Why would anyone object to painting?

[kenny]

For hundreds of years diamond cutting has evolved.

Painting and digging seem like just one more improvement in diamond cutting.

What do people in the industry (like GIA) have against it?

Why aren't all diamonds painted or dug?
Too much extra labor cost?

 

[Carlotta]

The GIA article states that some painting/digging is actually a form of "cheating" - retaining weight...

Also, maybe the problem is that it is difficult or even impossible for the consumer to be able to tell when a certain line is crossed and it is then "too much."

 

[JohnQuixote]

An objection?

Because it is possible to over-paint, just as it is possible to go too far with traditional brillianteering. Too much painting results in less definition of the bezel facets. Going too far in the traditional manner (called digging) can also result in performance reduction or even a knife-edge girdle. In either situation, when quality control is present, these are non-issues. It all boils down to the quality and care of the manufacturer handling the diamond.

Date: 5/23/2006 11:38:00 AM
Author: Carlotta

The GIA article states that some painting/digging is actually a form of 'cheating' - retaining weight...

Also, maybe the problem is that it is difficult or even impossible for the consumer to be able to tell when a certain line is crossed and it is then 'too much.'

There is a perceptual problem: These terms are broad, yet people use them to imply something negative when they may not be negative at all... Saying “Beware of painted diamonds” is like saying “Beware of color” or “Beware of inclusions.” There are different degrees of painting, just as there are different levels of color and clarity. It’s not appropriate to stereotype the term.

Painting and digging are parts of the manufacturing process, like cleaving, sawing, blocking, etc. They are not common parlance when discussing diamonds in the mainstream: If you drop these terms there are many jewelers and appraisers who won’t even know what you’re talking about. Every diamond undergoes a decision-making process when it's being cut/polished. When done properly, there is no problem with an appropriate amount of painting or digging.

Technically

With the vast majority of diamonds the thickness of the girdle is marked at blocking, and revisited before brillianteering. As the polisher puts the facets on he meets those marks. He may dig a bit or he may paint, depending on the desired yield and girdle thickness. It is all very natural. The approach is like choosing a fork or a spoon, according to the dessert you’re eating. The intent is to finish the diamond beautifully, particularly in premium makes (like this often seen on PS) where utmost care is taken throughout the process.

The reason for extreme digging is because a stone may be steep/deep and there is a need to make that stone appear to have a medium or thin girdle. Remember, the desired girdle thickness is marked. By digging the upper and lower halves, starting from the girdle out toward the poles, thinning of the girdle occurs and the cutter meets the mark. This tends to hide weight. Digging may also be referred to as gouging.

In the case of shallow diamonds (where the girdle is marked to be quite thin), the cutter may need to polish lightly, taking less from the girdle to preserve the marks and avoid thinning the girdle. This is painting. Taken too far it reduces definition of the bezel facets.

Of the two, digging is more deleterious than painting. It can hide weight and reduce performance. Poor brillianteering, whether painted or dug, will result in an inconsistent, wavy or knife-edge girdle.

The ‘buzz’

here lately is because GIA has decided to downgrade a certain level of digging or painting without analyzing the face-up appearance of the actual diamond. This can be positive for average consumers in common markets (like the mall) as they will be protected from gouging for the purpose of saving weight… Unfortunately, a small baby was thrown out with the bath water: A few brands of the most carefully finished premium diamonds are finished with the painting approach on purpose. Coupled with optical symmetry and proportions near Tolkowsky, this technique can result in some of the world's most beautiful diamonds. GIA is stereotyping that tiny percentage of premium makes, lumping them in with the larger percentage of ‘save the weight’ cases (along with other shortcuts like rounding of numbers and non-disclosure of naturals/extra facets).

Here is a link to the GIA article and relevant discussion: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-on-painting-and-digging.44382/

With premium optical symmetry, like we often see here in the Pricescope market, beauty was always the objective. It was not about saving weight. If the girdle is consistent and the painting does not hurt face-up appearance the diamond should not be downgraded.

 

[belle]

Date: 5/23/2006 11:38:00 AM
Author: Carlotta
The GIA article states that some painting/digging is actually a form of 'cheating' - retaining weight...

