shape
carat
color
clarity

Diamond Cut Conference

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

Garry H (Cut Nut)

Super_Ideal_Rock
Trade
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
18,734
1st International Diamond Cut Conference
April 23-26, 2004 Moscow, Russian Federation
(Please put some photo's up all you regulars who attended - you certainly took enough! My eyes are still sore from flash lights)

Delegates summary:
Labs: AGS, EGL-USA, HRD, IGI, MSU Gem. Center and Russian Assay Office
Manufacturers: Antwerp, India, Russia and USA
Technology Companies: All Russia (Charm), Diamond Technologies, HRD Instruments, ISee2, Lexus Softmac, OctoNus, Sarin

When the three of us first discussed this conference in September 2003 we thought we would cancel it at the last minute if no-one wanted to come. In-fact we closed bookings early because of the response from the important participants. There were 18 presentations made on a range of topics. These will be released as a proceedings journal. What follows is a summary of articles of interest made from my own notes, and not yet officially endorsed by of the presenters.

Garry Holloway (Moderator)

PS A special thanks from the organizing committee is made to Gabi Tolkowsky. Gabi helped us focus on the end consumer, and the fact that diamond is a symbol of humanity. He helped make it possible for rivals to work together for the benefit of all. We came away knowing it is possible to grow the size of the pie, and our slice.

Goals and Achievements:

  • To build consumers confidence in diamond purchases, infrastructure will be created for the verification of any diamond cut quality grading system based on master stones that will be examined in standardized illumination by various trade experts.
  • This will aid development of new cuts and improve the beauty and manufacturing yields for existing diamonds.
  • A "community" has been established between the majority of attendees and organizations.


Overview of outcomes:
  1. Master Stone Set
    This master stone set (MSS) will be made available to all major labs, including GIA and Japanese labs who did not attend, to ensure that diamonds with similar appearance will be given similar grades by all labs. This is necessary to build consumers confidence.
  2. Chat site for conference attendees
    To be hosted on www.cutstudy.com and open only to attendees. The forum will also communicate information to the industry and the public.
  3. Major announcements

    AGS showed all their cards regarding the development of their new round and fancy cut grading system that will combine new parametric and direct assessment techniques.

    Kristall Smolensk launched a new system (Charm) that combines parametric and direct assessment, developed using ray tracing techniques for some basic light responses. The system was verified by 10 "charming" ladies observing many thousands of computer generated movies on monitors. After patenting is completed, a photographic device will be released that rates a diamonds "charm". This system is also said to account for color and clarity as factors influencing a diamonds beauty.

    OctoNus outlined a system for analyzing 3D models of any shape of diamond being graded. To accomplish this OctoNus developed Helium, a more accurate scanner, and they proposed a Master Stone Set (MSS) to verify the accuracy of all cut quality grading systems.

    HRD will work with OctoNus to facilitate the acquisition, and safe keeping, of the MSS’s. Manufacturers capable of producing diamonds polished to exacting requirements will be sought to produce and contribute these stones.

Master Stone Set

This master stone set (MSS) will be made available to all major labs (including GIA and Japanese labs who did not attend) to ensure that diamonds with similar appearance will be given similar grades by all labs. This is necessary to build consumers confidence.

The MSS should not be thought of as a grading set like color masters. It will consist of many diamonds that can be described as "good" or "bad" for a wide variety of reasons. They will be selected or manufactured to indicate various features of Basic Light Responses (e.g. light return, leakage, contrast, fire, scintillation etc) that result from various proportions and symmetry defects. We will begin with 57 facets round brilliants.

The MSS will be examined by industry experts from all levels and geographic regions. Their reported appearance will be recorded and the information compared with Basic Light Responses form 3 Dimensional models. These 3D models will be created using the most accurate scanning device (Helium from OctoNus).

