Differences in Sarin and AGS???

[RockDoc]

Date: 8/17/2006 7:02:09 PM
Author: whatmeworry
Rockdoc,
Amen brother! That proportion graphic is incredibly misleading. It leads you to believe that those are the actual measurements. If they want to round up/down when assigning a Cut grade, go ahead. But don''t print the rounded measurements on the graphic. Print what you measured! I think I saw on GIA''s website that grading went through 3 sets of eyes. Anyone know if this applies to proportion measurements? (i.e, scanned 3 times?).

It''s really a no-brainer situation here with angle/proportion results. GIA is within its rights to report anything they feel would be relevant.

All the labs report each facet group ( crown, star, upper and lower girdle, pavilion etc) which is an AVERAGE. I am assuming that most readers and reliers on their reports understand this. But assuming is risky. Maybe a lot of folks think these numbers are uniformly accurate?

To AGS''s credit, they didn''t have the CHUTZPAH to state or use the word ACTUAL which is interpreted to mean accurate, although I''d suggest they do say "proportions averaged" as it would be eons clearer. Perhaps they will add that to their reports. I do know the powers to be at AGS to read the comments made here, and do make changes as needed.

BUT GIA HAS. and besides averaging they''ve also rounded up/down - a sort of double whammy. Then to make things a bit more serious - issues a cut grade conclusion based on the "double whammy" .

The methodology is their choice, many competeing labs with GIA report less, or nothing when it comes to cut grade.

I think I''ve written thousands of posts over the years that say a round diamond has 57/58 facets... why are we only reporting on 17 of them? Any one remember all the posts where I talked about the "40 Mystery Facets"?

Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The point here about GIA rounding proportion data is that they set the rounding data based on what accuracy appraisers and other stake holders can measure to with reticules on microscopes and straight out visual estimation.

GIA''s well looked after and callibrated Sarins can achieve beter accuracy - John the + - 0.2 degeees includes the crown angle which is the shortest and hardest to measure. Thier pavilion accuracy is much better - and this is the most critical angle for cut grading system that is parametric (proportion based). Rounding table to + - 1% is fine, and crown at .5 degrees - is almost OK - but pavilion counts 5 times more than crown - and =+ - 0.2 pavilion is like having + - 1.0 for crown - it is too much.

To run a system based on outside levels of accuracy seems stoopid

 

[flopkins]

Date: 8/17/2006 7:00:53 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

2. Angular variance.


This is a horse of a different color.


Sarin''s given accuracy is ± 0.2 degrees angular and ± 20 microns linear. This means decisive statements can only be made to the ones column.


If we did this…


CA 34.4- would be reported as 34.

CA 34.5+ would be reported as 35.

PA 40.4- would be reported as 40.

PA 40.5+ would be reported as 41.


This means most near-Tolkowky diamonds would be reported as one of only 4 options: 40/34, 40/35, 41/34 or 41/35.

That’s twice the rounding GIA does with CA and five times done with PA. The feeling is that reporting the average angle to within 0.2 degrees - understanding slight variance as a given - is preferable to cutting off that very-important tenths column.


Now...To make it more complex, remember that overall CA or PA for a diamond is actually an average of 8 measurements (all subject to ± 0.2 degrees).

*****

Putting this all in perspective, remember that less than 20 years ago we could not even determine these angles and the few measurements we could gauge were done by hand.

John - Thank you!! This is precisely what I was asking, but you provide a good point regarding the rounding that would occur if we went to the nearest ones... I''m sure that some of the PSers would be peeing in their pants if their Sarin data did not include that crucial tenth of a decimal...

Rockdoc and John - thank you both very much for your insight also into what is regulated and what is not - it does make a huge difference in what is required/included/not included of the grading companies!

I do agree that all of this is still so new, there is no regulation, and the Average Joe would not even know that the numbers are averages, I myself did not know this before PS, although I have to admit I didn''t spend much time on thinking about the stats, I''m sure if I had thought about it, I would have figured they *must* average *something* to get these figures.

There is no doubt that there will be more accuracy in the future, but I wish there was some caveats in the reports, stating precisely what John outlined -
''Average CA'' = x.xx ± 0.x degrees

Perhaps this is too technical for most folks, but even a brief statment noting the fact that certain measurements are averages, and accurate to a certain degree, would be very useful in the interest of full disclosure!!! (For the techinically minded science person that I am!!)

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/17/2006 8:27:23 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
The point here about GIA rounding proportion data is that they set the rounding data based on what accuracy appraisers and other stake holders can measure to with reticules on microscopes and straight out visual estimation.

GIA''s well looked after and callibrated Sarins can achieve beter accuracy - John the + - 0.2 degeees includes the crown angle which is the shortest and hardest to measure. Thier pavilion accuracy is much better - and this is the most critical angle for cut grading system that is parametric (proportion based). Rounding table to + - 1% is fine, and crown at .5 degrees - is almost OK - but pavilion counts 5 times more than crown - and =+ - 0.2 pavilion is like having + - 1.0 for crown - it is too much.

To run a system based on outside levels of accuracy seems stoopid

Very good point. It pertains to the fact that their non-contact scanning is done with the diamond inverted, so the table is actually in contact with the platform when it''s scanned. Our experience is just as you suggest; pavilion accuracy is quite reliable compared to table & crown.

