AGSL proves, GIA disproves ?????

[Paul-Antwerp]

In the recent thread about trade-participation (https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/trade-participation-on-pricescope.149926/page-3/), Garry Holloway had the following side-remark:

"AGSL proved reflectors and ASET works
GIA disproved it (even though the reported inventor of ASET was part of their cut research team)."

Having looked up the exact meaning of the word 'disprove', I find that it apparently means 'to prove to be false or wrong'.

Garry, I am a bit surprised by your choice of words, and wonder whether you actually wanted to say what you said. Could you clarify?

Live long,

 

[Regular Guy]

Paul,

Though your link above is not working, I know this thread you speak of.

But, rather than spinning the meaning of buffer, I was interested in the primary source. Neither Google, nor a search effort at GIA has helped. Can you or Garry or anyone here provide either direction to the original text of the "seemingly" discrepant data point, or do a basic summary for us?

Thanks,

Ira Z.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Trying again to put the correct link: https://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/trade-participation-on-pricescope-t149926-60.html

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

In the recent thread about trade-participation (https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/trade-participation-on-pricescope.149926/page-3//), Garry Holloway had the following side-remark:

"AGSL proved reflectors and ASET works
GIA disproved it (even though the reported inventor of ASET was part of their cut research team)."

Having looked up the exact meaning of the word 'disprove', I find that it apparently means 'to prove to be false or wrong'.

Garry, I am a bit surprised by your choice of words, and wonder whether you actually wanted to say what you said. Could you clarify?

Live long,

Hi Paul,
The context of my post was a little different than the context you created.
Would you agree?

But to clarify, GIA seemed to totally not consider reflectors. They decided to ignore most previous technology and opt for a human observation test. They glossed over reflector technology as being symmetry related, which I am sure you know my view about that?
(i.e. a handy side benefit, as I still maintain, and no one has disproved my belief via any human unaided observation , that H&A's level symmetry make a better looking diamond than one that is pretty good)

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Sorry if I took this out of context, Garry.

I was just surprised by the use of the word 'disprove'. From your explanation, I would say that they disregarded or neglected it, but they definitely made no attempt at proving it wrong, as far as I know.

In that sense, I just wanted to clarify with your co-operation that disproving was probably not the correct word in your example.

Live long,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Sorry if I took this out of context, Garry.

I was just surprised by the use of the word 'disprove'. From your explanation, I would say that they disregarded or neglected it, but they definitely made no attempt at proving it wrong, as far as I know.

In that sense, I just wanted to clarify with your co-operation that disproving was probably not the correct word in your example.

Live long,

I totally agree with you Paul.
Sadly they referred a lot to their own earlier technolgy published from 1998 onwards. But that seems to have been more about making it seem (for the board?) that they had not wasted so much money. Certainly that earlier technology, if it had legs, could have been used to develop grading systems for other cuts.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Thank you for the confirmation, Garry.

Live long,

P.S. Are you going to Geelong next week?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thank you for the confirmation, Garry.

Live long,

P.S. Are you going to Geelong next week?

I am trying to arrange it.
It is probably better to watch on TV, but they do an 11 lap loop up one hill, and have family there..............

(we are talking about the world cycling champianship)

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Sorry if I took this out of context, Garry.

I was just surprised by the use of the word 'disprove'. From your explanation, I would say that they disregarded or neglected it, but they definitely made no attempt at proving it wrong, as far as I know.

In that sense, I just wanted to clarify with your co-operation that disproving was probably not the correct word in your example.

Live long,

I totally agree with you Paul.
Sadly they referred a lot to their own earlier technolgy published from 1998 onwards. But that seems to have been more about making it seem (for the board?) that they had not wasted so much money. Certainly that earlier technology, if it had legs, could have been used to develop grading systems for other cuts.

Garry,

First thank-you for the article on the GIA foundations of their cut grading study really appreciated.

A FOUNDATION FOR GRADING THE OVERALL CUT QUALITY OF ROUND BRILLIANT CUT DIAMONDS
G&G Fall 2004.

However I'm not sure how earlier work especially in the way GIA structured their study could ever be used as valid dissent for an
AGSL performance based grading foundation article which was published in 2007.

Anything recently by GIA which disproves AGSL's methods?

Would you say GIA is not using the same/similar performance based methods because

A: It would undoubtedly upset trade and hurt their grading business
B: Because they haven't done the equivalent research themself
C: Because they disagree fundamentally with AGSL's methods?

It seems from reading the article it is mostly A, with a little but of B and not much of C. Would you agree? Or do you have some other explanation?

 

[John P]

I'm not sure how earlier work especially in the way GIA structured their study could ever be used as valid dissent for an AGSL performance based grading foundation article which was published in 2007.

I don't believe such dissent exists. Remember that a non-specific 2D proportions metric was AGSL's long-standing precursor to their newer diamond-specific 3D performance analysis. It makes sense that GIA would introduce a similar system as their first.

The AGS Diamond Grading Standards committee was established in 1955 (originally a colorimetry committee) and developed the 0-10 scale based on research and human observation. The AGS grading standards manual underwent revisions for 30 years before the AGSL began grading the round brilliant in 1996 - with a non-specific 2D proportions system, similar in many ways to GIA's current system. GIA did more recent research and observation and the metric they introduced is logically more detailed and thorough than the old 1996 AGS system.

It will be interesting to see what evolves in the future, from both organizations.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Thank you for the confirmation, Garry.

Live long,

P.S. Are you going to Geelong next week?

I am trying to arrange it.
It is probably better to watch on TV, but they do an 11 lap loop up one hill, and have family there..............

(we are talking about the world cycling champianship)

Hey, I really feel like threadjacking today.

Garry, knowing you, I think that you can arrange this.

Try to get in touch with the Belgian coach. Give him my regards. When racing in the youth-categories, he was clearly better than me, but I sometimes gave him a hard time.

Live long,