Neural (fuzzy logic) statistical applications will be applied. Refinements will then require new examples of stones will be produced to find boundaries for ‘good’ and ‘bad’ for specific Basic Light Responses that result from variations in both proportions and specific symmetry variations.
Eventually the basic light responses (BLR’s) will be refined and verified to the point that it is possible to be predictive with a high degree of accuracy.

It might be expected that there will be geographic and demographic preferences. These will be quantified and can be the basis for new refinements to production, distribution and marketing of diamonds.

This process will then be applied to fancy shaped diamonds. Advantages of a predictive 3 D approach:

  1. It will be a simple task to complete a fancy cut grade for any cut
  2. The software can "reverse engineer" to design beautiful new cuts as well as improve the appearance of existing diamond cuts
  3. New shapes that better utilize a variety of rough shapes will lead to improved yields.
  4. This could raise the value of diamond mines that produce more of certain shaped rough.

Major Announcements

AGS made 2 presentations, Professor Jose Sasian of the Optical Sciences Center, University of Arizona, presented a paper on the Concept of angular spectrum and its relation to gemstone illumination appeal. Jose made complex issues comprehensible. He outlined a set of 7 basic light responses; light return, static and dynamic fire, static and dynamic contrast, leakage and glare. He introduced a variant of the GilbertsonScope called Aset, a multi colored Firescope / Ideal-scope produces images that indicate the vertical direction in a virtual hemisphere where light sources could be returned by a diamond. A second observational instrument produces a FireGram image that indicates the amount of fire that a particular diamond could produce. Much of this presentation was based on the explanation of light windows; they are either open or closed, big or small etc.

Next Peter Yantzer, Director of the American Gem Society gave a full and detailed presentation of The assumptions and aspects of the forthcoming AGS Cut Grading System. Peter spoke passionately about the project adding still more detail to Jose’s paper. He introduced physical limitations such as durability, known bad proportions, poor spread, fish eye tilt etc; one bad strike and the stone is out of the top grade.

The new AGS cut grade could be released around the middle of 2005 and will be somewhat similar for round and for fancy shapes. The crown and pavilion angle ranges will be on a ‘slope’ similar in concept to early MSU charts and the Holloway Cut Adviser It can be described as a combination of parametric (like GIA's proposed system) and two direct assessment techniques. It is envisaged that actual photographic images will be displayed on reports.
Both presenters made special mention of the role that OctoNus DiamCalc software has played in their research.

Kristall Smolensk - Charm
Russia's largest diamond manufacturer, employed the Laboratory of Scientific-Research Institute of Experimental Physics of the Russian Nuclear Center to devise a diamond grading system. Director Victor Baranov presented On the introduction of a new Integral Coefficient of Diamond Beauty Brilliance. This new system combines the idea of a parametric and direct assessment, to produce a single numeric value called Charm. Above 1.0 would be most desirable, below 0.8 would be less so. The scientists created ray tracing software that produces remarkable large images of a parametrically perfect diamond. They used this software for two things. Firstly they developed values for basic light responses (BLR) of intensity (brightness) dispersion, sparkle and pattern. Using this data they produced parametric cut grade charts based on table, crown and pavilion proportions. Secondly they "verified" the system by placing 10 "charming" ladies in front of computer monitors to observe many thousands of computer generated movies on monitors. They also showed a slide of a device that is currently being patented. This photographic device will rate a diamonds "charm", accounting also for the negative effects of low color and clarity which can influence a diamonds beauty.

They have used this software to reverse engineer or predict new desirable diamond cuts. One example was an octagonal stepped cut called the ‘Stealth’ which had unusually flat proportions.

