Why would anyone object to painting?

[Capitol Bill]

Hi Rhino!

Sorry you didn't make it to JCK-Vegas. It would have been fun to hang out with you. Perhaps next year.

Regarding the GIA FacetScan-TM product: I believe I heard it was being produced for GIA by OGI.

Regarding the images (above) of you taking photos of stones in the DiamondDock-TM -- GIA does not use the bottom portion of the DD for viewing purposes. Instead they position the stones on the shelf that lays midway up the DD (you can see the notch for the shelf in one of your above images). I specifically asked one of the higher-ups at the GIA booth about this and he said that stones should be viewed from the midway shelf, and that GIA uses the lower area for storage of things like master stones, etc.

After seeing the DD in person I wasn't very impressed. I can't even agree with those that say the most redeeming quality of the DD is that at the very least it provides a "constant" (if not arbitrary) viewing environment by which you can compare several stones. This is because I noticed lots of unevenness in the lighting along the length of the viewing shelf with a few asymmetrical "hot spots" of light in the center when the LEDs were turned on. Rhino, I would propose that you are getting very different results from those of GIA by viewing stones at the bottom of the DD (further away from the light source) rather than the middle shelf. Not that I think changing the distance of the viewing area would derive any more conclusive results than what I've already witnessed. Frankly I can save my $1600 and accomplish the same thing for clients by positioning a stone tray on my desk and shining a fluorescent lamp and an LED lamp at the stone tray.

This is posted not in the spirit of piling on, but just to state things as I see them.

Kind regards,
Bill Scherlag

P.S. Happy Birthday, bro!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/7/2006 2:47:53 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 6/7/2006 12:46:53 PM
Author: Rhino

I''ll put the graphics together from all 3 machines and start one. Haha... another painting thread! Oh Lord!

No Rhino.. It would be a thread illustrating the potential problems that differing measurment technologies have in evaluating the small percentage of non-classically brillianteered RBC''s.

IT IS NOT A DISCUSSION ON THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE STONE''S STYLE OF BRILLIANTEERING AND SHOULD NOT BE INFERRED AS SO.

It would maybe give them (Helium, Sarin, OGI,GIA) some information to help them fix the scanning problem and a little nudge to do so and prioritize it.

Since you have an OGI you might ask them what raw data file to save and send them to help with the problem.

Sarin''s raw data is supposedly in a file called shadow.dat in the Sarin program files directory...

I know Marty. I agree though... perhaps a thread on the subject will light a fire under some of these manufacturers to improve their products. With raw data files I believe the OGI can save all the info to an .stl file which supplies model information as well as the measurements. I''m garnering some graphics now for the subject. You in Vegas this year?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/7/2006 2:35:49 PM
Author: adamasgem

Rhino.. The GIA evaluation model is supposedly a ''Face Up'' view (with a small 3 degree cone) , looking perpendicular to the table..

Not sure about the 3 degree cone issue. I''m not looking through one. From the face up view we can perhaps rock the stones approx. 20 degrees either way.

Date: 6/7/2006 2:35:49 PM
Author: adamasgem

If you look perpendicular to the table, in the standing versus sitting position, one has to change the tilt of the stone with respect to the KD lighting. I don''t understand how you can say there is no ''diiference'' in the result, the pictures are different. Now maybe what you are trying to say is that when comparing two SPECIFIC and disparate stones, that your judgement of which is best doesn''t change. A specific commentary RELATIVE to the TWO stones in question, not a generality, that can be applied accoss the board to ANY TWO stones.

Let me clarify. If one is seated or standing and viewing the diamonds at the same tilt angles (ie with the diamonds pointing towards the viewers eyes) the results are identical. Ie. The diamonds being observed are drawing their light from above (pink/blue in ASET).

This would presume that the tilt angles are the same ... seated or standing. If the persons seat is brining them low to the point where they have to tilt the diamonds further away from the illumination, they''ll take on a different appearance. In the example from the pix this would mean that the stones are pointed more towards the horizon than they are above, hence the added darkness which makes sense when you think about it.