Brian will see your 5x as important and raise you 3.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/17/2006 9:07:06 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Very good point. It pertains to the fact that their non-contact scanning is done with the diamond inverted, so the table is actually in contact with the platform when it''s scanned. Our experience is just as you suggest; pavilion accuracy is quite reliable compared to table & crown. The actual reason for better pavilion accuracy is that they are the longest facet that has its angle measured. From where they are able to measure it is typically 3 times longer and far lsee likely to be affected by dust etc.

Brian will see your 5x as important and raise you 3.

ROFL !!!!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 8/17/2006 8:30:59 PM
Author: flopkins

John - Thank you!! This is precisely what I was asking, but you provide a good point regarding the rounding that would occur if we went to the nearest ones... I'm sure that some of the PSers would be peeing in their pants if their Sarin data did not include that crucial tenth of a decimal...

'Depends' on who it is (sorry 'bout that).

You're quite welcome. They're great questions.

Rockdoc and John - thank you both very much for your insight also into what is regulated and what is not - it does make a huge difference in what is required/included/not included of the grading companies!

I do agree that all of this is still so new, there is no regulation, and the Average Joe would not even know that the numbers are averages, I myself did not know this before PS, although I have to admit I didn't spend much time on thinking about the stats, I'm sure if I had thought about it, I would have figured they *must* average *something* to get these figures.

Just right and you won't be the last to wonder. The cool thing about Pricescope is that the next Average Joe and Josephina will benefit from your having asked for clarification...and they may come up with further questions.

There is no doubt that there will be more accuracy in the future, but I wish there was some caveats in the reports, stating precisely what John outlined -
'Average CA' = x.xx ± 0.x degrees

Perhaps this is too technical for most folks, but even a brief statment noting the fact that certain measurements are averages, and accurate to a certain degree, would be very useful in the interest of full disclosure!!! (For the techinically minded science person that I am!!)

I've no doubt we will continue to evolve on the whole. One step will be helping GIA understand that the rounding doesn't benefit consumers.

 

[He Scores]

I always considered the "averaging" of angles more detrimental to determining the quality of a diamond''s cut than the rounding off of measurements. I''ve seen data on a H&A diamond where the pavillion angle had a full one degree difference between the flattest and the highest angle, but the average was in the preferable 40.9 range. There is a huge difference between a diamond that has all the bottom angles on 40.9 and one that has some angles on 40.4 and 41.4 Many things can be wrong with a stone like this...the culet can be way out of center, the girdle could be equally drastic in variation, and more probably the cause of such an error would be that the table is not on the same plane as the girdle.

All of these things, if taken on their own merit can produce a cut anaylysis that accurately portrays how well a stone is cut, and not how good it LOOKS. LOOKS can be decieving.

I pointed out earlier the effect of rounding off as reflected in BrayScore analysis. The analysis of each angle (as well as other elements of the cutting process that can be measured) is crucial to the accurate reporting of how well a diamond is cut.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[Rhino]

Sorry for not being able to respond sooner. I see a lot of input has been given here which is super.

Date: 8/16/2006 9:20:54 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/16/2006 8:52:28 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/16/2006 8:36:54 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
If GIA can not provide an adequate level of accuracy within their own lab to neccessetate that level of rounding then it is very sad indeed.

If that should actually be the case then they have a duty of care to replace their Sarins with Helium scanners.

I do not accept the arguement that they need to allow for other peoples innacurate devices. That is a very poor basis for excessive amounts of rounding.

In a perfect world ... everyone would be using it Garry. While I agree with your comments, reality is it isn''t going to happen. This is one reason why I believe GIA has taken the practical approach to this subject that they have. As I have stated, I am for exacting measurements ... quite frankly I prefer it down to 1/1000th of a degree really but you know as well as I that whatever personal standards you or I set for ourselves are not practical for the industry as a whole.

Peace,

More evidence of your lack or research Rhino.
Read my comments, and go read why the GIA said they rounded.
Then try to make a valid comment or agree.
But dont waste our time if you never bothered to keep up to date please

Gosh I hope I don''t sound as rude and condescending in my responses.

Lack of research because I stated the above? Garry ... in the very article it states...

on page 2...

PROPORTION PRECISION
The appropriate precisions for these measurements were chosen by evaluating three important considerations for designing a consistent, practical grading system: measurement, manufacturing and visual discernment. The first consideration was how well can a particular proportion be measured? ...

The second issue was how finely can a diamond man¬ufacturer cut each proportion? It makes little sense to insist on precision that is beyond the manufacturer’s control. It was important to determine a level of reporting that was practical and did not report values with unnec¬essary precision.

The final point was how much difference in a given pro¬portion is needed to produce a change in face-up appear¬ance noticeable by most observers? This last consideration may be the most important, since the purpose of the cut¬grading system is to separate better-looking round brilliant diamonds from worse-looking ones

On page 4 ...

By studying these three important factors, the GIA was able to arrive at a precision for each proportion in its system that is scientifically sound while also practical for the trade to use.

In their conclusion...

CONCLUSION
In short, for a cut grading system to be practical, the measurements for various proportions need to be practical as well.There is little reason to measure or report values to a greater precision than is discernable in the face-up cut quality as seen by most observers.

It appears what I have said reflects what is stated in that article Garry so why the rudeness?

Considering some of the other input from those in the science fields here in this thread, GIA''s approach doesn''t seem to be so unreasonable.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Alj,

Hrm... I find myself in the usual catch 22 position.

