Why would anyone object to painting?

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/26/2006 1:50:22 PM
Author: Rhino

I gave that model to Sergey on that thread when I had posted a picture of a painted vs non painted wherein I could easily see the difference when I was sitting on my porch in the shade and Sergey asked me specifically for the models of the 2 stones in that particular photograph. Sorry if there was any confusion there John.

Ok, there were several examples flying around. I posted results for the porch stone it seems (which was over 7 degrees). I'll download the other one and work it up tonight, or on the plane tomorrow. Thanks for posting it again.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/26/2006 3:16:23 PM
Author: Rhino

Regarding this statement: 'Overall configuration and optical symmetry change the playing field: Diamonds cut near Tolkowsky proportions with good OS can perform their best even when painted to a large degree...'

My question would be how many painted girdle diamonds have you compared side by side that meet the GIA VG or G grade that have common optical symmetry and ideal optical symmetry that cause you to make such a statement? Could you provide us with an example(s)? A photograph of the 2 in diffuse daylight would be sufficient to make the comparison and see the greater amount of darkness in the ideal with common OS. I am finding that OS does not improve the appearance of painting and digging but perhaps I am wrong. If you could provide a photograph of 2 and the data (Gem files ok) I'd be interested to see what comparisons have led you to that conclusion because both GIA and AGS said OS has no bearing on the overall cut grade/appearance.

I think some of us have discussed before, at least in part, but it's never a dull subject.

Premium painted diamonds I'm experienced with - examples with great optical symmetry - have more brightness & less dispersion the closer you get, but at farther distances you see larger flashes of dispersion/broad-flash fire. Close up contrast, again, with good OS, is wonderful. Experts are finding that it may be more appropriate to say the quality of scintillation influences your ability to see fire (or not). If the ‘virtual’ facets - reflections and double reflections, etc. - are too small, you may see more white sparkle and not fire. This makes sense. The opposite would be old European cuts with large facets where you will see abundant fire and not so much white scintillation.

Relative to all of this, the optical symmetry theories being discussed by experts are fantastic. Marty has made notes along the same lines here: If you get a ray of light in and out of a diamond faster it doesn’t lose energy and the dispersion won’t mix with the fresnel (secondary) reflections so much. This may result in purer spectral hues and more energy leaving the diamond. It makes sense when you consider the notable ability to see broad-flash fire from far away in diamonds with certain configurations plus high levels of optical symmetry. The longer the ray stays inside the stone the more the colors mix and more energy is lost so you see less pure hues. This would explain why dispersion in diamonds with poor optical symmetry sometimes takes on a muddy look.

All of this meshes with what some notable cutters and scientists have been musing for some time.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/30/2006 12:26:34 PM
Author: Rhino

...Now let me share a perspective that has not yet been discussed regarding this issue and I share this speaking strictly from a businessman's perspective.

I can tell you for a fact that the diamonds currently mainting the highest market value are those that attain the highest cut grading in both systems. Down the road, even if a layman can not see the differences from one stone to the next (painted, dug or classical) the current scheme of things is that the diamond being disqualified from the GIA Ex grade will not be in higher demand and will not fetch the highest value. How do I know? I'm on the front lines everyday here and when I am showing a consumer the details of cut and they see features disqualifying a stone from GIA's Ex grade, their first question to me generally is how much will I save by going to the GIA VG instead of a GIA Ex? If I tell them none, guess what their decision will be 99.9% of the time even if they see no difference? Do you understand my point? They (the consumer) would really have to then strongly prefer the painted girdle diamond over the classical girdle in order to pay the same premium and any businessman with common sense will tell you that is a harder sell regardless of any individual industry professional's personal preference.

Hmm. I don’t know Rhino. This sounds a lot like ‘sell the paper not the stone.’

Following this logic (le market value de jour) would you be willing to locate and compensate those who purchased Eightstar from you for a perceived 'loss'? When the current GIA system undergoes a future revision will you restock your inventory according to their new parameters and stop selling what you're selling now? Do you see the disconnect?

I see beauty as a constant. Diamonds that were premium in beauty to me yesterday still appear just as beautiful today. They don’t change due to a trade-based study, especially one with so many kinks.

For that matter who can say that AGS will not be the preeminent lab of the future? If that happens what would you say to those you steered away from AGS 0 diamonds because of your present hunch about GIA paper futures?

(insert stock market ticker sound...)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

At the airport now - more time.
Rhino it is apparent to me that you orientated this stone and took the photo standing and looking from a different position that you and I have always used.

I can only suspect fould play - you are going out of your way to be devious or dumb.

Why are you doing this?

In this image you can see that the ray trace will just miss the light source and the very center of the stone will not have a bright spot. Most other images have this bright spot in the stone center. If the stone was tilted to a normal seated viewing angle then the bright spot would appear.

Secondly - your image has the stars illuminated - this only happens in steep deep stones - and is another proof that your image is not normal.

Thirdly you did not orient the 2 stones the same way - and I now know that this can make a very big difference in DD results (as Marty can explain with his ray tracing system).

So do the expreiment properly.

And please move this part of the discussion away to the other thread when you do it properly to where I asked you to discuss the issue - this is off topic here.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/30/2006 4:07:21 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Well done Jonathon - you cheated.
You did not take that photo at a normal viewing position.
No cigar, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Pleas retake the photo from the normal viewing distance - and also post the DiamCalc / GA model of the diamond you have chosen to photograph.