OctoNus and MSU made their first major announcement regarding their research since 1999. They outlined a system for analyzing 3 Dimensional models for any shape of diamond, irrespective of having been previously sighted. To create 3D models with the required accuracy to create high quality ray tracing models, OctoNus developed a more accurate scanner called Helium. A side benefit is manufacturers and labs will no longer need to examine diamonds with a microscope to grade craftsmanship (facet meet point) symmetry. However the main advantage of Helium is greater ‘azimuth’ accuracy. A 3 D model needs more than just facet slope or angle; we should also know very accurately the direction each facet faces. Imagine a top down view, a given crown facet might point to due north; its azimuth would be zero. The opposite side pavilion facet might point to 181 degrees or 1 degree past due South. This results in a deviation in ray paths that is important for software that calculates the BLR or basic light response for that diamond.
Yuri Shelementiev and Sergey Sivovolenko enlarged on some of the concepts that others had presented; the number and sizes of ‘virtual facets’ an observer can see in a given diamond, the effects of pupil diameter and other psycho-physical factors that have been factored into their software. The culmination of this presentation was the introduction of a new concept called ETAS or effective total angular size of predictable rays and their measurement. This is a further refinement of BLR or basic light response methods that they, and others, have previously developed and used.

They further proposed Master Stone Set (MSS) to verify the accuracy of BLR factors for all cut quality grading systems. After outlining the MSS concept Ms An Peters of HRD research facility announced that HRD will work with OctoNus to facilitate the acquisition the creation and the safe keeping of the MSS’s. Manufacturers capable of producing polished diamonds to exacting and specific requirements will be sought to produce and contribute these stones.

Some useful definitions:

Parametric cut grade systems grade a diamonds cut based on charts or scales of proportions. Examples are AGS, EGL, HRD and IGI

Direct Assessment cut grades the actual diamond with some mechanism. Examples are Brillianscope(R), Firescope(R), Ideal-Scope(R) and ISee2(R).

3D Modeling uses a scan of an actual diamond and software based expert systems to predict the diamonds basic light responses like brilliance, fire and scintillation.

(If you wish to receive a copy of the full proceedings of this conference please order online at the conference banner on the front page of www.ideal-scope.com for a cost of $40.)
 
read.gif
Predicting desirable diamond cuts using Neural systems ....


This is finally getting scary - forget highschool geometry ! Serious work for (almost) anyone naively trying to figure out what lies behind the shiny stones.

But, but... a 'flat' stone with decent sparkle was supposed to be impossible, right
3.gif
? This must be the town of Oz you describe, not Moscow !

Thanks for the post
1.gif
 
Gary,
Any discussions on polish and symetry? A while back you said some research was taking place that was to be presented at the conference regarding the effect on brilliance and light return. Just curious..
 
Fancy cut grading system from AGS...great!




Interesting about 2005 AGS changes...




what did IGI/EGL USA/HRD etc have to say about possible creation of a cut grade system that they would follow? You mention HRD as assisting with the MSS...so they must be on-board?




It'd be interesting to see the Master Stone Set online in the future, in terms of stone pictures, IdealScope images, Bscope results, etc, so it can further help people see what they would choose.
 
Gary,
Thank you for all the awesome info. You've definitely peaked my interest. Please let us know when the proceedings journal comes out and how we might be able to get our hands on it, or if there will be another way (i.e. the internet) to read the full articles.

One of the questions I had is about the Helium scanner. It sounds like an awesome tool. Is it something they plan on actively distributing to cutters and distributers, and presumably replace older Sarin machines? If so, what is their perspective timeline to start distributing these new Helium scanners?

Also, do you have any initial opinions on the three approaches mentiioned for analyzing specifically round diamonds (i.e. the ags method, the charm method, and the octonus method)? Does any one stand out as being the most promising in regards to accurately grading the optical properties of a diamond, being the most practical, and being the most helpful in aiding consumers in their decisions?

Thanks again for keeping us all in the loop.
1.gif


Magnum
 
Garry:

Thank you for posting this fabulous overview and for facilitating such an outstanding conference. We are all anxious to hear Brian's account of his experience first hand.

Sibelius e-mailed a whole bunch of pictures to Brian (who is still not back) so I'll start by posting 2. Here's one of you and Brian in the bus...Peter Yantzer is in the background and unfortunately I am not familiar with the others. When Brian gets back on Friday I'll get him to give me all the names and then I'll post some more.