I would love to repsond to each of your thoughts and personally I would have no problem discussing these things openly as I have nothing to hide. Out of respect for Leo and the rules of this forum I am once again prevented from answering in my usual thought for thought fashion because responding to your post would require bringing personal things to the forum and that is not allowed here. However I would love to speak with you personally so we can hopefully iron out whatever differences exist between us. I don''t understand why you hate me and I get many emails from people wondering why you speak to me as you do. I do not know and if somehow I have wronged you, I would like to know that to so I can apologize and make good for whatever wrong I have caused in your life.

I recall once giving you my cell number, but I insist on footing the bill so if you call I will immediately call you right back. If you don''t have my cell # call me at the store. I believe peace can exist here and between us, but at the same time I know you have heard 2nd party rumors about me based on information I know of that is false. I also know the source of that information. I only want you to hear a side of the story you haven''t yet heard. Only until we speak will you fully understand the answers to your questions and I am more than happy to share with you the experiences I have been through and the people involved. Only it can''t be done here.

With kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/16/2006 11:30:34 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/16/2006 9:18:22 PM
Author: Rhino
Hey Senor,

Date: 8/16/2006 9:05:49 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I take it that means you agree GIA have a grading system for the average Joe, that just happens to benefit those cutting deeper smaller looking diamonds?

Personally I don''t think its fair to rail GIA for this unless we''re going to equally rail AGS at the same time. Read the article Duh! It has little to do with scanners - and is a huge cop out. Both of these well respected labs allow depths up to 63%. Duh! AGS do not use depth % and GIA can accept stones with nearly twice the AGS system spread reductions - and GIA have never even told anyone how they calculate spread - bad bad bad transperancy. you should know this stuff Rhino - you never bother to read or understand it though. Admittedly I try to avoid depths in the high 62 range but even stones that reach the 62 mark ... if all the angles/percentiles are fine I see no probs. I think the controversy, at least with us fickle types is around the angle combos more than anything. Eh?

I think that is a shame because GIA is a great organization that does a lot of good for the industry and for consumers.
there is a great interview with bill boyajian in this months Rap mag. It outlines what they accomplished in his 20 year reign. It is amazing. But on the cut grades they stuffed up. This accuracy issue is one pert of the stuff up. DD is the biggest part.

LOL... you know how to get a chuckle out of me.

I''ve been swamped the past few days. Once I can escape for a bit I have some interesting stuff for ya but hopefully the DD will be at the symposium so we can look and see some stones together under it so I can demonstrate some facts Here we go again - your Bible bashing ''facts'' - you simply keep shoving it down our throats that you and you alone know the facts. i am very happy to discuss anything with you - even religion if we must - but I will not discuss anything with anyone who tells me they are going to show me the facts. How hard is it for you to understand how offensive that concept is to anyone who is interested in a topic and learning about the topic? to ya with it that I know you are mistaken about. Have you taken the time to watch and study my brightness vid again? You must be crazy?????????????????? You videos are great entertainment for Joe Average Rhino - but unless you bother to provide repeatability data 9eg angles of filming and background lightin and all sorts of other stuff) then i do not even know why I bothered watch it once 9or twice).You may want to recap that mate and study the views under dealer lighting then under DD lighting. Lord willing, you''ll see what I''m seeing and we''ll finally have a meeting of the minds. Gotta split for now. Tata till tomorrow.

Peace,

Argh. I''m sorry if my words came across wrong.

I don''t try to bash anything onto anyone. There are certain obvious misunderstandings that exist Garry. I have expressed this to you time and again. Try and remain open minded and I will do likewise. I''m currently editing something I''d like to share and they happen to be with stones that you and otheres here are familiar with which I would like to solicit your opinion on. Please bear with me while I complete this.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/17/2006 1:10:26 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/17/2006 12:59:53 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Ira,

To put it all in a nutshell, as simple as I know how ...

I agree that more detail is preferred. I am not contesting this. All I am saying is that with the familiarity I have with the various scanners on the market (Sarin/OGI/Helium) I understand why they have taken the approach they have. That is all. It''s what I stated when I first commented as no two scanners will always give precisely the same measurements. It''s not a reason for people to get concerned and it is not a reason to fight.

Peace,

re:precisely the same measurements

What is it?

Measurements of the angles and percentages Serg. Most Sarin''s etc. will be within certain tolerances, but if you compare Sarin''s with OGI''s etc. the differences can be a little more dramatic. When breaking down to 1/1000th of a degree (and in many cases even 1/100th) no two will always be the same. That''s all I''m saying.

Regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/18/2006 5:32:03 PM
Author: Rhino
Sorry for not being able to respond sooner. I see a lot of input has been given here which is super.

Date: 8/16/2006 9:20:54 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/16/2006 8:52:28 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/16/2006 8:36:54 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
If GIA can not provide an adequate level of accuracy within their own lab to neccessetate that level of rounding then it is very sad indeed.

If that should actually be the case then they have a duty of care to replace their Sarins with Helium scanners.

I do not accept the arguement that they need to allow for other peoples innacurate devices. That is a very poor basis for excessive amounts of rounding.

In a perfect world ... everyone would be using it Garry. While I agree with your comments, reality is it isn''t going to happen. This is one reason why I believe GIA has taken the practical approach to this subject that they have. As I have stated, I am for exacting measurements ... quite frankly I prefer it down to 1/1000th of a degree really but you know as well as I that whatever personal standards you or I set for ourselves are not practical for the industry as a whole.

Peace,

More evidence of your lack or research Rhino.
Read my comments, and go read why the GIA said they rounded.
Then try to make a valid comment or agree.
But dont waste our time if you never bothered to keep up to date please

Gosh I hope I don''t sound as rude and condescending in my responses.