Regarding the seated position, it depends on where/how high you''re seated in relation to the DiamondDock. If you''re seated in such a manner that you don''t have to tilt the tray to the extreme where the stones are on the verge of falling off the tray then you''ll accomplish the task at hand and use the device as it was meant to be used. When I have the DD at our counter in the store folks can either sit or stand since it is positioned on our counter in such a manner that the viewer is relatively at the same viewing angle than if they were standing. If I see folks observing and the diamonds are on the verge of falling out of the tray I ask that they please stand and make their observation, or if they''re sitting, to not tilt the stones too far that they''ll fall out.

Hope that helps.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/7/2006 2:57:38 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 6/7/2006 12:23:19 PM
Author: Rhino

2. What did make a difference however is when we tilted the diamonds as depicted in the picture on the left and took the photograph sitting down. This more radical change in the tilt angles directed the tables of the diamonds to reflect moreso the atmosphere in front of them as opposed to the lighting above and the shallow diamond appeared darker in that observation. This is also evident in the photograph below.

I would say ''envirionment'' rather than ''atmosphere''..

I think that illustrates the problem.. Maybe the KittyDock was ''meant'' to be used on top of a display counter rather than at a desk, the Donald Rumsfeld model (he always stands up to work it is said).

Bingo.

Marty ... as a jewelry store owner I can tell you what I think is the #1 problem with folks viewing diamonds in jewelry stores and you know it too. Most are limited to a spot lighting only environment. It is impossible to make an accurate assessment for brightness in that environment and many folks, thinking they are seeing brightness are led to faulty conclusions. This is the exact reason I like the DD. It strips away the spot lighting environement of the jewelry store and allows the layman to assess what they would if they took the diamond outside into natural diffuse daylight (as I''ve shown in our video of the subject). You''re beginning to understand my perspective on this.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/7/2006 4:24:37 PM
Author: dhog

Date: 6/7/2006 12:38:20 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 6/4/2006 9:20:56 PM

Author: Dancing Fire

rhino got so scare he didn''t even go to Vegas. it would of been open season for rhino hunting.

LMAO.

Na... I would have gladly went to Vegas. While some of us may be at odds regarding certain issues I consider most everyone here friends. It''s not in me to hold grudges or bitterness towards anyone DF. I quite enjoy friendly conversation and debate. And btw ... Rhino''s hunt too.

I agree 100% although rhino thinks I have a grudge
it''s really not the case.I just happen to have a different
view than he does.

I don''t think you have a grudge dhog. I think perhaps you may be annoyed by my comments/preferences and sympathy/understanding with GIA''s Cut Grading system but you have expressed in another thread that you believe I have an "axe to grind" which I clearly do not.

I really am nothing more than a fisherman and fishing lure manufacture with a quest for beauty for my beautiful wife.

A noble cause.

most of my posts are nothing more than joking
around and some of the photos were taken to give
my perspective on the way I see it.

maybe I was a little to hard on the industry
rulers but then again maybe consumers like me
need to fight back for change.

Everyone''s entitled to their opinion. GIA expects a certain degree of belly aching as does AGS and BOTH have experienced it on various forums and will continue to. A person is not to be faulted nor attacked for their point of view. As long as free speech exists, if someone will listen to you, complain all you want. I have some I''ve yet to post too.

Rhino have fun and don''t take my posts so seriously.

or better yet send me your fancy light box and I will
get some more opinions from several jeweler friends of
mine.

I don''t. What I''d like to see more of in your posts however is if I''m sharing something, whether you agree with me or not is to respect my opinion just as I do yours and not insinuate that I am altering photos etc. to prove a point. If a person asks for an opinion regarding an issue I will not only usually share it but I''ll also attempt to demonstrate the reasons why I hold the position I do. In some of the other threads you insinuated that I doctored/altered things (as did another forum member) until they were proven wrong. All I ask is that while it is healthy to hold a degree of skepticism regarding any information one gives out, not to presume one guilty when there is no reason to. You did believe I had an axe to grind. Hopefully now you realize I don''t. No hard feelings on this end either way dhog and always happy to hear another consumers opinion whethey they agree or not.


Peace out,
Jonathan

 

[Rhino]

Hey Bill,

Great to hear from ya! From the pix John posted it looks like you had a blast. Hope you didn''t lose too much at the tables.