Sorry Garry. I did indeed take the photo from my normal viewing distance.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/31/2006 12:04:22 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/30/2006 4:07:21 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Well done Jonathon - you cheated.
You did not take that photo at a normal viewing position.
No cigar, go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

Pleas retake the photo from the normal viewing distance - and also post the DiamCalc / GA model of the diamond you have chosen to photograph.

Sorry Garry. I did indeed take the photo from my normal viewing distance.

Post the gem adviser.
I can not recieve or send emails at present.

The angle is not from the seated position - it is much higher and would make shallow stones look better and steep deep excellents stones look not as good.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/30/2006 4:58:21 PM
Author: adamasgem

Jonathan:

I don''t think that your ''picture'' versus Garry''s rendering makes a valid comparison.

Technically, unless you have the diamond oriented in the EXACT SAME WAY relative to the KittyDock(TM), as the assymetric diamond, you can litterally get any picture you want. The errored scans of the diamond also invalidate your thesis with a comparison that Garry is ''wrong''. A tiny fraction of a degree can make all the difference in the world, especially in an assymetric lighting envirionment like the KittyDock(TM). Your pictre doesn''t demonstarte your thesis. It is like comparing apples and oranges..

Hi Marty,

Since diamonds appear differently as they are tilted, etc. I hear where you are coming from.

The comparison I was simply noting was the DDlighting model that Garry was presenting as "accurate DD lighting" and comparing it to what I actually see. Since I own it, it is easy for me to make the comparison and it fails miserably. If a person makes a lighting model in DC and says "This is how it looks in "x" environment, if one owns or observes a diamond in that environment one can easily see or tell if the model created does in fact simulate that environment. Garry''s definitely does not.

Does it have corellations to domes with 46 degree hemisphere''s and is there a corellation to that view with actual viewing? At this point all I''m saying is "I don''t know." I haven''t sat and created the amount of domes that GIA used in their study, perhaps eventually I will and I''ll see if I note any corellations at that time. For now, I care about what my eyes see and that of our clients.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/30/2006 6:08:25 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/26/2006 1:50:22 PM
Author: Rhino

I gave that model to Sergey on that thread when I had posted a picture of a painted vs non painted wherein I could easily see the difference when I was sitting on my porch in the shade and Sergey asked me specifically for the models of the 2 stones in that particular photograph. Sorry if there was any confusion there John.

Ok, there were several examples flying around. I posted results for the porch stone it seems (which was over 7 degrees). I''ll download the other one and work it up tonight, or on the plane tomorrow. Thanks for posting it again.

No problem and its a pleasure to oblige.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/30/2006 5:45:34 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


Actually you make complete sense, and not just because of UV. In fact, it swerves us back to the topic of this thread:

Whether you agree with GIA’s approach or not there is great variability amongst diamonds that are painted, and not all are visibly notable differences.

John, you are aware that I agree with this statement correct?

Date: 5/30/2006 5:45:34 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


As sellers on the internet, we must represent face-up color and clarity for our clients accurately and responsibly or we will not last long. The same applies to brillianteering. One of the sticking points here is that is seems like people are trying to predict how diamonds they have never seen are performing, even without knowing the variables.

Worthy of its own topic.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/painting-stop-the-madness.45914/

Who makes such a claim? I have stated rather clearly right in this thread that not all painting is visible and have even linked to GIA''s charts for what they consider.

On a personal level, with the various degrees of painting that I have been able to examine, when I do know the variables/details I know wherein I can see the differences in face up appearance.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/31/2006 12:14:50 PM
Author: Rhino

The comparison I was simply noting was the DDlighting model that Garry was presenting as ''accurate DD lighting'' and comparing it to what I actually see.

I never used accurate Heir Demagog.
I siad it was a best approximation using the lighting constraints within DiamCalc (5 circular rather than 2 strips).

Here is a map from the top down showing the lighting based on a person seated infrom of DD with their eyes at a height just below the top of the DD and seated with the DD about 8 inches from the edge of the desk.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/30/2006 6:13:13 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/26/2006 3:16:23 PM
Author: Rhino

Regarding this statement: ''Overall configuration and optical symmetry change the playing field: Diamonds cut near Tolkowsky proportions with good OS can perform their best even when painted to a large degree...''

My question would be how many painted girdle diamonds have you compared side by side that meet the GIA VG or G grade that have common optical symmetry and ideal optical symmetry that cause you to make such a statement? Could you provide us with an example(s)? A photograph of the 2 in diffuse daylight would be sufficient to make the comparison and see the greater amount of darkness in the ideal with common OS. I am finding that OS does not improve the appearance of painting and digging but perhaps I am wrong. If you could provide a photograph of 2 and the data (Gem files ok) I''d be interested to see what comparisons have led you to that conclusion because both GIA and AGS said OS has no bearing on the overall cut grade/appearance.

I think some of us have discussed before, at least in part, but it''s never a dull subject.

I agree.