Lack of research because I stated the above? Garry ... in the very article it states...

on page 2...

PROPORTION PRECISION
The appropriate precisions for these measurements were chosen by evaluating three important considerations for designing a consistent, practical grading system: measurement, manufacturing and visual discernment. The first consideration was how well can a particular proportion be measured? ...

The second issue was how finely can a diamond man¬ufacturer cut each proportion? It makes little sense to insist on precision that is beyond the manufacturer’s control. It was important to determine a level of reporting that was practical and did not report values with unnec¬essary precision.

The final point was how much difference in a given pro¬portion is needed to produce a change in face-up appear¬ance noticeable by most observers? This last consideration may be the most important, since the purpose of the cut¬grading system is to separate better-looking round brilliant diamonds from worse-looking ones

On page 4 ...

By studying these three important factors, the GIA was able to arrive at a precision for each proportion in its system that is scientifically sound while also practical for the trade to use.

In their conclusion...

CONCLUSION
In short, for a cut grading system to be practical, the measurements for various proportions need to be practical as well.There is little reason to measure or report values to a greater precision than is discernable in the face-up cut quality as seen by most observers.

It appears what I have said reflects what is stated in that article Garry so why the rudeness?

Considering some of the other input from those in the science fields here in this thread, GIA''s approach doesn''t seem to be so unreasonable.

So you understand now that GIA base their grading rounding not on their own equipments constraints but the constraints of others with or without proper equipment?

And you think that is reasonable?

I do not.

We disagree.

But at least now you have done some simple research.

Thank you.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/17/2006 5:31:33 PM
Author: flopkins

Date: 8/15/2006 1:56:59 PM
Author: angeline
I appreciate everyone''s replies which are more detailed than I ever hoped for! However as we''re getting into this topic, I have a thought or two... Coming from an experimental physics background, machines used for measurement (and we''re talking MUCH smaller than 1/1000''s of a mm, think nanometers) have a stated accuracy. So if measurements are taken to say 2 decimal places, that last digit is accurate to within +/- .5 of the third decimal place if you get what I mean. eg a measurment of .27mm means .27mm +/- .005mm, or the measurement could be anywhere within .265 to .275.


What I don''t get is

1: why rounding down in weight meas. occurs until the value is >.9

2: if a machine can''t reproduce a measurement consistently to a certain decimal place then that decimal place isn''t accurate and should be rounded according to normal scientific convention as in my small example above. These Sarin machines should have a certain stated accuracy that is reproducible to THAT decimal place. Any further decimal places are meaningless.


just my .02

a

I *still* do not see a good explanation of angeline''s point made here, which I am also wondering. I am also in the science field, if that makes any difference whatsoever, and to me it is silly to report to a decimal that is not in any way accurate - there are very clear rules about this in the scientific field and, in my mind, they are based on entirely reasonable assumptions. (ie, if your instrument cannot repeatably and precisely measure to the thousandth of a unit, you cannot claim that your measurement is accurate to the thousandth of a unit!!)

In some ways I suppose AGS and GIA are of opposite ends of the spectrum on this issue, which is what started the whole rounding debate, but that does not answer the *original point* by angeline???? Why would AGS report to the thousandth decimal if the accuracy of that measurement is not reliable?!!

It doesn''t make sense to me, just as it doesn''t make sense to me that GIA rounds up or down!!

Hi flopkins,

GREAT POST. It demonstrates the reasons why I am sympathetic with the approach they have taken. BTW GIA and AGS are not on opposite ends of the spectrum on this. AGS is fully aware of the limitations of these scanners as well. In GIA''s article (that Garry linked to) they state the consistency of measuring each of the facet sets by these scanners and there are facet sets that can be measured with repeatable accuracy down to 1 percent like stars and lower girdles which are rounded up to the nearest 5% in GIA''s system. This is certainly something I''d like to see reported more precisely however GIA reasons...

"NCMS measure star and lower-half lengths to a precision of about 1 percent,but the best one can do with a reticle is about 2 percent. An experienced observer can estimate both of these proportions to the nearest 5 percent from the relative geometry of the facets; it takes about a 5 percent change to produce distinct changes in face-up cut appearance. "

With the extensive observation testing GIA has conducted it has put them in a unique position to determine certain thresholds in facet measurements that impact face up appearance. We can all sit here on the sidelines and criticize but really ... until we have "walked in their shoes" so to speak and performed the obsersation testing only then can we offer what I would consider true and real criticism. I was so skeptical in fact of a certain proportion combo''s that were making the Ex grade, when I acquired one I performed my own observation testing experiment (and not using GIA''s lighting either at the outset!). When the results corellated to GIA''s own observation testing it kind of opened my eyes to their approach.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/18/2006 7:02:34 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/18/2006 5:32:03 PM
Author: Rhino
Sorry for not being able to respond sooner. I see a lot of input has been given here which is super.

Date: 8/16/2006 9:20:54 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/16/2006 8:52:28 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/16/2006 8:36:54 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
If GIA can not provide an adequate level of accuracy within their own lab to neccessetate that level of rounding then it is very sad indeed.

If that should actually be the case then they have a duty of care to replace their Sarins with Helium scanners.

I do not accept the arguement that they need to allow for other peoples innacurate devices. That is a very poor basis for excessive amounts of rounding.

In a perfect world ... everyone would be using it Garry. While I agree with your comments, reality is it isn''t going to happen. This is one reason why I believe GIA has taken the practical approach to this subject that they have. As I have stated, I am for exacting measurements ... quite frankly I prefer it down to 1/1000th of a degree really but you know as well as I that whatever personal standards you or I set for ourselves are not practical for the industry as a whole.