Regarding the GIA FacetScan-TM product: I believe I heard it was being produced for GIA by OGI.

Lord knows they need it. It''ll be interesting to see what they come up with.

Regarding the images (above) of you taking photos of stones in the DiamondDock-TM -- GIA does not use the bottom portion of the DD for viewing purposes. Instead they position the stones on the shelf that lays midway up the DD (you can see the notch for the shelf in one of your above images). I specifically asked one of the higher-ups at the GIA booth about this and he said that stones should be viewed from the midway shelf, and that GIA uses the lower area for storage of things like master stones, etc.

This "higher-up" then did not read the simple instructions that accompany the product.

After seeing the DD in person I wasn''t very impressed. I can''t even agree with those that say the most redeeming quality of the DD is that at the very least it provides a ''constant'' (if not arbitrary) viewing environment by which you can compare several stones. This is because I noticed lots of unevenness in the lighting along the length of the viewing shelf with a few asymmetrical ''hot spots'' of light in the center when the LEDs were turned on. Rhino, I would propose that you are getting very different results from those of GIA by viewing stones at the bottom of the DD (further away from the light source) rather than the middle shelf. Not that I think changing the distance of the viewing area would derive any more conclusive results than what I''ve already witnessed. Frankly I can save my $1600 and accomplish the same thing for clients by positioning a stone tray on my desk and shining a fluorescent lamp and an LED lamp at the stone tray.

This is posted not in the spirit of piling on, but just to state things as I see them.

Kind regards,
Bill Scherlag

P.S. Happy Birthday, bro!

I appreciate your input but it also appears you were given some wrong information about its use. For them to tell you the bottom part is used as storage etc. is kinda funny. I see the same thing happening when I''m shopping for electronics. Oftentimes, once I''ve done my research I''ll know more about product use and features than the salesman who''s helping me. Many times they don''t simply read the owners manual which would have answered many questions from the start. For your convenience I''ve attached the .pdf file showing the instructions on how to properly use it.

Argh ... file is too big to upload. I can email it to you if you''d like. The center shelf''s purpose is not for cut grading but for color grading and also with the diffuser removed. Cut is to be inspected with the diamonds at the bottom of the unit and placed face up in the tray.

Curious. Do you have a jewelry store Bill?

And thanks for the Happy Birthday! It was a great weekend for me.

Best regards,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/7/2006 6:08:18 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 6/7/2006 2:47:53 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 6/7/2006 12:46:53 PM
Author: Rhino

I''ll put the graphics together from all 3 machines and start one. Haha... another painting thread! Oh Lord!

No Rhino.. It would be a thread illustrating the potential problems that differing measurment technologies have in evaluating the small percentage of non-classically brillianteered RBC''s.

IT IS NOT A DISCUSSION ON THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE STONE''S STYLE OF BRILLIANTEERING AND SHOULD NOT BE INFERRED AS SO.

It would maybe give them (Helium, Sarin, OGI,GIA) some information to help them fix the scanning problem and a little nudge to do so and prioritize it.

Since you have an OGI you might ask them what raw data file to save and send them to help with the problem.

Sarin''s raw data is supposedly in a file called shadow.dat in the Sarin program files directory...

I know Marty. I agree though... perhaps a thread on the subject will light a fire under some of these manufacturers to improve their products. With raw data files I believe the OGI can save all the info to an .stl file which supplies model information as well as the measurements. I''m garnering some graphics now for the subject. You in Vegas this year?

Rhino The STL format is a "processed" data file.. What they would need is a "raw" data file, you would have to check with them what they save that is transparent to you. It would get overridden each time a new stone is done.. Not part of the normal "save" function, it would be a debugging file..

RE Vegas.No I didn''t go this year, had too much to do.. I was at the AGS clave

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/7/2006 5:17:36 PM
Author: Capitol Bill
Hi Rhino!

Sorry you didn''t make it to JCK-Vegas. It would have been fun to hang out with you. Perhaps next year.

Regarding the GIA FacetScan-TM product: I believe I heard it was being produced for GIA by OGI.