John, I love discussing diamonds. I prefer that no company names or individuals are not mentioned because then people take it personal. I realize it is difficult for individuals not to take it personal when discussing these issues but as I have told friends in email and here on the forum ... when I discuss certain features about a diamond I am not targeting any company, manufacturer or individual. I am targeting the subject at hand period. The subject of this thread is the question posed by the original poster and I have made every attempt to stick to that topic. You will not find me veering off the beaten path here and if I did, would stand corrected and readily apologize. As I stated previously in this thread, all I am asking is that I can share my own professional opinion on the subject and not get attacked for it. That''s all. Is that a fair request?

Date: 5/30/2006 6:13:13 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Premium painted diamonds I''m experienced with - examples with great optical symmetry -

Same here. I have not personally seen painted stones with common/chaotic optical symmetry which is why I raised the question. I try to be careful about making conclusive statements if I have not made the comparisons I am commenting about.

have more brightness & less dispersion the closer you get, but at farther distances you see larger flashes of dispersion/broad-flash fire. Close up contrast, again, with good OS, is wonderful. Experts are finding that it may be more appropriate to say the quality of scintillation influences your ability to see fire (or not). If the ‘virtual’ facets - reflections and double reflections, etc. - are too small, you may see more white sparkle and not fire. This makes sense. The opposite would be old European cuts with large facets where you will see abundant fire and not so much white scintillation.

By white scintillation I''m taking that to mean the smaller flashes as opposed to the larger ones. I hear you on this. My own personal preference on this matter, regarding appearance of diamond in spot lighting environments are those that exhibit both broad flash with a nice mix of pin flash.

Relative to all of this, the optical symmetry theories being discussed by experts are fantastic. Marty has made notes along the same lines here: If you get a ray of light in and out of a diamond faster it doesn’t lose energy and the dispersion won’t mix with the fresnel (secondary) reflections so much. This may result in purer spectral hues and more energy leaving the diamond. It makes sense when you consider the notable ability to see broad-flash fire from far away in diamonds with certain configurations plus high levels of optical symmetry. The longer the ray stays inside the stone the more the colors mix and more energy is lost so you see less pure hues. This would explain why dispersion in diamonds with poor optical symmetry sometimes takes on a muddy look.

All of this meshes with what some notable cutters and scientists have been musing for some time.

No arguements here. I share your opinion on this matter.

Peace,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/31/2006 12:14:50 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/30/2006 4:58:21 PM
Author: adamasgem

Jonathan:

I don''t think that your ''picture'' versus Garry''s rendering makes a valid comparison.

Technically, unless you have the diamond oriented in the EXACT SAME WAY relative to the KittyDock(TM), as the assymetric diamond, you can litterally get any picture you want. The errored scans of the diamond also invalidate your thesis with a comparison that Garry is ''wrong''. A tiny fraction of a degree can make all the difference in the world, especially in an assymetric lighting envirionment like the KittyDock(TM). Your pictre doesn''t demonstarte your thesis. It is like comparing apples and oranges..

Hi Marty,

Since diamonds appear differently as they are tilted, etc. I hear where you are coming from.

The comparison I was simply noting was the DDlighting model that Garry was presenting as ''accurate DD lighting'' and comparing it to what I actually see. Since I own it, it is easy for me to make the comparison and it fails miserably. If a person makes a lighting model in DC and says ''This is how it looks in ''x'' environment, if one owns or observes a diamond in that environment one can easily see or tell if the model created does in fact simulate that environment. Garry''s definitely does not.

Does it have corellations to domes with 46 degree hemisphere''s and is there a corellation to that view with actual viewing? At this point all I''m saying is ''I don''t know.'' I haven''t sat and created the amount of domes that GIA used in their study, perhaps eventually I will and I''ll see if I note any corellations at that time. For now, I care about what my eyes see and that of our clients.

Peace,

I would suggest STRONGLY that it is NOT EASY to make a ONE TO ONE comparison, the way you so simplistically want to do it. Obviously you don''t understand the problem.

Why don''t you take the DiamondCalc model and tilt the stone 1 degree.. Or rotate the stone about the table 1 degree if you have an accurate SCAN on a stone. The PROBLEM WITH YOUR COMPARISON will be iimmediately noticable in an assymetric lighting envirionment.

Also, given the nature of the open front KittyDock(TM), it is virtually impossible for to define (and model) all factors for a particular setup unless you use the technique of using a fisheye photograph to "define" the envirionment, like what Sergey showed in Orlando.

In a closed system, you have a much better chance to get a one to one comparison like you are so desparately trying to do to disprove Garry, at even at that the errors in the scans can throw a SINGLE "photograph/model" substantailly off.

You are wasting yours and other people''s time with this Rhino, and throwing confusion vectors randomly.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/30/2006 6:24:13 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/30/2006 12:26:34 PM
Author: Rhino

...Now let me share a perspective that has not yet been discussed regarding this issue and I share this speaking strictly from a businessman''s perspective.

I can tell you for a fact that the diamonds currently mainting the highest market value are those that attain the highest cut grading in both systems. Down the road, even if a layman can not see the differences from one stone to the next (painted, dug or classical) the current scheme of things is that the diamond being disqualified from the GIA Ex grade will not be in higher demand and will not fetch the highest value. How do I know? I''m on the front lines everyday here and when I am showing a consumer the details of cut and they see features disqualifying a stone from GIA''s Ex grade, their first question to me generally is how much will I save by going to the GIA VG instead of a GIA Ex? If I tell them none, guess what their decision will be 99.9% of the time even if they see no difference? Do you understand my point? They (the consumer) would really have to then strongly prefer the painted girdle diamond over the classical girdle in order to pay the same premium and any businessman with common sense will tell you that is a harder sell regardless of any individual industry professional''s personal preference.