Peace,

More evidence of your lack or research Rhino.
Read my comments, and go read why the GIA said they rounded.
Then try to make a valid comment or agree.
But dont waste our time if you never bothered to keep up to date please

Gosh I hope I don''t sound as rude and condescending in my responses.

Lack of research because I stated the above? Garry ... in the very article it states...

on page 2...

PROPORTION PRECISION
The appropriate precisions for these measurements were chosen by evaluating three important considerations for designing a consistent, practical grading system: measurement, manufacturing and visual discernment. The first consideration was how well can a particular proportion be measured? ...

The second issue was how finely can a diamond man¬ufacturer cut each proportion? It makes little sense to insist on precision that is beyond the manufacturer’s control. It was important to determine a level of reporting that was practical and did not report values with unnec¬essary precision.

The final point was how much difference in a given pro¬portion is needed to produce a change in face-up appear¬ance noticeable by most observers? This last consideration may be the most important, since the purpose of the cut¬grading system is to separate better-looking round brilliant diamonds from worse-looking ones

On page 4 ...

By studying these three important factors, the GIA was able to arrive at a precision for each proportion in its system that is scientifically sound while also practical for the trade to use.

In their conclusion...

CONCLUSION
In short, for a cut grading system to be practical, the measurements for various proportions need to be practical as well.There is little reason to measure or report values to a greater precision than is discernable in the face-up cut quality as seen by most observers.

It appears what I have said reflects what is stated in that article Garry so why the rudeness?

Considering some of the other input from those in the science fields here in this thread, GIA''s approach doesn''t seem to be so unreasonable.

So you understand now that GIA base their grading rounding not on their own equipments constraints but the constraints of others with or without proper equipment?

And you think that is reasonable?

I do not.

We disagree.

But at least now you have done some simple research.

Thank you.

Garry ...

Do you know or have heard of Barry Block GG, CSM-NAJA, ASA?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/18/2006 7:14:00 PM
Author: Rhino

Garry ...

Do you know or have heard of Barry Block GG, CSM-NAJA, ASA?

Do not believe we ever met

 

[aljdewey]

Hi, Rhino:

With all my heart, I wish you could accept and embrace that a difference of opinion is just that....a difference of opinion. You think that GIA's methodology is reasonable, and I don't think that it is. There is no reason we have to agree or come to consensus. We just see things differently. But when someone doesn't see it your way, you take it personally and it becomes a crusade for you to "out-expertise" everyone else.

You're wrong in thinking that I hate you, and I know you know that's not true. When this thread was going on a year ago, you asked for my personal, private input and help, which I freely gave. I spent a ton of time replying to your emails and even phoned you at your request. I don't do that for people I hate.

But I learned a valuable lesson in that experience.....at the very time you were calling me your "dear friend" and telling me how grateful you were for my time and that I cared enough to help, you were vilifying me to others. (I don't just think this; I've seen it. I'm sure you never expected that some of the folks you ranted to in private would share that stuff with others. Sadly, things like that have a way of leaking---folks like to gossip, and before you know it, it's making the rounds.)

After this, I understand that 'private conversations' serve very well those who want to slant the representation of what is said. I'm afraid that I cannot comfortably put myself in that position, so I'd prefer transparency here to a phone call. I won't engage in 'private' communications with you with no witnesses present.

You don't need to apologize to me; I don't hate you.

I don't hate anyone here. I'm still here after three years because of a deep affection for the moderators, for diamonds, and for this community. You're a part of that community.

I don't really know how to convey this next part without it coming out sounding harsh.....because words on a screen just don't seem to sound as sincere or soft as I intend them to be.

What I think you sense isn't hate; it's a lack of respect..... for a few reasons. Chief among them is because you insist on taking academic differences of opinion personally. This comment has been mentioned to you so many times, Jon, by so many people, and you just don't seem to hear it. And it's been going on for years.......

Go to Google and search this phrase: Rhino Eightstar personal attacks. No quotes, just those words.

You'll find comments made by you in October of 2001 that are nearly identical to the substance of your cries here: When someone questions an assertion or opinion of yours, you feel personally insulted, and you respond by saying 'I'm personally attacked, my integrity is attacked.....' and on and on and on. This isn't new; it's a years-long pattern. So old, in fact, that it predates me. I didn't even know you then; I didn't find Pricescope until just over a year later, and I've never participated anyplace else.

But, singling out one person to call 'the attacker of Rhino' and making it personal is a way to deflect attention from the fact that there are several people not agreeing with you, and it makes casual readers (especially newcomers who aren't privvy to the pattern and history) feel sorry for you. It's very effective, but I don't respect the tactic. LawMax's comments here really speak to how I feel about the spin.

I don't respect the methodology that you'll term "science". I don't respect the sermonizing---the template of "In my 20 years of being in the industry, I've never ever seen a (fill-in-the-blank; diamond, gadget, etc) as fabulous as this; it's the best of the best, it's so precise, there is nothing comparable, it's how diamonds/gadgets should be....." Among the fill-in-the-blanks I've seen are EightStar, Superbcert, Regent, Jubilee, Square H&A, ISee 2, B/scope, Firescope. Even this is only a partial list. Singing that song too often begins to feel like "ok, I've heard this song before", and it inevitably diminishes your credibility.