Regarding the images (above) of you taking photos of stones in the DiamondDock-TM -- GIA does not use the bottom portion of the DD for viewing purposes. Instead they position the stones on the shelf that lays midway up the DD (you can see the notch for the shelf in one of your above images). I specifically asked one of the higher-ups at the GIA booth about this and he said that stones should be viewed from the midway shelf, and that GIA uses the lower area for storage of things like master stones, etc.

Kind regards,
Bill Scherlag

VERY INTERESTING...

 

[Capitol Bill]

Date: 6/7/2006 7:13:33 PM
Author: Rhino
Hey Bill,


Great to hear from ya! From the pix John posted it looks like you had a blast. Hope you didn't lose too much at the tables.

Regarding the GIA FacetScan-TM product: I believe I heard it was being produced for GIA by OGI.

Lord knows they need it. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.

Regarding the images (above) of you taking photos of stones in the DiamondDock-TM -- GIA does not use the bottom portion of the DD for viewing purposes. Instead they position the stones on the shelf that lays midway up the DD (you can see the notch for the shelf in one of your above images). I specifically asked one of the higher-ups at the GIA booth about this and he said that stones should be viewed from the midway shelf, and that GIA uses the lower area for storage of things like master stones, etc.

This 'higher-up' then did not read the simple instructions that accompany the product.

After seeing the DD in person I wasn't very impressed. I can't even agree with those that say the most redeeming quality of the DD is that at the very least it provides a 'constant' (if not arbitrary) viewing environment by which you can compare several stones. This is because I noticed lots of unevenness in the lighting along the length of the viewing shelf with a few asymmetrical 'hot spots' of light in the center when the LEDs were turned on. Rhino, I would propose that you are getting very different results from those of GIA by viewing stones at the bottom of the DD (further away from the light source) rather than the middle shelf. Not that I think changing the distance of the viewing area would derive any more conclusive results than what I've already witnessed. Frankly I can save my $1600 and accomplish the same thing for clients by positioning a stone tray on my desk and shining a fluorescent lamp and an LED lamp at the stone tray.


This is posted not in the spirit of piling on, but just to state things as I see them.


Kind regards,

Bill Scherlag


P.S. Happy Birthday, bro!

I appreciate your input but it also appears you were given some wrong information about its use. For them to tell you the bottom part is used as storage etc. is kinda funny. I see the same thing happening when I'm shopping for electronics. Oftentimes, once I've done my research I'll know more about product use and features than the salesman who's helping me. Many times they don't simply read the owners manual which would have answered many questions from the start. For your convenience I've attached the .pdf file showing the instructions on how to properly use it.


Argh ... file is too big to upload. I can email it to you if you'd like. The center shelf's purpose is not for cut grading but for color grading and also with the diffuser removed. Cut is to be inspected with the diamonds at the bottom of the unit and placed face up in the tray.


Curious. Do you have a jewelry store Bill?




And thanks for the Happy Birthday! It was a great weekend for me.

Best regards,

Bill[/b][/b][/b]

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/7/2006 9:15:32 PM
Author: Capitol Bill

Curious. Do you have a jewelry store Bill?

Hey Bill,

My apologies but it''s difficult for me to recall our conversation from around a year ago or so. Being in an office building I would presume the lighting is primarily diffuse fluorescent so I can understand you not seeing any strong need for DD lighting. This is why I had asked you the question of whether you had a store or not. Perhaps if you were in my shoes you''d better understand/appreciate why I like it. Regardless, it''s all cool though. In no way was I implying that you''re breaking forum rules or anything of the sort. That comes out of left field for me.

And YES I do hope to cya next year in Vegas! I really missed going this time.

I''ll be attending the upcoming GIA Symposium and have been asked to sit on their Internet panel. Leonid and I will be participating on the same panel and it should be interesting.

Best regards,[/b]

 

[Capitol Bill]

Date: 6/7/2006 10:11:12 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 6/7/2006 9:15:32 PM

Author: Capitol Bill

Curious. Do you have a jewelry store Bill?

Hey Bill,


My apologies but it''s difficult for me to recall our conversation from around a year ago or so. Being in an office building I would presume the lighting is primarily diffuse fluorescent so I can understand you not seeing any strong need for DD lighting. This is why I had asked you the question of whether you had a store or not. Perhaps if you were in my shoes you''d better understand/appreciate why I like it. Regardless, it''s all cool though.