Hmm. I don’t know Rhino. This sounds a lot like ‘sell the paper not the stone.’

Yes it does sound like that and while I am a strong advocate of people seeing what they''re getting, there are many folks on the net who are indeed purchasing by paper/photography. Think about how many clients you help that will not look at anything less than AGS "0" or GIA "Ex" grades? That is a decision they have made based on only one thing. Paper.

Following this logic (le market value de jour) would you be willing to locate and compensate those who purchased Eightstar from you for a perceived ''loss''? When the current GIA system undergoes a future revision will you restock your inventory according to their new parameters and stop selling what you''re selling now? Do you see the disconnect?

I see where you''re headed with this and let me state rather emphatically that any diamond we back with our lifetime guarantee we stand behind completely even if it runs counter to any particular labs research or my own opinion. If a person purchased a diamond from us (painted, dug out, etc.) and they wanted to trade that stone back in for a diamond that does not feature that type of girdle cutting, they''ll get full value for what they paid according to our policies. This is one of the primary differnces regarding the research that''s being discussed as well. It is easy for a person to make claims etc. about a subject and have sincere convictions about it. When I do it however, I have hundreds of thousands of dollars on the line so I try to be as careful as possible about what I back at any given time.

If a non-seller of diamonds makes a claim about particular proportion combos and people make financial decisions based on that opinion and that opinion is later found to be faulty, that person making the claim loses nothing. The HCA is a perfect example and there are and have been many proportion combos that even folks on this forum have called "ideal" which wouldn''t stand a chance in any cut grading system. However if I do or you for that matter, we have a financial responsibility to our clients. John, I''ve made HUGE financial mistakes using reflectors alone as a tool for making purchasing decisions. This is how I discovered all the weakness in that technology that I have to date. It was a painful learning experience which I''ll never make again but no regrets.

I see beauty as a constant. Diamonds that were premium in beauty to me yesterday still appear just as beautiful today. They don’t change due to a trade-based study, especially one with so many kinks.

I agree. I see beauty as a constant as well. This does not mean I am open to the fact that there may be diamonds I or others would consider more beautiful that perhaps have not been cut yet or whose appearance I have studied or examined. My current research is introducing me to such and the journey is indeed exciting.

Date: 5/30/2006 6:24:13 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

For that matter who can say that AGS will not be the preeminent lab of the future? If that happens what would you say to those you steered away from AGS 0 diamonds because of your present hunch about GIA paper futures?

(insert stock market ticker sound...)

I haven''t steered anyone away from AGS ideal diamonds that do not also make the GIA Ex grade. My consistent and general counsel on this subject has been for the public who are considering diamonds via the net to seek out stones that meet the criteria for top grades in both labs. That IMO is the safest bet and an appraiser who has the right tools for the job can make this determination if they take the time to study the elements comprising the cut grades in both systems. If they veer off that path then my counsel is to see and compare before making a huge financial decision. While GIA is the preeminent lab, it honestly makes no difference to me because I prescreen all stones to ensure they''d get top grades in both systems. I sincerely have no favorite with regards to the GIA/AGS. I respect them both and while I have my criticisms of each system, at the end of the day, after having communicated thoroughly with research gemologists in both labs believe that they both, at heart have the best interests of the consumers in mind.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/30/2006 6:49:09 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
At the airport now - more time.
Rhino it is apparent to me that you orientated this stone and took the photo standing and looking from a different position that you and I have always used.

Hi Garry,

Hope you have a great time on your trip mate. I don''t recall ever discussing with you how I view a diamond but let me take this opportunity to clarify. My personal focal length is about a half an arms to 3/4 of an arms length in distance. Roughly about 13-14" or so. When I view a diamond I do not position my head 90 degrees above the floor looking down onto the diamond. I stand in a normal posture and I tilt the face of the diamond towards my eyes as well as rocking/tilting as well. Basically just like most people look at diamonds when we are showing them.

I can only suspect fould play - you are going out of your way to be devious or dumb.

Why are you doing this?

In the years we have been communicating mate, when have you ever found me employing foul play? I''ve always spoken openly and honestly and as long as I live I''d rather die than violate my conscience and my convictions. I had hoped you knew this about me.

In this image you can see that the ray trace will just miss the light source and the very center of the stone will not have a bright spot. Most other images have this bright spot in the stone center. If the stone was tilted to a normal seated viewing angle then the bright spot would appear.

Secondly - your image has the stars illuminated - this only happens in steep deep stones - and is another proof that your image is not normal.

Thirdly you did not orient the 2 stones the same way - and I now know that this can make a very big difference in DD results (as Marty can explain with his ray tracing system).

So do the expreiment properly.

And please move this part of the discussion away to the other thread when you do it properly to where I asked you to discuss the issue - this is off topic here.

