatmenrts and synthetics. It is real science and we know that it will stand peer review and the data and information is open and available for other scientists to reproduce their results.

But rather than try to change your views about what you do and believe (which is clearly impossible and rather frustrating):

Will you please try to change my mind (which is quite flexible - I want the best answer, not the one i am married to - I am even happy to change and believe slightly shallow stones are bad ) - I just need someone to show me why I am wrong.

Now for 2 months you have been going to publish a review on my Journal article.
Please just stop with all these long heard it all before posts and DO IT, just do it.

Hi Garry,

Thank you for the kind words. At heart I think the best of you too man.

Tomorrow I''ll be working from a remote location and while the video stuff is rendering I will complete the response. In fact I will not post again until that is done. You''re too funny (religion of GIA). Seriously Garry, I really and sincerely do not take sides when it comes to AGS/GIA. I feel they both have their strengths and weakness. I make it my business to understand both and how the conclusions are arrived at and drawn within each system as I respect all players in the game. I really can''t stand the us vs them mentality and believe there is plenty to go around for both labs. Have a great evening.

Peace mate,

Amen to that!!!

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/2/2006 10:36:22 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/2/2006 8:52:24 PM
Author: adamasgem

Hi Rhino.. I guess what Al was tring to say to you is that the GIA grade is meaningless, based more on uninformed ''preferences'' around the world, rather than on the ''science'' they spent 15 years misanalysing. If you can''t come to a conclusion on the science use smoke and mirrors to generate better paper...

I think that one should take the advice and look at the stone. What my concern is, is that consumers get hoodwinked by the ''EX grade'' and the DiamondDock, just as they are by fluorescence, no mention of non callable extra facets, looser color and clarity grading, etc, etc , etc..

They had the opportunity and the money to do it and they blew it..They''ll just sell more paper overseas.. Such a shame..

Hi Marty,

No no... far from meaningless there is a definite science and commonality to the Ex grade. It emcompasses certain commonalities regarding face up appearance. You know what though ... regardless of where they set the boundaries there will always be a critic who disagrees and even I may not agree with the appearance at the boundary (have yet to see and make a judgement call on that) they had to draw the line somewhere. Can''t please everyone. While the Ex grade emcompasses a variety of appearances (sharing similar brightness, fire, scintillation characteristics) do you have the same to say regarding the variety of appearances in AGS system? Face up appearance in the AGS system seems to vary as much if not moreso than GIA''s.

Curious to hear your thoughts on that.

Regards,
Jon

Well Rhino..
I guess the operative word is selectivity, and while I haven''t made a direct comparison (because of time) between the old AGS and new AGS grades, what I previously published, and what John Polard counted up, indicated that it would be 5 times more likely to get a GIA EX than and AGS 0, not counting the fact that AGS requires an EX polishish and GIA will (and I agree with them on this) and EX or VG polish to get an EX cut.. That would probably push the likelyhood of getting a GIA EX to 8 to 10 times that of an AGS 0 cut...

While each diamond has its own characterististics, metrics based on the best posible measurements and the measured symmetry (or asymmetry) of the stone intuitively will be much better than metrics based on averaged, rounded values, and more subjective factors designed to pander to some aspects of the trade and manipulate the market via better looking paper.

We have shown here on PriceScope the statistics of color grading of AGS versus GIA grading, we note that GIA DOES NOT plot what they call non callable extra facets (which can be LARGE) to make better paper, an overlay broad cut grade range which appears to pander to the trade, all of which begs the issue of what game are the powers at GIA playing. Of course they have to raise more monies now, after the Certifigate coverup fiasco, so I guess further loosing of grading play right into the aim of generating more revenue by selling more paper for the masses...

As RockDoc has said, they are leaning toward the dark side of the force...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/2/2006 10:57:21 PM
Author: Rhino

Garry ... any suggestions for the next comparison that may make things a little more interesting? I have to agree with headlight ... this one was too easy.

I''m also open to any suggestions you may have that you would have changed/added to this current video. Any specific lighting environment you''d like to see covered, etc.?

Kind regards,

As Sergey says - it is time to stop wasting time on furile discussions and do proper testing.