In no way was I implying that you''re breaking forum rules or anything of the sort. That comes out of left field for me.

And YES I do hope to cya next year in Vegas! I really missed going this time.

I''ll be attending the upcoming GIA Symposium and have been asked to sit on their Internet panel. Leonid and I will be participating on the same panel and it should be interesting.


Best regards,

Regards,
Bill
[/b][/b][/b][/b]

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thank you for doing this Rhino.

But the manual pdf file does not work.


And would you be so kind as to post it and the images and your comments on the relevant thread in FAQ as I have asked you on several occasions?

This thread has too many seperate issues running to be useful.

If you have time Rhino you might make the two diamond photo sets images the same size and adjust the background of the grey so the lighting intensity matches.

Also may we have GemAdviser files? the stone on the left does not appear to have a shallow pavilion?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Bump

 

[Rhino]

About to head out for now but I just posted a photograph of a stone with a 39.x pavilion angle alongside a steep/deep in the DiamondDock in the FAQ thread here. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/ I''ll have my laptop with me over the weekend and will try to participate as time allows over there. I''ll post the GA file there too before I leave and we can continue the discussion there if you like.

Regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/

I have responded Rhino. (you old fox you - you cant give up or in - can you?)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

For the benefit of anyone who is interested, here is some of the manual for Diamond Dock.
As you can see from the images Rhino posted above he has been using Diamond Dock from a much higher angle than GIA say to use.
There-fore all the videos etc and the arguements Jonathon has made in favor of DD are null and void.

But please migrate to the other thread in FAQ'' on DD if you want to discuss DD rahter than the painting issues.

Also it would be interesting to hear from anyone who was involved in testing DD at Jonathons store to find out how much background lighting was turned on.

Storm I believe you have participated?

 

[strmrdr]

remotely with vids and images havent been to his store yet.

Also want to note that it says tilt the tray while the pictures are shot at the angle of the tray.
which is the only way to get a consistant angle.
In the Vids he moves them which is more in keeping with what GIA intended.

Btw you used an even higher angle than he did so your vid and images are just as bad if you want to throw things out :}

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I may have used a slightly higher angle storm - I never had the information from GIA at the time - but you can see from the center of the stones that it was not anywhere near as high as Rhino''s.

Are you getting the message now though?

GIA modeled dealer lighting.
Dealers do not use color and clarity lighting to grade the cut / appearance of diamonds.

It seems starnge to me that the major ''authority'' in diamond grading made a big bo-bo and no one really seems to care around here?

 

[strmrdr]

Garry your blowing it way out of proportion.
The DD isn't the reason the things that we don't like about the GIA system are there.
politics is....
frankly the DD talk is a red herring and you and a lot of others had your mind made up without ever having seen one or even pictures of diamonds under one and have been trying to shoot it down since.
Wrong target...... and its side tracking the work that the energy should be applied too.

Frankly all it is anymore is an ego fest with you an annoyance to many and a chance for Marty to say nasty things about people he hates.

think bout it :}
Now im going back to laying on couch holding my jaw.
night.

 

[Capitol Bill]

Storm,

You''re right. The DD is not the issue. The issue is that the GIA is offering the DD as a definitive way to judge a diamond''s cut with absolutely no sound scientific basis for it. When I visited their booth their own employee couldn''t even explain how to use it the way GIA intended. The result is a $1600 gadget and another bit of pseudo-science to add to the heap. Serious gemologists expect more from "The World''s Foremost Authority."

The reason so many people are walking away from the GIA approach to diamond grading and towards other approaches is because somewhere along the way the GIA chose to abandon science and adopt what I call the "eehh...that''s close enough" approach.

GIA''s founders were highly respected gemologists that put science first. Most people in the industry received their basic diamond and gemological training from the GIA and they look to the GIA for gemological leadership. But somewhere along the way the culture at the GIA changed. Laboratory leadership took a back seat to administrative interests. The GIA became Vatican-like in its ability to accumulate industry donations and the interests of science suffered as the influence of donors helped set the institutional agenda.