Also, maybe the problem is that it is difficult or even impossible for the consumer to be able to tell when a certain line is crossed and it is then 'too much.'

gia allows steep/deep stones, which is a form of retaining weight, in their new system and even calls them 'excellent'

so that is not the reason for the painting/digging blanket downgrade.

the system is flawed.

 

[Mara]

I certainly don''t object to painting!!

The system is certainly flawed. GIA allows steep deeps and gives them EX as well as other questionable stones, yet a bit of painting on a superideal gets a VG? It doesn''t matter to me since I don''t choose my diamonds based on what the certificate says on ''cut grade'', but it is pretty silly that painted stones are *automatically* given that VG grade vs an EX.

I know that painted stones are a small niche market right now but it will be interesting to see if GIA changes its tune over the next few years and refines their cut grades. I can''t imagine that a company like Eightstar is going to take something like this lying down, esp since they have some of the most precisely cut diamonds in the world, how do you command a 40% markup over B&M stores for a stone that is only GIA VG? Continue to send them to AGS thats how!

 

[belle]

i totally agree mara.
maybe i should start telling the people that stop me multiple times a day to tell me how amazing my diamond looks that gia says it''s only ''very good''

 

[kenny]

Does painting take more time?

Or does it take no more time because it is just different angles?

(I am not talking about precision or care in cutting as I''d guess that both painted or non-painted stones could be cut very precisely or sloppily.)

 

[Rhino]

Greetings all,

That is an excellent summary John. I''d like to share a slightly different perspective which I''ve made and have been hearing over the course of time we''ve been showing these types of comparisons plus some new insights I''ve been learning with the ASET regarding painted girdle diamonds, particularly in the arena of precision cut H&A type goods.

Date: 5/23/2006 11:30:57 AM
Author:kenny
For hundreds of years diamond cutting has evolved.

Painting and digging seem like just one more improvement in diamond cutting.

What do many in the industry (like GIA) have against it?

GIA actually doesn''t have anything against it. It was the observers in their study that dissed painted girdle diamonds as not being "as bright, firey or scintillating". After the observations were recorded (over 70k of them) GIA basically lumped all the diamonds into the 5 respective categories of their current system (Ex, VG, G, F and P). Of course decisions had to be made where the line was drawn regarding painting/digging and I know the folks who were involved in making these determinations. From the examples we have been able to physically see we have noted (as well as consumers in our store) these optical differences from the Ex to the VG grade. I have an upcoming video program specifically on this subject where I have recorded the differences in a couple of different lighting environments in both painted and dug out diamonds amongst stones that are cut to the highest levels of precision with the only differences being that of painting and digging and how it impacts the face up appearance.

GIA does not ding minor amounts of painting and digging especially when it does not impact face up appearance.

Over the course of the past 6 years, particularly on the Internet and diamonds forums, reflectors like the FireScope, the IdealScope plus our own invention have gained strong popularity and the general thinking on these is "more red and black ... less leakage ... the better the diamond".

The thing is this couldn''t be further from the truth in many instances. Let me expound ...

We are all taught that reds and blacks in an IS image shows us that facets are functioning as "reflectors" and this is indeed true. Red and black in ... should be red and black out. If we can see through the stone to the white behind it those represent facets functioning as *non reflectors*.

However we have discovered through observation testing that a diamond does not draw bright reflections as a result of 3 phenomena ...

1. A combination of steep/deep angles, to the point where it draws excessive leakage that the human eyes can see.
2. A combination of angles that reflects too much obstruction. These would include diamonds with what would seemingly appear to have GREAT reflector images and include many angle combinations on the HCA that score under a 2.0. Other factors go into play here too such as the focal length of the individual observer looking at the diamond. People (uaually of the younger generations) who have short focal lengths find shallow angled combinations to be too dark. This was a discovery we made at first using the Isee2. Around a year and a half ago (or perhaps 2 years ago) I had publicly stated what I considered to be a threshold angle of 40.6 degrees and the introduction of shallow/shallow combinations (as opposed to steep/deep) combos. Shallow angled diamonds reflect too much obstruction causing an unwanted darkness within a diamond and is why both GIA and AGS ding shallow angled combos. Interestingly with the release of GIA''s system 40.6 is a threshold angle they have learned through their observation testing as well.
3. Diamonds that draw light from the hemisphere or horizon (the 0-45 degree zone depicted as green in ASET) as opposed to directly from above (blue or red in ASET). If you have 2 super ideal cut diamonds and one is drawing more light from the horizon than the other which is drawing more light from above, the diamond drawing more light from the horizon will take on additional darkness resulting in less brightness.