I''ll check the link and resurface that thread if you like. I''ll try tilting the diamond in the model to the normal viewing direction I use. Perhaps that''ll change things? I''ll let you know.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/31/2006 1:41:02 PM
Author: Rhino

Hi Garry,

Hope you have a great time on your trip mate. I don''t recall ever discussing with you how I view a diamond but let me take this opportunity to clarify. My personal focal length is about a half an arms to 3/4 of an arms length in distance. Roughly about 13-14'' or so. When I view a diamond I do not position my head 90 degrees above the floor looking down onto the diamond. I stand in a normal posture and I tilt the face of the diamond towards my eyes as well as rocking/tilting as well. Basically just like most people look at diamonds when we are showing them.
Duh!!! We are talking about angles - not viewing distance Duh!!!

I can only suspect fould play - you are going out of your way to be devious or dumb.

Why are you doing this?

In the years we have been communicating mate, when have you ever found me employing foul play? I''ve always spoken openly and honestly and as long as I live I''d rather die than violate my conscience and my convictions. I had hoped you knew this about me.
You have always been the most difficult person to have a discussion with Jonathon - you were with the Brillianscope, then ISEE2 etc etc. It seems to be a thing like religion with you. You rarely listen (read) and make any attempt to understand what others say.

In this image you can see that the ray trace will just miss the light source and the very center of the stone will not have a bright spot. Most other images have this bright spot in the stone center. If the stone was tilted to a normal seated viewing angle then the bright spot would appear.

Secondly - your image has the stars illuminated - this only happens in steep deep stones - and is another proof that your image is not normal.

Thirdly you did not orient the 2 stones the same way - and I now know that this can make a very big difference in DD results (as Marty can explain with his ray tracing system).

So do the expreiment properly.

And please move this part of the discussion away to the other thread when you do it properly to where I asked you to discuss the issue - this is off topic here.

I''ll check the link and resurface that thread if you like. I''ll try tilting the diamond in the model to the normal viewing direction I use. Perhaps that''ll change things? I''ll let you know. Make you photo''s from the seated postition so they look like the ones GIA published - see the photo Fig 6 on the 10th page http://www.gia.edu/pdfs/cut_fall2004.pdf this is the normal seating position that people naturally assume - it matches the diamond dealer position.

Please please please - migrate to the apprpriate thread - as I have asked you several times.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/

 

[lawmax]

Date: 5/24/2006 1:41:49 PM
Author: Rhino

Rhino is using examples of painted diamonds that don’t hold up well in his tests. Reading his posts I suspect his samples are not representative of those carried by some of the other sellers here.

To my knowledge there are only 2 factories in the world who cut painted diamonds purposely and consistently. I am intimately familar with the manufacturing from both of these factories and have in my possession painted diamonds of various degrees from both. In my survey (linked above) I used a painted stone that does not represent an extreme degree of painting yet did not qualify as a GIA Ex. This was confirmed by Sergey who analyzed the model in detail for me.

It is unlikely that thousands of consumers and analysts who love these diamonds (not just the hundreds we deal with each month) in all lighting conditions are ‘wrong.’ Further, After lifetimes of cutting I am certain if something was wrong with diamonds under the watchful eyes of Brian Gavin & Richard VS they would have changed their approaches, since they can cut their diamonds to any parameters they choose.

John ... I approached said factory to cut me what we were finding the majority of our consumers wanted. The response was refusal to change anything in their approach.

Also, while I respect both Brian and Richard their opinion remains in the extreme minority when it comes to this issue. The top cutting facilities, the rare ones who cut the worlds rarest goods primarily do not cut with either painting or digging. Pete of AGS has told me himself, if given the choice normal indexing (no painting or digging) is always preferred.

My point: The term ‘painting’ should not be tossed around like slang when there are significantly different degrees to it.

True. My advice to John Q Public is if they''re going to consider them just look at them and compare. If our observers (lots who have also reported their finding on the net) and over 70,000 observations performed during GIA''s study saw a difference there''s a good chance today''s observer will too. If not, then I''ll reiterate what I wrote previously ... but it!

If you don''t prefer it don''t!

If a person is considering them and is tossed, they should be fair to themselves and see both to make an informed choice. That''s all I''m saying.

My .02c

Peace,

So, does that highlighted bit mean that "Pete" turned in his EightStar? ROFL

 

[Rhino]

Hi Allison

Good to see you. I don't see why he would. He picked it so he must enjoy its appearance.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/31/2006 12:43:48 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/31/2006 12:14:50 PM
Author: Rhino

The comparison I was simply noting was the DDlighting model that Garry was presenting as ''accurate DD lighting'' and comparing it to what I actually see.

I never used accurate Heir Demagog.
I siad it was a best approximation using the lighting constraints within DiamCalc (5 circular rather than 2 strips).

Here is a map from the top down showing the lighting based on a person seated infrom of DD with their eyes at a height just below the top of the DD and seated with the DD about 8 inches from the edge of the desk.

Hi Garry,

I think it''s pointless whether or not I use the word "accurate" or not because if a gemologist such as you or I come on here and present information stating ... this is x or this is y, people assume it is accurate.

When I get up to the store tomorrow evening I''ll post the gem advisor and will take photography in a seated position to satisfy your curiosity (and my own) and see if there is a difference. I always stand up when making the comparisons and the photography as it represents more accuratley what I''m seeing but am happy to oblige.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/31/2006 12:58:35 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 5/31/2006 12:14:50 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/30/2006 4:58:21 PM
Author: adamasgem

Jonathan:

I don''t think that your ''picture'' versus Garry''s rendering makes a valid comparison.