LesleyH
www.whiteflash.com

Garry_and_Brian.jpg
 
Here's one of Sergey (standing), Yury and Brian.

LesleyH
www.whiteflash.com

YurySergeyBrian1.jpg
 
Hey Lesley,

Just out of that first picture, that is me sitting next to Brian. You can only see a small part of my arm.

But, this shows that we both are in the front of the bus, shoulder to shoulder, facing the future.

Gary,

I should say that the whole conference was a blast. I got so much new information, which showed that we and some others are right on track, and that we are ready to face the new developments.

I still have so much work to catch up with, but rest assured, I will give a lot more info about this milestone-conference in later threads.

Live long,

Paul
 
I didn't recognize your arm, Paul.
 
----------------
On 4/28/2004 2:28:58 PM Paul-Antwerp wrote:

Just out of that first picture, that is me sitting next to Brian. You can only see a small part of my arm.
----------------

Brad was driving, by the way.
 
Seriously,

In the background, you have indeed Peter Yantzer of AGS, behind him Bruce Harding (aka Beryl), whose publication of 1975 is well known, next to Peter, José Sasian of the University of Arizona (assisting AGS in their studies) and hidden behind Brian, you have Jim Caudill, a cut grade research specialist of AGS.

Since he is not in the picture, I suppose that Michael Cowing has taken it. Or no, it must have been Sibelius, while we were waiting for Michael, who always showed up too late.

And to complete the whole picture, the driver's name was Leonid. We forgot to ask his last name.

To sum up the contents of the presentations and the discussions at the conference: we have learned a lot of new research, and we got scientific confirmation on some things, that we already suspected from our experience. All in all, it was a great exchange of information, and for those who were not present, shame on you.

Live long,

Paul
 
Oh Wow, what a great looking crew!

Thanks much for the pic, but I'm jealous over the trip!

win
 
Garry is on the left
1.gif
 
I have to testify that it was a great conference, with very open discussions and a sense of community and friendship, and I hope that we can repeat it soon with more participants, and results that are as good as this year's.

Personally, I was most impressed by the presentations of AGS. Until last week, I was anxiously awaiting the introduction of the new GIA-cut-grading-system, and I was deeply discouraged by the presentation of GIA at the Basel-fair, in which they revealed part of their studies and part of their future grading-system. I personally think that GIA is trying to do all the studies on their own, and are going to end up with a system that is slightly off from the results of other studies.

Contrary to GIA, AGS showed in their Moscow-presentation that their basic research is open for others, and that they can adapt if they are found wrong. Next year, we will have a new AGS-cut grading system for rounds, and for one fancy cut, and I am very happy with the way that they are going to change the system for rounds.

In cutting, this change brings a lot of new challenges, especially since it will be necessary to adapt each basic proportion (major and minor) to the other ones, and in the end, there will be very little leeway to obtain the Ideal-grade. I am lucky to be prepared for such a change, and so are some others, but I think that it will be a too great challenge for a lot of today's cutters of AGS-0.

All in all, these are exciting times to live in. The totality of the new information shared at this conference was huge, and I am sure happy to have been present.

Live long,

Paul
 
Thanks for the synopsis, Garry. Sounds like some great developments are coming our way!
 
This commentary was based on an earlier version of Garry's post. It's a bit less insightful now that the conference proceeding info has been expanded a bit.

It took me a long time to realise the significance of some of these announcements. It sounds like some really good progress is being made. The "rules of thumb" subjective diamond measurements of the past are being replaced by solid objective analyses.


Here's the problem. Our end goal is that we want diamonds that people think are pretty and we want a precise way to measure pretty. The end goal is not low HCA scores or low light loss; these may measurements of what people think is pretty but they are not in themselves definitions of pretty. So our end goal is something by definition ephemeral and qualitative. But we want to get an objective repeatable system for this judgement.