The problem primarily lies in what people have been taught about reflectors, particularly red reflectors. Most folks are just not aware of the limitations to these devices. For example, in the minds of many folks *the elimination of all light leakage* is perceived to be a performance enhancing feature when in fact when we observe the same diamond through an ASET, the ASET suggests differently.

If there is one thing I have learned since using the ASET and Al Gilbertson''s studies with multi-colored reflectors is that knowing whether the facets are functioning as reflectors/non-reflectors as observed through red reflectors is only one piece of the puzzle. That information is incomplete in and of itself if an accurate assessment of brightness, fire & scintillation is to be determined. (just like it is with just about any other technology). No technology is an island unto itself.

What the ASET contributes is that it plainly shows the observer which diamond is drawing more light from the horizon than another. It doesn''t take a rocket scientist to see that painted girdle diamonds do indeed draw more light from the horizon than from above. Besides observing this in ASET imagery, the primary determining factor is what people see with their own eyes which actually confirms and validates what the ASET (and GIA for that matter) are teaching. Over the past year my studies have centered around 2 of these newer technologies (ASET and DiamondDock) to see if
a. what they teach and show corellate with each other (in most circumstances they do)
b. how does it corellate with the other light measuring technologies...
c. how these 2 newer technologies corellate with human observation.

Thus far I have found what the ASET teaches (in most circumstances), the DiamondDock demonstrates. This isn''t the first time we''ve drawn corellations with competing companies teaching about the same subject. In the past we demonstrated quite plainly the corellations between red reflectors and BrillianceScope results even though they are 2 competing technologies.

Below are graphics demonstrating what I''m talking about. The diamond on the right is a painted stone with superior craftsmanship alongside a non painted stone with equally precise craftsmanship. If one were strictly looking at the red reflector images one could conclude that the elimination of all leakage = performance enhancing. However once you view the ASET''s of the same identical stones you can easily see that the painted girdle diamond is drawing more light from the horizon is indicated by the presence of more greens in the upper half region.

The ASET shows it in a critical exam... the DiamondDock demonstrates it in a practical exam (as well as other common lighting environments depicting brightness).

It begs the question ... how much light can be drawn from the horizon before it starts negatively impacting face up appearance?

Answer: Let the consumer decide, if indeed they want to consider painted girdle diamonds in their selection criteria.

So far from what I have read and physically seen regarding GIA''s outlines for what they ding and don''t ding I like what they have laid out. Stones that get dinged do differ in appearance that we are able to note. This has been our experience so far. I have also seen painted stones wherein the painting was slight ... these stones would not get dinged which agrees with the chart that GIA published on the subject not long ago.

What we must be careful to differentiate is the difference between craftsmanship (resulting in precision cutting) vs light performance that can be assessed with the human eyes (observation testing/direct assessment) because the 2 should not be confused and rightfully so because you can have have a sloppily cut diamond be brighter in appearance than a precision cut diamond.

In closing ...

If you are an individual who has a preference towards stones with painted girdles and you''ve seen and compared them and prefer them ... then you should buy them. I have and would sell them if indeed that is what a person wants and prefers and we do stock a few. I am for individual''s getting what pleases their eyes most. Personally ... they are not my favorites and these aren''t the only type of stones we sell that don''t make Ex grade. My inventory has reflected my conviction about this over the course of years and is no secret. This is why GIA''s studies come as no surprise here, at least to me. I understand that folks do not understand GIA''s system, especially if they do have a preference towards these stones, however just because people have a preference towards a particular cutting style does not mean GIA is wrong. There is a certain segment of people who prefer shallow angled diamonds which take hits in both GIA and AGS systems. These folks may not comprehend why such stones take dings in both their systems and may criticize them for it, however it does not make GIA and AGS wrong because of this segments personal preference. Same could be said for older cuts which wouldn''t make Ex grade.