Technically, unless you have the diamond oriented in the EXACT SAME WAY relative to the KittyDock(TM), as the assymetric diamond, you can litterally get any picture you want. The errored scans of the diamond also invalidate your thesis with a comparison that Garry is ''wrong''. A tiny fraction of a degree can make all the difference in the world, especially in an assymetric lighting envirionment like the KittyDock(TM). Your pictre doesn''t demonstarte your thesis. It is like comparing apples and oranges..

Hi Marty,

Since diamonds appear differently as they are tilted, etc. I hear where you are coming from.

The comparison I was simply noting was the DDlighting model that Garry was presenting as ''accurate DD lighting'' and comparing it to what I actually see. Since I own it, it is easy for me to make the comparison and it fails miserably. If a person makes a lighting model in DC and says ''This is how it looks in ''x'' environment, if one owns or observes a diamond in that environment one can easily see or tell if the model created does in fact simulate that environment. Garry''s definitely does not.

Does it have corellations to domes with 46 degree hemisphere''s and is there a corellation to that view with actual viewing? At this point all I''m saying is ''I don''t know.'' I haven''t sat and created the amount of domes that GIA used in their study, perhaps eventually I will and I''ll see if I note any corellations at that time. For now, I care about what my eyes see and that of our clients.

Peace,

I would suggest STRONGLY that it is NOT EASY to make a ONE TO ONE comparison, the way you so simplistically want to do it. Obviously you don''t understand the problem.

Why don''t you take the DiamondCalc model and tilt the stone 1 degree.. Or rotate the stone about the table 1 degree if you have an accurate SCAN on a stone. The PROBLEM WITH YOUR COMPARISON will be iimmediately noticable in an assymetric lighting envirionment.

Also, given the nature of the open front KittyDock(TM), it is virtually impossible for to define (and model) all factors for a particular setup unless you use the technique of using a fisheye photograph to ''define'' the envirionment, like what Sergey showed in Orlando.

In a closed system, you have a much better chance to get a one to one comparison like you are so desparately trying to do to disprove Garry, at even at that the errors in the scans can throw a SINGLE ''photograph/model'' substantailly off.

You are wasting yours and other people''s time with this Rhino, and throwing confusion vectors randomly.

Which is why it is high time for this thread to die. Ken got his opinions and that should have been the end of it. Next chance I''ll go to the thread Garry has brought up and answer what he''d like addressed there. BTW it was good speaking with you the other night Marty.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/31/2006 1:55:52 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/31/2006 1:41:02 PM
Author: Rhino

Hi Garry,

Hope you have a great time on your trip mate. I don''t recall ever discussing with you how I view a diamond but let me take this opportunity to clarify. My personal focal length is about a half an arms to 3/4 of an arms length in distance. Roughly about 13-14'' or so. When I view a diamond I do not position my head 90 degrees above the floor looking down onto the diamond. I stand in a normal posture and I tilt the face of the diamond towards my eyes as well as rocking/tilting as well. Basically just like most people look at diamonds when we are showing them.
Duh!!! We are talking about angles - not viewing distance Duh!!!

DUH ... you didn''t ask for viewing angles.

Date: 5/31/2006 1:55:52 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I can only suspect fould play - you are going out of your way to be devious or dumb.

Why are you doing this?

In the years we have been communicating mate, when have you ever found me employing foul play? I''ve always spoken openly and honestly and as long as I live I''d rather die than violate my conscience and my convictions. I had hoped you knew this about me.
You have always been the most difficult person to have a discussion with Jonathon - you were with the Brillianscope, then ISEE2 etc etc. It seems to be a thing like religion with you. You rarely listen (read) and make any attempt to understand what others say.

Firstly, leave faith etc. out of this discussion because it has nothing to do with gemology and fyi I came to faith because of listening to reason. Not because of talking since I was not raised in any particular religion.

Secondly, I think you find me difficult because when we are discussing technologies you come out with statements and have in the past that I have personally found to not be true. You make some of these conclusions based on extremely limited experience while I am working with them hands on daily. If a person makes a statement that I know to be false and present the data to make my case systematically and logically of course I will be perceived as difficult by the opposing view. I recall in the past debating with you the interpretation of blacks in reflector images and the position you held. Time has proven the case but do you recall that? I also found you to be difficult and we know what other research has revealed on the subject which to me was pretty obvious all along. You don''t find me accusing you of being *religious* on the matter.

And while I don''t pretent to read every single word you''ve published I do attempt to understand what you say in the things I do read. There are many instances we''re on the same page but there are those where we are not and that''s ok for us to agree to disagree on certain matters. It''s good to hear 2 views on a matter and see what evidence each party brings to the table in any discussion in support of their view. All learn from it imo and as long as folks can resist mud slinging can be quite an enjoyable learning experience for *everyone*.

Later dude.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/31/2006 9:07:50 PM
Author: Rhino

Hi Garry,

When I get up to the store tomorrow evening I''ll post the gem advisor and will take photography in a seated position to satisfy your curiosity (and my own) and see if there is a difference. I always stand up when making the comparisons and the photography as it represents more accuratley what I''m seeing but am happy to oblige.