At their recent cut grade seminar presented at the JCK show, the GIA reps used a great deal of their time explaining why certain less-than-excellent characteristics were somehow still acceptable as "excellent." Or as I put it, they spent a lot of time saying the equivalent of "eehh...that''s close enough." It boggles the mind to think that GIA''s top gemologists think the most accurate approach to cut grading involves methodically taking all of the precise measurements of a diamond, then averaging them, then arbitrarily rounding the averages.

A product like the DD is merely a symptom of a larger organizational problem. And the DD deserves all of the criticism anyone wants to bother throwing at it.

Make no mistake, I and (I''m quite sure) others, are not anti-GIA. We are pro-gemology! By way of our early gemological education we are all associated with GIA. Some, like me, have even gone on to serve our local GIA Alumni chapters. It is only natural that we feel the need to be proud of our association with the GIA and we cannot hold our tongues when things are so obviously amiss.

Regards,

Bill Scherlag

 

[RockDoc]

Very well put- Capital Bill.

I think most of us are in total agreement about commenting about the apparent "holes in the system".

Like you, I remember the days of when GIA was a far "gentler" entity, and those in charge were gemology driven, rather than "market-politics" driven.

I think the DD serves a purpose, but I doubt it''s one that "gemologically" useful. I wonder if a common phrase used at GIA''s Equipment Division is: Oh well "close enough for government work!" and another item is marketed, and marketed with excessive pricing.

Kudos to you on expressing your opinion so well. and I am in total agreement with you on this subject.

Rockdoc

 

[Modified Brilliant]

Bill-Thanks for expressing your views. The issues that you have raised reflect many of my feelings about GIA as well. We are all proud of our association with GIA but we are dissapointed with the current situation. I think you speak for many of us.

www.metrojewelryappraisers.com

 

[belle]

very well said bill.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/13/2006 12:04:38 PM
Author: Capitol Bill
Storm,

You''re right. The DD is not the issue. The issue is that the GIA is offering the DD as a definitive way to judge a diamond''s cut with absolutely no sound scientific basis for it. When I visited their booth their own employee couldn''t even explain how to use it the way GIA intended. The result is a $1600 gadget and another bit of pseudo-science to add to the heap. Serious gemologists expect more from ''The World''s Foremost Authority.''

The reason so many people are walking away from the GIA approach to diamond grading and towards other approaches is because somewhere along the way the GIA chose to abandon science and adopt what I call the ''eehh...that''s close enough'' approach.

GIA''s founders were highly respected gemologists that put science first. Most people in the industry received their basic diamond and gemological training from the GIA and they look to the GIA for gemological leadership. But somewhere along the way the culture at the GIA changed. Laboratory leadership took a back seat to administrative interests. The GIA became Vatican-like in its ability to accumulate industry donations and the interests of science suffered as the influence of donors helped set the institutional agenda.

At their recent cut grade seminar presented at the JCK show, the GIA reps used a great deal of their time explaining why certain less-than-excellent characteristics were somehow still acceptable as ''excellent.'' Or as I put it, they spent a lot of time saying the equivalent of ''eehh...that''s close enough.'' It boggles the mind to think that GIA''s top gemologists think the most accurate approach to cut grading involves methodically taking all of the precise measurements of a diamond, then averaging them, then arbitrarily rounding the averages.

A product like the DD is merely a symptom of a larger organizational problem. And the DD deserves all of the criticism anyone wants to bother throwing at it.

Make no mistake, I and (I''m quite sure) others, are not anti-GIA. We are pro-gemology! By way of our early gemological education we are all associated with GIA. Some, like me, have even gone on to serve our local GIA Alumni chapters. It is only natural that we feel the need to be proud of our association with the GIA and we cannot hold our tongues when things are so obviously amiss.

Regards,

Bill Scherlag

Bill: THANK YOU! You have SO eloquently summed up the heart of the matter.

I don''t have much to say about the DD, because it doesn''t intersect with my world/needs much.

As a customer, though, I feel that the organization has shifted its emphasis to protecting the desires/needs of its industry constituents (dealers) over that of consumers. GIA used to be the "mental safety net" that eased consumers'' minds because we expected them to be stringent and forthright. As a consumer, the rounding and "close enough" tones feel like a betrayal. It has the same feeling of pulling back the curtain and finding out that Oz is a mere mortal and not the revered institution we thought he was. The "Vatican-esque" analogy is spot on.