The system is here, it''s in place ... yes changes may be made over time to fine tune it but instead of throwing rocks at things we may not fully understand just yet my advice is to study it, learn it, teach it and educate consumers about it. I understand that major Japanese laboratories (including AGL, Zenhokyo, etc.)have also adopted the new GIA cut grading system into their own so their research gemologist''s must also see validity to the logic & science behind it as well.

Anyhow ... this is my perspective after purchasing the materials used for determing the new grades (both GIA and AGS) and studying to death all the material I have had the time to on these subjects as well as talking personally with the research gemologists in both laboratories and viewing a good variety of subject diamonds.

So Kenny... my quick and short answer to your threads question "Why would anyone object to painting?" is...

"Because it contributes to a decrease in optical characteristics once certain thresholds are met in both painting and digging which can be explained and seen in technologies released by both major laboratories and agree with human observation testing conducted on both small scale (by lil guys like me) and on a much grander scale such as GIA has done."

To some the differences aren''t that drastic and in some lighting environemtns its tough to see too, but to others its enough to cause them to decide against it. Each person is different and brings different elements to the observational playing field (body size, focal length, lighting in which the exam is done in etc.) which may cause them to choose one way or the other.

Hope this helps.

Peace,

 

[Excoriator]

If you have 2 super ideal cut diamonds and one is drawing more light from the horizon than the other which is drawing more light from above, the diamond drawing more light from the horizon will take on additional darkness resulting in less brightness.

Why would added horizon light cause a diamond to appear darker? What is the math behind this? Not trying to challenge, just trying to understand.

Also,

It doesn''t take a rocket scientist to see that painted girdle diamonds do indeed draw more light from the horizon than from above

I don''t see why... Could you please explain?

 

[WinkHPD]

Rhino, I just can''t buy into it. I got out my EightStars and I got out my Infinity diamonds and I looked at them side by side, comparable size to comparable size, and I just can not see this darkness that you talk about.

I put them on the ASET and I agree that the EightStar does in fact draw more green than the Infinity, but I can not see any darkness. I tried it with my spots on, and with my spots off in fluorescent lighting like a typical office. Two gorgeous diamonds, without doubt. One painted, one not, but not a bit of darkness around the edges could I find.

I showed them to four random people, two could not make a decision which was better than the other and one like the painted stone, one the none painted stone, neither could say exactly why. Gotta confess, it is pretty hard to tell them apart and I am good at it. I am afraid I am just going to have to dissagree with you, and GIA, on this. I think they are wrong. The rest of the world may think they are right, but heck, just call me stubborn, I think they are wrong.

Wink

P.S. I still respect you in the morning, and I like the three pictures that you put up side by side, but man, I just can''t buy into it...

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 5/23/2006 5:49:15 PM
Author: Excoriator

If you have 2 super ideal cut diamonds and one is drawing more light from the horizon than the other which is drawing more light from above, the diamond drawing more light from the horizon will take on additional darkness resulting in less brightness.

Why would added horizon light cause a diamond to appear darker? What is the math behind this? Not trying to challenge, just trying to understand.

Also,

It doesn''t take a rocket scientist to see that painted girdle diamonds do indeed draw more light from the horizon than from above

I don''t see why... Could you please explain?

The horizon light is the light from 0 to 45 degrees, it is normally ambient light or reflected light and is less intense than the overhead light that we get from 45-75 degrees, such as sunlight or overhead lighting. The blue, contrast, is from the head shadow at 75-90 degrees.

Wink

P.S. This photo should illustrate it a little better, it is from the AGS tutorial that they put out last year.

 

[Mara]

i didn't even read the whole latest chapter, rhino, but i will say that when you posted those images, my absolute first thought was wow the one on the right looks way better than the left. and voila, that is the painted stone. guess it's a good thing i own three of them since i obviously tend to prefer that just from the images.