I don't respect the lack of consistency in your viewpoints. Today, you're talking about how you think GIA's rounding is justified because Sarin, etc. isn't repeatably accurate, but if you go to that google search result again, you're on the record (in 2001!) waxing about [paraphrased] 'the awesome technology and instrumentation we have today, and how the Sarin and Megascope are so great....."

I don't respect the "FUD factor" under the guise of 'education'. I consider Leonid to be one of the most objective and peace-making people here, and his comments here (about demagogy versus science) speak directly to that FUD effect.

I don't respect that you're so worried about being perceived as "right" that you perceive academic disagreement as a personal affront. Instead of respecting differing opinions, you take the approach that no one else's opinions have merit and that you alone know the "truth".

I guess what I'm trying to tell you through examples is this: my feelings aren't hate or dislike, but a lack of respect. That lack of respect has nothing to do with rumors or stories from anyone else; there is no "source", no Deep Throat. It's strictly how I see things after spending three years here with my eyes wide open. It's the opinion I've formed based on your words and your actions over several years....nothing else.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Well said Aljdewey.

Rhino I too do not hate you either - you are a nice person, "hail fellow well met" etc.

You are not a bad person.

It is a behavioural problem that you have and it annoys some people - and if you change your behaviour then I for one will change how I act and respond to you. I get no pleasure from attacking your behaviour.

 

[Rhino]

I too see behavioral patterns which I''ve documeted over the course of time that many here see here as well. I am seeking permission to be able to respond to you openly here. If granted, I am happy to bring this discussion public and settle these issues once and for all.

Regards,

 

[Serg]

Nice post Aljdewey.

Rhino,

You are good tactic player, but it is not enough in Internet age more.

We like you and try to help to you.

I want add something to Aljdewey post.

Rhino, do not use:" ...Changed positions? On what exactly?" if you want receive or save respect.

 

[belle]

well done alj. thank you for taking the time to put together such an eloquent post addressing these issues. you have summed up very well how i feel too and i truly hope that the message is taken to heart. it is important that ps continues to be the place where we can educate, learn, share and disagree without making it personal.

 

[Rhino]

Hi belle,

I was wondering when you were going to chime in.

Date: 8/20/2006 7:23:43 AM
Author: Serg
Nice post Aljdewey.

Rhino,

You are good tactic player, but it is not enough in Internet age more.

We like you and try to help to you.

I want add something to Aljdewey post.

Rhino, do not use:'' ...Changed positions? On what exactly?'' if you want receive or save respect.

Hi Sergey,

I both respect and like you too. I am a big fan of your products and am appreciative for what I have learned and am learning with them and from you. I also appreciate you trying to help me understand things I have not thought about or am learning about. I am always open minded to your counsel as well as the rest of my peers. For that I am truly grateful and I pray we continue to have a fruitful and lasting relationship as business associates. The only times you''ll ever find me disagreeing is when my eyeballs and common sense are telling me one thing and you are suggesting differently, yet even then I will still listen. It''s ok though ... we don''t have to agree on everything.

While Alj has certainly given me many things to respond to (and I am writing a thoughtful response to each of her points, whether I post it or not will be another story), I am glad you brought up this unanswered question I posed to her in another thread. I also posed the same question to you when you said I changed positions on the BrillianceScope and FireScope.

While I don''t know exactly what you''re talking about regarding any change in position I have taken, I am not afraid to discuss the things I have learned over the years with the tools I employ and my studies into diamond appearance and how they corellate to technologies (including yours). In fact I encourage the discourse. With my acquirement of Helium, the release of ASET and other new gemological tools my personal education has expanded further over the course of the year. I do not fear talking about this. If you are perceiving me to have taken a 180 degree position on a topic I have stated in the past, please let''s talk about it and clear up any misunderstanding that exists between us. Apparently this same reason has caused Alj to lose respect for me as she expressed in another thread, yet she could not point to any specific topic I changed positions on when I confronted her with the question. At least you pointed to BrillianceScope and FireScope, however I still don''t know what exactly I have reversed positions on from what I''ve stated in the past.

My question stands Serg. What exactly have I changed positions about??? Ie... give me a past quote or teaching I made on a topic (if you would like access to my old website I will provide you a link). Show me what appears to be the reversal and please allow me the opportunity to share my thoughts before you, Garry, Alj and belle (and whoever else) attempts to judge me and let me explain myself. Another thought ... While I can''t think of a specific topic that I made a 180 degree reversals on ... so what if I did?!? Am I not entitled to change my mind as my own education grows and continually matures? Is that reason to follow me from thread to thread and talk disrespectful and condescendingly to?

I look forward to the discourse. Please don''t make it personal. We can talk about these issues like adults and don''t have to mud sling. If perhaps you think it is better to discuss this in private I don''t mind either way really. As I have stated previously, I have nothing to hide and if confusion exists in your mind or anyone''s about me personally, you will not find me running to avoid the question. If I can''t answer the only reason would be because it is prevented by the forum rules.

Also ... if possible. Instread of being bombarded by questions/comments from Alj, you, belle and Garry at once, which take valuable and consuming time away from my family and business could you please limit the questions to one at a time from one of you, and lets tackle them one by one if indeed there are so many. Alj''s last two posts require a short novel to respond to and it''s much easier for me if we make them more bite sized.

With kind regards,

 

[strmrdr]

Iv been trying to stay out of this because its achieving nothing of any use..... but I cant resist :}

Anyone who doesn''t change opinions from time to time has stopped learning.
Only a fool stops learning.