I think many consumers share the sentiments expressed here by industry folks: we don''t *want* to be anti-GIA; we want to have our faith restored in them.

In fairness, I''d have to acknowledge that I feel AGS is also succumbing to dealer pressure a bit in still issuing DQD docs with cut grades that reflect the old cut grade system with a current date. If the metrics have changed, I really feel the new stones have to meet it or be rejected. This business about being able to get a document that says "cut grade 0" when it doesn''t mean *today''s* 0-grade standards doesn''t sit well with me either and makes we wonder if AGS is skipping down the same (perceived) "sell-out" path GIA seems to be travelling on.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/13/2006 9:48:57 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 6/13/2006 12:04:38 PM



Bill: THANK YOU! You have SO eloquently summed up the heart of the matter.


I don''t have much to say about the DD, because it doesn''t intersect with my world/needs much.


As a customer, though, I feel that the organization has shifted its emphasis to protecting the desires/needs of its industry constituents (dealers) over that of consumers. GIA used to be the ''mental safety net'' that eased consumers'' minds because we expected them to be stringent and forthright. As a consumer, the rounding and ''close enough'' tones feel like a betrayal. It has the same feeling of pulling back the curtain and finding out that Oz is a mere mortal and not the revered institution we thought he was. The ''Vatican-esque'' analogy is spot on.


I think many consumers share the sentiments expressed here by industry folks: we don''t *want* to be anti-GIA; we want to have our faith restored in them.


In fairness, I''d have to acknowledge that I feel AGS is also succumbing to dealer pressure a bit in still issuing DQD docs with cut grades that reflect the old cut grade system with a current date. If the metrics have changed, I really feel the new stones have to meet it or be rejected. This business about being able to get a document that says ''cut grade 0'' when it doesn''t mean *today''s* 0-grade standards doesn''t sit well with me either and makes we wonder if AGS is skipping down the same (perceived) ''sell-out'' path GIA seems to be travelling on.

Well said Alj

 

[Capitol Bill]

Thank you all for reading my rant. I''m now going to take my family and leave the country (literally we''re off for a little R&R) for a couple of weeks. I''ll try to check the PriceScope forums from time to time, but only when my wife''s not looking.

Kind regards,

Bill

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/13/2006 9:58:29 PM
Author: strmrdr

Well said Alj

STORMY, MY DEAR.......are we really agreeing on something?!?!??!

You''ve GOT to get me some of that Vicodin - sounds like AMAZING stuff.

Kidding aside, though......I truly hope you''re feeling better, Storm. Hang in there.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 6/13/2006 10:29:13 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 6/13/2006 9:58:29 PM
Author: strmrdr

Well said Alj

STORMY, MY DEAR.......are we really agreeing on something?!?!??!

You''ve GOT to get me some of that Vicodin - sounds like AMAZING stuff.

Kidding aside, though......I truly hope you''re feeling better, Storm. Hang in there.

Yay!!! This is a PS moment for sure. Gotta love it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/13/2006 10:29:13 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 6/13/2006 9:58:29 PM

Author: strmrdr


Well said Alj

STORMY, MY DEAR.......are we really agreeing on something?!?!??!

You''ve GOT to get me some of that Vicodin - sounds like AMAZING stuff.

Kidding aside, though......I truly hope you''re feeling better, Storm. Hang in there.

lol
Thank you for the well wishes.

There isnt any question that there are serious problems with the GIA cut grading system. I think just about everyone here agrees on that.
The extent of it there maybe some disagreement.

Which is what I was trying to get at with my red Herring comment the time spent arguing over a presentation tool is kinda a waste when there are much deeper and serious problems at GIA.

I honestly hope they will take the opportunity to bring an outsider into the top spot that can turn them around.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 6/13/2006 10:59:59 PM
Author: strmrdr


lol
Thank you for the well wishes.

You''re welcome.

I STILL want some of the Vicodin. How''s about a nice game of Rock, Paper, Scissors for it? LOL