 

[dhog]

Date: 5/23/2006 7:07:55 PM
Author: Mara
i didn''t even read the whole latest chapter, rhino, but i will say that when you posted those images, my absolute first thought was wow the one on the right looks way better than the left. and voila, that is the painted stone. guess it''s a good thing i own three of them since i obviously tend to prefer that just from the images.

I agree on the stone on the right as I have five of
these painted stones. Maybe the dark spots are full of colored
light that the eye is not able to detect or a camera lens can
capture at long ranges. Out west here in wine country we prefer
fire during wine tasting events. I did a quick airbrush job on these
4 stones and then did a close up with ultra high intensity cathode ray tubes to get these effects in broad daylight with no background
to effect the outcome of these stones.

 

[belle]

Date: 5/23/2006 7:32:40 PM
Author: dhog

Date: 5/23/2006 7:07:55 PM
Author: Mara
i didn''t even read the whole latest chapter, rhino, but i will say that when you posted those images, my absolute first thought was wow the one on the right looks way better than the left. and voila, that is the painted stone. guess it''s a good thing i own three of them since i obviously tend to prefer that just from the images.

I agree on the stone on the right as I have five of
these painted stones. Maybe the dark spots are full of colored
light that the eye is not able to detect or a camera lens can
capture at long ranges. Out west here in wine country we prefer
fire during wine tasting events. I did a quick airbrush job on these
4 stones and then did a close up with ultra high intensity cathode ray tubes to get these effects in broad daylight with no background
to effect the outcome of these stones.

hahahhaha...i was thinkng that too!
i have 5 painted diamonds that i get complements on literally everyday.
maybe we should start a ''show me your painted diamonds'' thread so we can get all of these beauties in one place.

 

[strmrdr]

"Why would anyone object to painting?"

Because I don''t care for the looks of diamonds with painting that I have seen in person.
If someone else likes em that''s kewl :}
What ever floats their boats.

Should diamonds get downgraded for minor painting?
If everything else is spot on nope they shouldn''t.
That doesn''t mean id buy em however.

 

[Mara]

storm, ACA and Eightstar are the two consistently painted girdle brands that we hear about on here, did you buy one, or have one sent to you for viewing? if so, you have been keeping it under wraps!! spill!

 

[strmrdr]

its been a while but iv seen 8* and ags0 diamonds with great angles, painted girdles and nice h&a in person.
Haven''t had the opportunity to check out the new line ACA''s in person yet.
Am I expecting anything from them I haven''t seen,,,not really but someday ill find out for sure hopefully.
.....

The biggest difference is when they are moved but even still they didnt appeal to me.
Just my preference.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This subject is far more complex than anyone has the current capacity to solve with a parametric approach.

For instance the upper stone in this image - I have painted both the top and bottom of this stone that has a deep pavilion and improved its performance - it would even look better under GIA''s DD lighting (not that means much to anyone other than Jonathon and Storm).

AGS might for example find this stone has moved from an AGS3/4 to AGS 1/2

 

[belle]

Date: 5/23/2006 8:10:30 PM
Author: strmrdr

its been a while but iv seen 8* and ags0 diamonds with great angles, painted girdles and nice h&a in person.

it''s been awhile since you''ve seen 8* or the painted ags0''s, or both?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/23/2006 8:18:01 PM
Author: belle

Date: 5/23/2006 8:10:30 PM

Author: strmrdr


its been a while but iv seen 8* and ags0 diamonds with great angles, painted girdles and nice h&a in person.

it''s been awhile since you''ve seen 8* or the painted ags0''s, or both?

its been a while for both.
They arent very common around here, any kind of well cut diamond is very uncommon localy to me.

 

[belle]

Date: 5/23/2006 8:27:13 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/23/2006 8:18:01 PM
Author: belle

Date: 5/23/2006 8:10:30 PM

Author: strmrdr


its been a while but iv seen 8* and ags0 diamonds with great angles, painted girdles and nice h&a in person.

it''s been awhile since you''ve seen 8* or the painted ags0''s, or both?

its been a while for both.
They arent very common around here, any kind of well cut diamond is very uncommon localy to me.

that is what i was thinking...well cut diamonds aren''t very common locally to many people. how did you know the diamonds were painted?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/23/2006 6:58:22 PM
Author: Wink

Rhino, I just can't buy into it. I got out my EightStars and I got out my Infinity diamonds and I looked at them side by side, comparable size to comparable size, and I just can not see this darkness that you talk about.