First Step:
The MSS is created to create a standardized set of varied stones.

Subjective Assessment:
Experts from around the world will rate the MSS on a number of qualitative properties (e.g. fire, scintillation, etc.) including overall appeal.
(IMHO, I'd like to see some non-experts be involved here too.)

Objective Assessment:
The MSS can also be measured very accurately (Helium).
It can then be accurately modeled (via raytracing and other techniques). (e.g. OctoNus).

The Synthesis:
We enter into a clever computer program all of the data, both objective and subjective. And it will perform some statistical analysis (call it "fuzzy logic" or "neural networks" if you want) and crunch the numbers and comes up with some mathematical (geometric) rules about what creates "fire", "scintillation", etc, and what makes a diamond good overall. Maybe the rules will look like the proportions used by the eightstar people. Or like the HCA. (I don't know what the math/geometry behind either of these, really.) Or maybe it will be something different. But the point is that almost a century after Tolkowski, we finally have a set of rules for diamond evaluation that are based on a systematic study using the scientific method.
And they're more flexible too: maybe people in Asia like diamonds to be one way while people in America like them another. No problem, after diamonds are cut, they can be measured and sent off to the market of choice. Or if I like a diamond with very particular properties, I'll be able to explicitly ask my jeweller for it, and know that it won't be a crap-shoot whether he can get one.


(My comments)
I've got several issues with the "Charm" system. I would hate to see this mathematical evaluation (overall quality, fire, scintillation, etc.) further reduced to a single measurement (a la Charm or HCA). Different people will like different properties, and we shouldn't lose this granularity of measurement. I have another problem with the Charm proposal in that it really missed the whole correlation with the Objective Assessment. (As I said at the start, they forgot to start with pretty, they went straight to striving for certain mathematical/geometric properties.) They didn't use experts or amateurs to determine what was pretty. They had decided this beforehand, and then simply used the human observers to "verify" their findings. Further, a small sample size of "ten beauties" is hardly a scientific experiment. And the beauties didn't judge real diamonds, but rather computer simulations of diamonds: this would probably bias any results in favor of the Charm system.

Also, this should not be the end of the process. The continuing production of a larger master set, a wider evaluation of the master set, and an improving of the computer models and statistical correllation will allow this to be an ongoing process.
 
----------------
On 4/29/2004 4:54:43 PM antigoon wrote:

It took me a long time to realise the significance of some of these announcements. It sounds like some really good progress is being made. The 'rules of thumb' subjective diamond measurements of the past are being replaced by solid objective analyses.


Here's the problem. Our end goal is that we want diamonds that people think are pretty and we want a precise way to measure pretty. The end goal is not low HCA scores or low light loss; these may measurements of what people think is pretty but they are not in themselves definitions of pretty. So our end goal is something by definition ephemeral and qualitative. But we want to get an objective repeatable system for this judgement.

First Step:
The MSS is created to create a standardized set of varied stones.

Subjective Assessment:
Experts from around the world will rate the MSS on a number of qualitative properties (e.g. fire, scintillation, etc.) including overall appeal.
(IMHO, I'd like to see some non-experts be involved here too.)

Objective Assessment:
The MSS can also be measured very accurately (Helium).
It can then be accurately modeled (via raytracing and other techniques). (e.g. OctoNus).

The Synthesis:
We enter into a clever computer program all of the data, both objective and subjective. And it will perform some statistical analysis (call it 'fuzzy logic' or 'neural networks' if you want) and crunch the numbers and comes up with some mathematical (geometric) rules about what creates 'fire', 'scintillation', etc, and what makes a diamond good overall. Maybe the rules will look like the proportions used by the eightstar people. Or like the HCA. (I don't know what the math/geometry behind either of these, really.) Or maybe it will be something different. But the point is that almost a century after Tolkowski, we finally have a set of rules for diamond evaluation that are based on a systematic study using the scientific method.
And they're more flexible too: maybe people in Asia like diamonds to be one way while people in America like them another. No problem, after diamonds are cut, they can be measured and sent off to the market of choice. Or if I like a diamond with very particular properties, I'll be able to explicitly ask my jeweller for it, and know that it won't be a crap-shoot whether he can get one.