And there-in lies the reason why you like GIA''s Diamond Dock(tm) Jonathon.

You are not using it as it was designed to be used.
Thank you.
Now when you do the tests you will understand what we have been saying and why it is a bad grading environment.
You really nee to find a shallow round and look at it / photograpgh it etc the way you have been using it. You WILL understand - because you will like the shallow stone when you stand up - you would give a shallow stone an excellent cut grade when you stand up.

I am very happy that we can now be friends again.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/1/2006 1:11:15 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/31/2006 9:07:50 PM
Author: Rhino

Hi Garry,

When I get up to the store tomorrow evening I''ll post the gem advisor and will take photography in a seated position to satisfy your curiosity (and my own) and see if there is a difference. I always stand up when making the comparisons and the photography as it represents more accuratley what I''m seeing but am happy to oblige.

And there-in lies the reason why you like GIA''s Diamond Dock(tm) Jonathon.

You are not using it as it was designed to be used.
Thank you.
Now when you do the tests you will understand what we have been saying and why it is a bad grading environment.
You really nee to find a shallow round and look at it / photograpgh it etc the way you have been using it. You WILL understand - because you will like the shallow stone when you stand up - you would give a shallow stone an excellent cut grade when you stand up.

I am very happy that we can now be friends again.

Haha. I never stopped liking you Garry even though we both have gotten under each others skin.

Reallly ... we shouldn''t let differences come between our friendship regardless and the conversations make for good reading too. Keeps this place interesting. Remember King Solomon''s words ... "A friendly discussion is as stimulating as the sparks that fly when iron strikes iron." Prov 27:17 TLB

Not to get under your skin again

but I have been using it as instructed.

I will definitely take the shots you request though and share the results in the other thread. I have a good example of a shallow angled combo on hand.

Peace,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/1/2006 12:27:51 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 6/1/2006 1:11:15 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/31/2006 9:07:50 PM
Author: Rhino

Hi Garry,

When I get up to the store tomorrow evening I''ll post the gem advisor and will take photography in a seated position to satisfy your curiosity (and my own) and see if there is a difference. I always stand up when making the comparisons and the photography as it represents more accuratley what I''m seeing but am happy to oblige.

And there-in lies the reason why you like GIA''s Diamond Dock(tm) Jonathon.

You are not using it as it was designed to be used.
Thank you.
Now when you do the tests you will understand what we have been saying and why it is a bad grading environment.
You really nee to find a shallow round and look at it / photograpgh it etc the way you have been using it. You WILL understand - because you will like the shallow stone when you stand up - you would give a shallow stone an excellent cut grade when you stand up.

I am very happy that we can now be friends again.

Haha. I never stopped liking you Garry even though we both have gotten under each others skin.

Reallly ... we shouldn''t let differences come between our friendship regardless and the conversations make for good reading too. Keeps this place interesting. Remember King Solomon''s words ... ''A friendly discussion is as stimulating as the sparks that fly when iron strikes iron.'' Prov 27:17 TLB

Not to get under your skin again

but I have been using it as instructed.

I will definitely take the shots you request though and share the results in the other thread. I have a good example of a shallow angled combo on hand.

Peace,

Two things to remember Rhino..
1) The closer you are to the stone, the more the "look angle" is effected by your position (camera or head) and a slight change in the look angle (tilt) relative to the illumination can sometimes make make a radical difference..

2) The relative optical symmetry and/or color grade (internal absorption) will give you different perceptions of the "brightness" of any two stones when compared side by side

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/1/2006 12:27:51 PM
Author: Rhino


Not to get under your skin again

but I have been using it as instructed.

I will definitely take the shots you request though and share the results in the other thread. I have a good example of a shallow angled combo on hand.

Peace,

Great - you can see the effect simply by looking.
I asked Phil Yantzer, the GIA west coast lab director to try it too today - he and Barak Green gave a very clear and simple presentation on behalf of GIA. (Phil is Peter Yantzer - lab director AGS''s Borther).

But it was clear they think they have done all their work and have a fully functioning system.
John Pollard discussed at length the reasons why they have only just started - re painting etc.
I think they are getting the message.

So Jonathon - do your experiments - measure the distances and post them here and we will work out the angles of light incidence - camera face on etc - even try standing and seated.
Most people sit at eye level between the inside top and the very top, with stones about 10-12 inches infront of them - measure it all

 

[lawmax]

Date: 5/31/2006 8:56:51 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Allison

Good to see you. I don''t see why he would. He picked it so he must enjoy its appearance.

Hi Jon,

It just struck me as funny! My odd sense of humor and irony, perhaps.

This whole industry is positively surreal!!!!

Allison

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/1/2006 1:00:02 PM
Author: adamasgem

Two things to remember Rhino..
1) The closer you are to the stone, the more the ''look angle'' is effected by your position (camera or head) and a slight change in the look angle (tilt) relative to the illumination can sometimes make make a radical difference..

2) The relative optical symmetry and/or color grade (internal absorption) will give you different perceptions of the ''brightness'' of any two stones when compared side by side

Thanks Marty I''ll consider this. I realize that the closer one is to the stone the greater the chances are of capturing obstruction particularly with shallower angled stones.

Regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/1/2006 9:52:02 PM
Author: lawmax

Date: 5/31/2006 8:56:51 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Allison

Good to see you. I don''t see why he would. He picked it so he must enjoy its appearance.

Hi Jon,

It just struck me as funny! My odd sense of humor and irony, perhaps.

This whole industry is positively surreal!!!!

Allison

Allison... didn''t you hear the next "Surreal Life" show on VH1 is going to feature Garry, Marty, JohnP, Wink, RockDoc, Rich Sherwood, Leonid, and myself?

The best to you,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/2/2006 9:50:07 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 6/1/2006 9:52:02 PM

Author: lawmax

Date: 5/31/2006 8:56:51 PM

Author: Rhino

Hi Allison

Good to see you. I don''t see why he would. He picked it so he must enjoy its appearance.

Hi Jon,


It just struck me as funny! My odd sense of humor and irony, perhaps.


This whole industry is positively surreal!!!!

Allison

Allison... didn''t you hear the next ''Surreal Life'' show on VH1 is going to feature Garry, Marty, JohnP, Wink, RockDoc, Rich Sherwood, Leonid, and myself?

The best to you,

there isnt a room big enough to contain the egos :}

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/27/2006 4:14:42 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/26/2006 3:52:19 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Rhino,

From this article: http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/estimating_painitng.pdf

The most direct way to visually assess the level of painting and/or digging out on a round brilliant is to examine the girdle profile of the diamond...Consistent with the five categories in the GIA Diamond Cut Grading System, we have divided into five levels the extent of painting and/or digging out possible on round brilliant diamonds. The illustrations in figures 4 and 5 (a full page version is available at the end of this document) show examples of the approximate extent of painting and digging out allowed for the top four cut grade categories as represented by the girdle profiles.

Figure 4. These girdle profile example iillustrate the extent of painting allowed for each of the top four cut grade categories. A diamond with a girdle profile more irregular than “severe” would not lower the cut grade beyond “fair.”

Here the 3 drawings GIA provided in their full page as painting allowances for EX grade (I added 3 for VG as well).

If there is more please elaborate for me. I'd be glad to hear it!

Hi John,

Thanks for posting the graphic. From what I am told each individual diamonds girdle is examined for the extent of painting/digging plus the impact on face up appearance. While the graphics demonstrate the extent to which each degree is allowable I don't know for sure if the graders in the labs sit there with these drawings to determine that. Your post seemed to imply that and is how I took it. Interestingly when I stop and think about it, an accurate scan of a diamond examined in the DiamCalc software (which is basically a line art drawing) does show the extent of it. I'm not sure if that's how the graders in the labs actually do it but I'm putting in the request to find out. I'll let ya know what I hear.

Peace,

I received clarification on this issue. My information was correct re: proprietary grading, but I was mistaken re: lab approach.

The illustrations are examples used away from the lab to estimate grades. As per the article and yesterday's presentation GIA feels the easiest way to assess this is to look in the profile view.

In the lab the Sarin scan is used as a primary means of making angular assessment and determining degree of painting. I'm happy and sad to hear this; happy that the methodology is not so simplistic as I thought, but sad that (a) the principal is still non-assessment of face-up appearance and (b) as we all know, Sarin is not very reliable with these girdle configurations.

Painting discussion:

I spoke with the gentlemen from GIA for some time. We spoke in terms of azimuth deviations from normal indexing, which allowed us to discuss this in practical terms (thank you Serg). GIA is in complete agreement that a blanket statement cannot be made about 'painted' diamonds: A diamond must be assessed in their lab to know whether it would receive a deduction or not, and not all painted diamonds are equal.

Surprisingly, GIA says the deduction threshhold between EX and VG, in terms of azimuth deviation, is nowhere near as small as Serg and others have calculated based on initial information (1 degree). We discussed specific numbers: Both Rhino's survey stone and his porch stone are outside the EX range. However, I gave values for examples of several ACA New Line diamonds and a painted superideal from another manufacturer: Every one of those stones' numbers was within the tolerances cited for EX. They would not receive deductions.

This is critical, because the initial impression given to some designers, manufacturers and analysts was based on Report Check and early grading.

Pursuant to this, I was told GIA Report Check had some glitches when introduced (diamonds that appeared to have been penalized should not have been). This is important information for consumers who have used RC to check on prior GIA-graded diamonds and were surprised to see 'VG' or lower within robust proportions sets. Additionally, the lab has been working to fine tune their judgments and the feeling is that diamonds submitted today, as opposed to several months ago, are being more decisively evaluated.

This is critical for two reasons:

(1) In the macro, assumptions have been made about the level of painting being 'dinged' - by people on both sides of this debate - without actual information. Shame on us.

(2) In the micro it absolutely reinforces that one cannot make a blanket statement regarding painting as there are vastly differing degrees - some which are not visibly distinguishable from normal brillianteering.


The gentlemen from GIA took more than 30 minutes after their presentation to visit privately with me. They were receptive and candid. They are also aware of this sensitive issue as it relates to premium superideals. I've omitted some specifics I did not receive permission to cite. I did request permission to share the above information from our conversation as an overview. If I've stated something inaccurately I'll correct it, as our discussions will continue post-JCK.

 

[belle]

thanks for the update and insight, sir john.