There have been tremendous advances in the science of diamonds in the last few years.
The tools have gotten better
Some of those tools have shown limitations in other tools.
For example if helium wasn''t available the the accuracy level of the sarin would be considered acceptable because it would be the best available.
At one time the sarin was the best thing since sliced bread but its a generation behind now the world has moved on.
That does not change the fact that they were the old best.

Things change and opinions change its how the world works.

 

[Mara]

i too thank alj for a very coherent posting of her thoughts, which i know that many long-term PS'ers tend to share...even while they might not chime in.

rhino, no one doubts your passion or the fact that you have exceptional stones or that you take great pride in what you sell. since i have come on the scene 3+ years ago, you have always been one of the most vocal technology vendors with much to offer consumers.

however, what personally bothers me is that you seem to wear two faces. there's the face we see online here on PS with the oozing graciousness and christian attitude, and then there is the face behind the scenes where you lambast certain PS posters and play the passive aggressive (i've been wronged) card...it never fails to amaze me at how a vendor could be so careless, i mean don't you think that kind of stuff gets around?!!? that lost you a huge amount of my respect, i can't really have much for someone who says one thing when people are watching and another when they are not...especially a vendor, someone who should be really more careful about what they say. your lack of professionalism is what bothers me many times. i've experienced this with another previous PS vendor, and for that reason i really don't know that i'd ever want to buy from that company, and sometimes i wonder about yours. i hate to limit my stone selection because let's face it, there aren't a ton of superideals out there, but it kind of goes with the whole vote with your wallet thing. jury is still out on that one.

i often wonder why you aren't spending more of your time out selling diamonds rather than on pricescope writing about the latest research you are doing or arguing with garry about this or that, or spending time to post something as detailed as the GIA: Consumers Beware page you have on your site. of course people can respect how passionate you feel for what you believe, and i think you do command a fair amount of respect for your thoughts on the technology bit, but more often than not it's Rhino's way or the highway kinda thing. you don't seem to have much room for tolerance of other ideas that go against what you are sure you see in your trials.

lastly, it actually does sadden me to see people (myself included) posting like this speaking personally to you about things that we perceive to be issues as who wants to be taken to task publicly for anything as a grown adult? but i agree that behind the scenes discussions with you seem to be often twisted, so it's better to just have it all out here. i wonder, when i see people saying 'rhino check yourself' time and time and time again and then you crying out time and time again that you are so personally maligned and how is it allowed, etc etc, i think ...don't you ever stop and wonder just how it is that so many people have come to the same conclusions about you??? you often say on here on how you want to be a better person, your christian nature speaks to that end, well how about actually listening to what some of your PEERS are saying, respected peers to you i would imagine. forget consumers like belle or myself or alj or whatever if our opinions are not as important but the opinion of people i really respected like garry or serg or whomever who agreed would eventually make me stop and go HMM. just how much 'truth' is in what these people are saying?

 

[aljdewey]

Apparently this same reason has caused Alj to lose respect for me as she expressed in another thread, yet she could not point to any specific topic I changed positions on when I confronted her with the question.

Rhino, I have answered that question.....in the post above. I even cited an example.

Show me what appears to be the reversal and please allow me the opportunity to share my thoughts before you, Garry, Alj and belle (and whoever else) attempts to judge me and let me explain myself.

I'm not judging you at all. I'd honestly rather have not posted it at all....but you asked, and it's not the first time. In fact, you asked once before, and I answered. Then you complained to the moderators until that thread was removed.

And now you asked again. You asked why I hate you and that you wanted to know if you wronged me so you could apologize.

So I answered....honestly and within forum policies. I don't hate you; that I just don't respect you and why.

Am I not entitled to change my mind as my own education grows and continually matures?

I'll answer your question from my perspective. It's reasonable to me that education will cause people's viewpoints to grow and change over time. It's less reasonable to me when one presents an opinion as couched in 'scientific' proof based on conclusions made hastily. It's less reasonable to me when considering the uncanny timing of how your changes of heart typically occur immediately following changes in your inventory. It's entirely possible that the timing may not mean a thing...... but it's easy to see how one could get that impression.

Is that reason to follow me from thread to thread and talk disrespectful and condescendingly to?

As for how people speak to you.....people speak to you in direct response to the way you speak to them. You condescend to people in your posts constantly....but it's couched as "that's ok, i know you can't understand it but let me teach you, dear." Especially reprehensible when watching you do it to your peers.

Don't flatter yourself into thinking that people are following you around from thread to thread. PS is a public forum, and all threads are open to commentary from all.

I could easily point to a plethora of threads you've come in to comment in after I've been there, but I'm not narcissisitic enough to think you're following me around.

Instread of being bombarded by questions/comments from Alj, you, belle and Garry at once, which take valuable and consuming time away from my family and business could you please limit the questions to one at a time from one of you.

There's no need to take time away from your business or family on my account, Jon. I didn't ask any questions; I only answered the one that you asked me. I haven't asked anything that requires a response.

There isn't much you could say that would change the impression I already have, which has been formed over years of watching. In fact, I suspect anything you'd add would only reinforce the one I already hold.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 8/20/2006 2:43:00 PM
Author: strmrdr
Iv been trying to stay out of this because its achieving nothing of any use..... but I cant resist :}

Anyone who doesn''t change opinions from time to time has stopped learning.
Only a fool stops learning.

There have been tremendous advances in the science of diamonds in the last few years.
The tools have gotten better
Some of those tools have shown limitations in other tools.
For example if helium wasn''t available the the accuracy level of the sarin would be considered acceptable because it would be the best available.
At one time the sarin was the best thing since sliced bread but its a generation behind now the world has moved on.
That does not change the fact that they were the old best.