(My comments)
I've got several issues with the 'Charm' system. I would hate to see this mathematical evaluation (overall quality, fire, scintillation, etc.) further reduced to a single measurement (a la Charm or HCA). Different people will like different properties, and we shouldn't lose this granularity of measurement. I have another problem with the Charm proposal in that it really missed the whole correlation with the Objective Assessment. (As I said at the start, they forgot to start with pretty, they went straight to striving for certain mathematical/geometric properties.) They didn't use experts or amateurs to determine what was pretty. They had decided this beforehand, and then simply used the human observers to 'verify' their findings. Further, a small sample size of 'ten beauties' is hardly a scientific experiment. And the beauties didn't judge real diamonds, but rather computer simulations of diamonds: this would probably bias any results in favor of the Charm system.

Also, this should not be the end of the process. The continuing production of a larger master set, a wider evaluation of the master set, and an improving of the computer models and statistical correllation will allow this to be an ongoing process.
----------------

Thanks for your excellent interpretation Anitgoon.
What field are you from?
You cotton on quick!
I never gave that much info in that summary.
People with years of experiance and gemmo training have asked questions and made comments based on that same summary that make me think you should be they and they should never buy a diamond without starting at #101 again.
 
For the benefit of all the participants, this is Andrey, the OctoNus accountant who was incharge of enrollments, visa's, pick up's / drop offs from 2 airports and al hotel transports from 4 diferent hotels.
What a difficult job in chaotic Moscow!!!
And one driver was rushed to hospital to have his appendix removed while on a mid night pick up!

In this picture note that he has a full head of hair.

Andrey small.jpg
 
This is a photo of Andrey the day after the conference. Note his hair loss!
BTW that is one of the two identical side entrances of the Moscow State Uni.

I call this building ugly beautiful. It is magnificent, but Lord of the Rings scary.

Andrey Balding.jpg
 
9.gif
9.gif
You're too funny, Garry!
 
Hey Gary,

As for Andrey's loss of hair, I am sure that he still had all, when we left on Monday.

Therefore, do not blame us for this. You were one the few who stayed for longer.

Andrey did a great job, by the way.

Live long,

Paul
 
Sibelius sent me this picture of Gabi Tolkowsky.

GabiTolkowski.jpg
 
Kind of off subject: I've been to Moscow and I have pictures from the tour bus we were in, and it looks EXACTLY like the one in the photos you provided! Is there a universal tour bus code saying that all seats must be grey with rainbow stripes?
 
Sergey and I met in Zurich on Friday the 17th of April, the week before the Moscow Conference. We had a rush train trip to where the big fair was on. The purpose was a formal dinner, in an old castle, hosted by the Board of Governors, Gemological Institute of America. Sergey and I seemed to be the odd ones out; other guests were influential diamontaires (donors?), the trade press and GIA staff.
Perhaps we were invited to keep the lines of communication open. GIA chose not to attend our cut conference in Moscow on the following weekend, probably because they felt that as market leaders, there was a risk of anti trust charges in the US. Anyway it was a very nice meal. We sat near Tom Yonelunas, the CEO of the GIA lab, and one of the Governor’s Roland Naftule a charming man who shares Sergey’s and my liking for fine wine.
The next evening was to be an announcement of more information on the GIA’s new cut grading system; the one they have worked on for more than 10 years that has cost $80M according to one of our conference attendees.
Next day we met up with a couple of other people who joined us for the GIA’s diamond cut presentation. Feeding the ‘chooks’ (chickens) is an apt Aussie description. GIA have been dribbling out clues to the trade as to the products of their research and the conclusions. They probably feel they need to get the attention of all the older dinosaurs. Getting ‘ink’, as the publicists call it, will ease the trade into what will truly be a big change process. Many in the trade will find the new methods difficult compared to judging diamond quality from just 2 numbers; table size and depth percentage. You might be amazed for instance that a frequent posting diamond dealer on this forum has never even seen an ideal-scope.