We have an agreement from a very competent manufacturer to produce 10-15 stones under Sergey''s supervision (they have Helium). They will be shown in observer surveys that sergey will conduct, and sent to a number of labs annonomously for grading (It will also serve as another color / clarity grading survey like the one leonid, Dave and I did 2 years ago).

So far Sergey, Dave Atlas and myself have guaranteed funds to get this thing rolling.
Jonathon you said you would contribute?
The bills will start coming in in about 3-4 weeks.

Any other people prepared to contribute $$$ please contact one of us. We need around $100,000.

Later we will be asking for other help that does not require funding.

We will of course ask labs to contribute also.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/2/2006 5:58:04 PM
Author: Rhino

Summary: Although the video is helpful to those who never seen/compared different diamonds, it cannot be called 'education' or 'tutorial' in the real meaning of these words and doesn't prove the concept behind using the Diamond Dock.

Personal comment: Such analysis of pros and cons is rather time consuming and since we have pretty serious differences in understanding what constitute true scientific experiment and drawn conclusions, I suggest anybody who submit educational materials (video, articles, etc.) for publishing on this site to keep it up to certain scientific standards.

Which brings me to my next question. What exactly would you do differently? I am doing my best to educate and sparing no expense in doing so including thousands in capital and precious man hours to produce this material. Granted I'm not Steven Spielberg, but I am honestly reporting and recording the facts as I see them in an attempt to help people come to a greater understanding of the subjects at hand. If I am doing something wrong or you are suggesting something different I'm open to your suggestions.

This highlighted passage is why I think Leonid is having an issue with the "scientific-ness" or lack thereof. Let me explain.

Facts are very different from observations. Facts are not subject to interpretation; they do not change. Examples of fact:

11:58 a.m. occurs before 11:59 a.m.
$1.00 plus $.50 equals $1.50.
5'6" is shorter than 5'8".
George Washington was the first president of the United States.

These are facts......statements that do not change regardless of who views them. They are not subjective in any way. They are interpretation-proof.

As per the highlighted statement above, it sounds as though you are presenting your observations as facts, and I think that's where the scientific-ness falls down.

It's fair to say "the stone appeared brighter TO ME." It's fair to say "In this lighting environment, I observed x." It's even fair to say "when asked, 50 casual observers each selected stone X as appearing brighter to them."

Where the wheels come off the bus (of science) is when subjective evaluations are presented as facts, or when conclusions are drawn from those observations when other possibilities may be present.

For example, if someone is in New York at 10 a.m. and in California at 7 p.m., there is only one way that is possible. He had to fly to get there. There is no other way (with invoking science fiction) possible.
If someone is in New York on April 10, and he's in California on April 19, its *possible* that he could have arrived by other means. He may have used rail; he may have driven.

If you were to stand outside the airport, and you observed 50 people deplaning from a flight that originated in New York, that only means those 50 people did fly. One cannot extract from that data that everyone who arrives in California does so via plane. It doesn't mean the only way to arrive in California is to fly.

If you ask all 50 people how they got to California, and all 50 replied "I took a plane"....again, that means those 50 people flew, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility that others (even some of whom may be standing at the airport, too) didn't fly. Raymond may have driven from New York to California and driven to the airport to pick up his friend.

I don't think anyone is trying to discourage your enthusiasm by saying that the results are unscientific.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Al - that is a great contribution

BUT

Date: 5/3/2006 1:15:55 AM
Author: aljdewey


George Washington was the first president of the United States.

We do not know that there was not another group of people, who lived in America before Chris C, who in another langauge, called that part of america the "United States".

So even obvious facts can often be challenged.

(BTW reverse time is going to kill one of the other facts off too)

 

[pricescope]

Date: 5/2/2006 5:58:04 PM
Author: Rhino

Which brings me to my next question. What exactly would you do differently? I am doing my best to educate and sparing no expense in doing so including thousands in capital and precious man hours to produce this material. Granted I''m not Steven Spielberg, but I am honestly reporting and recording the facts as I see them in an attempt to help people come to a greater understanding of the subjects at hand. If I am doing something wrong or you are suggesting something different I''m open to your suggestions.

It is not a bout being Steven Spielberg, Jonathan... As Aljdewey said, your video and limited observations of limited amount of stones in limited conditions and with limited observers do not allow to come to conclusions you are drawing.