I put them on the ASET and I agree that the EightStar does in fact draw more green than the Infinity, but I can not see any darkness. I tried it with my spots on, and with my spots off in fluorescent lighting like a typical office. Two gorgeous diamonds, without doubt. One painted, one not, but not a bit of darkness around the edges could I find.

I showed them to four random people, two could not make a decision which was better than the other and one like the painted stone, one the none painted stone, neither could say exactly why. Gotta confess, it is pretty hard to tell them apart and I am good at it. I am afraid I am just going to have to dissagree with you, and GIA, on this. I think they are wrong. The rest of the world may think they are right, but heck, just call me stubborn, I think they are wrong.

We did this too, Wink, precisely because of this late PS 'buzz' about painted diamonds.

Earlier this month we conducted a completely non-scientific ACA 'taste test' with 4 visitors (3 are regular Pricescopers). We lined up 6 diamonds of comparable size, color and proportions on a black tray. Each person carried the tray, individually, under fluorescent lighting, under indirect lighting - beneath a desk - and under bright LED spotlighting. After observing the diamonds through these conditions we asked the holder to identify her favorite 2 and least favorite 2 diamonds of the 6 - with no collaboration.

The Results: Nothing conclusive. 2 ACA New Lines (painted) were mixed in with 4 ACA Classics. Favorites and least favorites varied from person to person and no one selected the 2 painted diamonds as 2 most favorite or 2 least favorite. 3 selected one of the 6 diamonds as a least favorite, but it was not one that was painted.

Diamonds that got ‘favorite’ votes: 1,2,4,5,6
Diamonds that got ‘least favorite’ votes: 1,2,4,6

This was a non-scientific taste test with bling, a black tray and bubbly girls - performed for amusement - but it underscores what we have observed in our offices over many years and thousands of client viewings. It also agrees with the AGS, since all of these diamonds earned the 0 grade in light performance.

 

[^]

edit: nm

 

[hlmr]

This is all new to me. Is it possible to find out if a particular diamond has been painted or is this something that is not necessarily documented?

Thanks.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/23/2006 7:07:55 PM
Author: Mara
i didn''t even read the whole latest chapter, rhino, but i will say that when you posted those images, my absolute first thought was wow the one on the right looks way better than the left. and voila, that is the painted stone. guess it''s a good thing i own three of them since i obviously tend to prefer that just from the images.

That''s cool Mara. When we show clients comparison''s, whether its this or H&A vs Eighternity, Eighternity vs Solasfera, etc. etc. etc. our suggestion on what they should purchase is always to select what pleases their eyes most. When showing clients via pictures ... pictures are good but now I kinda like video as you get to see it rocking and in multiple tilt positions but one of the weakness of photo and video is it''s monocular and not stereo. It does give a very good idea though.

Hey Wink!

It''s all cool with us man. As I said to you in another thread ... we share the passion and I respect your opinion as I do Garry''s for shallow combos (which I also share).

Heck I''m going on 22 years of marriage and we don''t agree on everything yet have an awesome relationship. Surely I can have friends in the biz without having to agree on every minutae of detail on every issue too.

Just thought I''d share my perspective into these matters. It is ok for us to disagree. I don''t think any less of you Wink.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Hi Excoriator,

Wink has generally answered the question I'm just going to expound slightly with another graphic from AGS presentation on the ASET and the interpretation of the colors.

Date: 5/23/2006 5:49:15 PM
Author: Excoriator

If you have 2 super ideal cut diamonds and one is drawing more light from the horizon than the other which is drawing more light from above, the diamond drawing more light from the horizon will take on additional darkness resulting in less brightness.

Why would added horizon light cause a diamond to appear darker? What is the math behind this? Not trying to challenge, just trying to understand.