GIA have chosen a ‘sliding scale’ parametric approach with some added features like lower girdle length, crown star length. They also have some common sense factors like durability (thin girdles) and poor spread. This approach is called a ‘Parametric’ system, because it attempts to predict a diamonds beauty based on proportions from a Sarin scan. It is an improvement on the existing AGS approach, but probably not as effective as the new AGS approach that was unveiled a week later in Moscow. GIA will still rely on human observation of symmetry etc. The AGS approach will also be easier to roll out to fancy shapes.

On the flight to Moscow Sergey and I wrote a power point summary of the Basel GIA presentation with photo’s he took. This was presented at the conference, but we have agreed with the GIA’s convener not to publish any photo’s. We do believe it is reasonable to publish my personal interpretation of the limited data. This is part fact and part my interpretation.

Alice Keller, the Editor of Gems & Gemology said the article was in revision and if everything goes to plan the GIA cut study team will publish an account of the basis of their proposed system in the Summer issue of G&G.

On this chart it looks reasonable that the GIA parametric approach will be similar to the MSU Q and my patent pending Holloway Cut Adviser. Both Sergey and I have decided not to further develop such approaches; they are not adequate to prove a diamond is beautiful. The benefit we believe of such systems is to indicate diamonds with a poor appearance.

Estimates of the GIA’s outlay vary from $10 Million to $80M. The MSU spent far less. HCA took a month or 2 of spare time and cost $280 for DiamCalc software (I also drove people crazy with mini surveys; my admin manager still hides every time she sees me with that little black tray).
GIA graders will examine diamonds in a purpose build grading environment. These light boxes will be made available in lab sizes down to ‘toaster’ sized shop counter versions. They spoke about various approaches, including charts and software systems, to communicate the grading system to manufacturers, dealers, retailers and appraisers.

I hope this chart helps you get an idea. Note the white arrow and the comment that the #2 grade stone could be improved to a #1 or top grade if the lower girdle and or star facets were different. I have put the data onto an HCA grid where the red stones are better. But remeber I give a spread bonus, so shallower stones have less penalty. If the #'s were laid onto the MSU Q chart they would also be on the 'better yeilding' smaller spread side, but then the GIA will be under a lot of pressure from that direction
22.gif


GIA HCA1 72 dpi.jpg
 
----------------
On 5/21/2004 4:25:40 AM Garry H (Cut Nut) wrote:

But remeber I give a spread bonus, so shallower stones have less penalty. If the #'s were laid onto the MSU Q chart they would also be on the 'better yeilding' smaller spread side, but then the GIA will be under a lot of pressure from that direction
22.gif

----------------

From your chart it looks like a GIA "quadruple-one" has a 41 degree pavilion. Hmmm.
 
Bump.

For reSEARCHERs to read.
11.gif
naughty.gif
9.gif
 
News Flash, News Flash,

"the rollout of the round brilliant cut grading system, which GIA hopes to introduce by mid-2005 on all its Diamond Grading and Diamond Dossier Reports."
GIA news

To update my review (which is part of this old post - the one with the multi colored chart), Alice Keller said they hoped to get something published in the Gems & Gemology for Summer, but there is apparently nothing that made it on time.
In Basel it appeared that they would release a system later this year (suicide just before Xmas) or maybe, reading between the lines, early next year, which is the sensible time to cause the least seasonal disruption.

Anyway I guess the race is now on between AGS and GIA to see who gets the prestige of releasing something first VS taking the heat from the dinasaurs.
 
Oops!!!
I just noticed that I had made a mistake in the positioning of the GIA data.
It aligns a little more closely to HCA now.
Sorry folks.

Revised GIA chart72 dpi.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top