The problem that I sense is that you''re presenting it as a scientific study (which is not). I tried to show the flaws in your logic: You are showing a good and a very bad stone. The difference between them is visible in all your settings. You conclude that this is why DD shows no conflict while all you can actually say is that for this particular combination of proportions and in that setting (lighting and tray) you haven''t observed a conflict.

To conclude that DD has no conflict with real life observations in general, you have to test many different combination of proportions in different environments with many observers.

I think what Sergey is doing is more reliable thing and I suggest to wait and help him. Then we''ll see and discuss the results. Until then, as I suggested before, try not to jump to quick conclusions trying to prove that what you want to believe is true.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/3/2006 1:27:56 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Thanks Al - that is a great contribution

BUT

Date: 5/3/2006 1:15:55 AM
Author: aljdewey


George Washington was the first president of the United States.

We do not know that there was not another group of people, who lived in America before Chris C, who in another langauge, called that part of america the 'United States'.

So even obvious facts can often be challenged.

(BTW reverse time is going to kill one of the other facts off too)

Garry, I appreciate your love of the debate.....but the level to which you're taking it would make ALL facts non-facts.

For that matter, another one of the facts would be killed off it the defintion of "shorter" were something else on the planet Mars, no?

All facts would be non-facts if folks were willing to suspend disbelief. If you BELIEVE it's POSSIBLE to click your heels three times and transport yourself instantly from NY to California, then one would have to dismiss that the only possible way to be in NY at 10 a.m. EST and in California at 9 p.m. PST is via plane flight, right?

But we aren't talking about belief in unsupported imaginings of the mind. We aren't taking about science fiction or "reverse time". People don't live in reverse time (at least not the people I know), and considering how many other countries universally appear to recognize forward time, I'm pretty comfortable suggesting that most folks consider forward time their reality.

There is absolutely no evidence recognized today by any scholar that suggests this mass of land was named "the United States" at any point previous to our country's founding in 1776. If we discover 500 years from now that this country did exist as "The United States" prior to our documented and accepted present record of it, THEN yes, facts would need to be qualified. Then we would have to say "George Washington was the first president of the version of the "United States" that was formed in 1776.

Facts can cease to be facts and therefore be subject to further qualification, but they still cannot be subject to interpretation.

When I was in high school, it was a fact that the USSR was a communist country in Eastern Europe.
Since its dissolution in 1991, it is no longer fact that "The USSR is a communist counry in Eastern Europe". That fact has ceased to exist, but it will always be a fact that "The USSR was a communist country in Eastern Europe from 1922 until 1991." So, the qualification was added "until 1991", but it still remains a fact that it was a country during those times.

The real point was this: data collected from subjective observations (subject to interpretation) aren't facts, and that's what I think the crux of the issue is in the "scientfic-ness" concern of this thread.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/3/2006 1:15:55 AM
Author: aljdewey

.

Facts are very different from observations. Facts are not subject to interpretation; they do not change. Examples of fact:...

These are facts......statements that do not change regardless of who views them. They are not subjective in any way. They are interpretation-proof.

As per the highlighted statement above, it sounds as though you are presenting your observations as facts, and I think that''s where the scientific-ness falls down.

Well done aljdewey...

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/2/2006 4:56:28 PM
Author: Rhino

Garry ... forget for a moment that GIA''s name is in front of the darn thing AND LOOK AT THE DIAMONDS. This is not about supporting GIA or AGS or whoever. It is about agreeing with what our eyes see. I think your opinion is being skewed by the fact that you have personal issues against GIA. Forget those issues man and look at the real issues. Is the DD showing corelating views or leading to faulty conclusions? Is it making bad diamonds look good as has been purported on this forum? Absolutely not.

Jon.. But It seems that everything you have been saying pro DD, is seemingly in direct contradiction to what you have said (implied) about poorly cut stones (steep/deep) in the past, when you were promoting a much more limited range of ideal cuts with high optical symmetry. If your eyes could "see" the "so called truth" now, and couldn''t before, don''t you think it might have something to do with the envirionment used, like the DD, that has now distorted your opinion, or are you just going with "opinion" surveys.