Questions are good. Even challenges are good.

They demand the one answering to thoroughly research their subject. Generally, but not always light from the horizon is of a weak intensity and oftentimes on par with the effects of light leakage. It is generally reflected light (like off of walls) and only a fraction of the intensity one would get from bright overhead lighting. This attached graphic is AGS comments regarding the green observed in ASET.

Exceptions to this rule would be ...

a. Observing the diamond in the face up position during a sunset (then strong light is entering from the horizon). I happened to videotape a painted girdle diamond during a sunset in this position and the difference in appearance is quite notable.
b. If the diamond is worn and observed in such a fashion that strong overhead light is entering from the sides (like in earrings or pendants).

So if a person were looking at 2 diamonds ASET images and one denotes more greens than the other (as in the case of the 2 ASET images I posted), if they are going to choose for the stone with more green, my advice to them would be to compare it to the stone exhibiting more red. If you see the difference (as thousands have reported) and prefer the stone with the more red that's what you should buy and generally reflects my counsel in most circumstances. If you prefer the stone exhibiting more green then that is the stone you should buy.

Also,

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that painted girdle diamonds do indeed draw more light from the horizon than from above

I don't see why... Could you please explain?

Sure. If you look at the 2 ASET images I posted, the diamond on the right (the painted girdle diamond) displays a greater saturation of green around the perimeter (or upper girdle region). If you look carefully at the photograph of the 2 diamonds below the ASET images you will note a greater amount of darkness precisely where that green exists in the ASET. A pretty fascinating corellation between the 2 labs technologies I think. Hope that helps.

Regards,

 

[Mara]

heather, girl, where have you been?? this is just one of the nine hundred million threads on painted girdles...hehe.

but the jist is that you can tell if a stone is painted if the light return on the IS is all black and red with no white light leakage on the edges; but if it has leakage along the edges it's typically not painted. WF's ACA line is some painted and some classic (not painted) as are Eightstars.

 

[hlmr]

Date: 5/23/2006 10:07:38 PM
Author: Mara
heather, girl, where have you been?? this is just one of the nine hundred million threads on painted girdles...hehe.

but the jist is that you can tell if a stone is painted if the light return on the IS is all black and red with no white light leakage on the edges; but if it has leakage along the edges it''s typically not painted. WF''s ACA line is some painted and some classic (not painted) as are Eightstars.

Thanks for the info Mara....I honestly can say I have missed the boat on this topic.

Must go and educate myself.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/23/2006 6:58:22 PM
Author: Wink

Rhino, I just can''t buy into it. I got out my EightStars and I got out my Infinity diamonds and I looked at them side by side, comparable size to comparable size, and I just can not see this darkness that you talk about.

I put them on the ASET and I agree that the EightStar does in fact draw more green than the Infinity, but I can not see any darkness. I tried it with my spots on, and with my spots off in fluorescent lighting like a typical office. Two gorgeous diamonds, without doubt. One painted, one not, but not a bit of darkness around the edges could I find.

I showed them to four random people, two could not make a decision which was better than the other and one like the painted stone, one the none painted stone, neither could say exactly why. Gotta confess, it is pretty hard to tell them apart and I am good at it. I am afraid I am just going to have to dissagree with you, and GIA, on this. I think they are wrong. The rest of the world may think they are right, but heck, just call me stubborn, I think they are wrong.

Wink you should know better than to look at diamonds in normal lighting.

The only way to know for sure is to buy a GIA Diamond Dock and then you will see just how bad your 8*''s look.

Really - sometimes Wink, you really disapoint me!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/23/2006 10:50:26 PM
Author: hlmr

Thanks for the info Mara....I honestly can say I have missed the boat on this topic.

Must go and educate myself.

hlmr, you haven''t missed a boat - you''re seeing a few sailors arguing about knots. Go into several jewelry stores in your area and ask about painting. I wager not many salespeople will even know what you are talking about, much less the variables we are slicing and dicing here.

If you want to delve into a ''boatload'' of GIA grading semantics (case study here), look up issues like the many discussed here if you''re interested).

Pop some popcorn and enjoy.