Things change and opinions change its how the world works.

I absolutely agree with this, Storm......and with much of what you''ve said.

I''d just qualify that frequency has a lot to do with it. If people rush to faulty conclusions too fast based on too limited information, it''s inevitable that they''ll have to change positions more frequently. That''s what Leonid was trying to say in the thread I referenced. Conclusions arrived at using scant data are more subject to amendment than those typically considered ''scientific'' and thorough.

People who do the diligence and study thorough don''t end up changing their tune quite so often. Proof of the pudding lies in the ACA. Careful study and attention to the craft is what formed Brian''s basis for metric standards on the ACA, and that has remained remarkably constant over time.

Does it mean they couldn''t improve even more with time and scientific progress? Of course not.....as you note, people learn and grow. So sure, it''s reasonable that things change *over time*, but not generally with the frequency seen here.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/15/2006 6:32:55 PM
Author: He Scores





From the For What it's Worth Dept.


I took a raw data file for a diamond from the Sarin data needed to generate BrayScores and increased the angular measurements to the maximum error reported by Sarin which is +-.2degree. i.e. 40.7 became 40.9.

When this was done to all the crown and pav angles the score was lowered from a 712 to a 689. This represented a 4.4% difference.

The file was saved.

The file was then altered to reflect the linear error as reported by Sarin which is +-20 microns. This was factored into the gblz percentages, ghlv percentages and the gmins.
The file was then uploaded to the BrayScore web module and a new score was generated, 661. This represented a 7.1% difference.

This was a quick brief study and may have some errors...it certainly isn't a study as worthwhile as Sniper would do.


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

For those that don't know, my "handle" for the last 1 years on Polygon has been "sniper" as I'm not too kind to BS artists..

I've been trying to get Bill to do an analysis of variance study on Brayscore (which parts of which I agree with) for a while, and have publically asked all the generators of "cut grading" to do the same thing.. I do think that AGS has been doing some internal studies allong this line, but I don't know how far along they are. I have been "pushing" for a "grade" along with a one sigma uncertainty to gto along with it based on the unceratinties in the measurement.

One can get an "idea" of the possible effects when the stone is on the borderline of a grade, based on the theoretical contours published based on symmetrical stones, but this is in no way really exemplary except for the special symmetrical condition case.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I really sorry, but as an outside observer, it looks to me that the only behavior desired of Rhino on this forum is to agree with all the views of Garry and WhiteFlash. Anytime he presents another view, he gets a barrage of posts that seem more than a little like personal attacks. He has a right to his opinion (as we all do) and to express it regardless of whether he agrees with anyone else here. I got excellent customer service from him and have seen nothing but the highest integrity from him in months of email contact. He certainly does more for diamond education than any other vendor here does considering his website, videos, and time answering posts on here. And I totally agree with what Storm said...the technology gets better over time, so I hope he and others take the time to experiment with the new technology and change as the progress warrants.
I teach dyslexic children and what I said was the best reading program 5 years ago is not what I''d say today. But that does not mean that I was wrong then, it means I have found something new that is better.

I hate to write this as I am not desiring to "take sides" as much as I''d like to express how all this looks to others casually reading the forum.

 

[Mara]

Date: 8/20/2006 3:55:55 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I really sorry, but as an outside observer, it looks to me that the only behavior desired of Rhino on this forum is to agree with all the views of Garry and WhiteFlash. Anytime he presents another view, he gets a barrage of posts that seem more than a little like personal attacks. He has a right to his opinion (as we all do) and to express it regardless of whether he agrees with anyone else here. I got excellent customer service from him and have seen nothing but the highest integrity from him in months of email contact. He certainly does more for diamond education than any other vendor here does considering his website, videos, and time answering posts on here. And I totally agree with what Storm said...the technology gets better over time, so I hope he and others take the time to experiment with the new technology and change as the progress warrants.
I teach dyslexic children and what I said was the best reading program 5 years ago is not what I'd say today. But that does not mean that I was wrong then, it means I have found something new that is better.

I hate to write this as I am not desiring to 'take sides' as much as I'd like to express how all this looks to others casually reading the forum.

DS, I highlighted the most important parts of your post. For those who are not just casually reading the forum, things may appear differently.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 8/17/2006 8:27:23 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
The point here about GIA rounding proportion data is that they set the rounding data based on what accuracy appraisers and other stake holders can measure to with reticules on microscopes and straight out visual estimation.

GIA''s well looked after and callibrated Sarins can achieve beter accuracy - John the + - 0.2 degeees includes the crown angle which is the shortest and hardest to measure. Thier pavilion accuracy is much better - and this is the most critical angle for cut grading system that is parametric (proportion based). Rounding table to + - 1% is fine, and crown at .5 degrees - is almost OK - but pavilion counts 5 times more than crown - and =+ - 0.2 pavilion is like having + - 1.0 for crown - it is too much.

To run a system based on outside levels of accuracy seems stoopid

No, Garry, It IS STOOPID!!!!!!

 

[belle]

rhino dear,

my ‘chiming in’ was because alj expressed herself very well and I wanted to agree that i've observed the same things too WITHOUT having to write a novel of my own. of course, i could write my own observations but thought if I simply said “well put” it would express my agreement with what was written without being combative.

as it is, you’re still misunderstanding the point.
it’s not about anything besides you…your behavior…your actions your reactions and your inconsistencies. apparently, even back in 2001 this was happening. that's history. it catches up.

maybe i can provide an example...
did you ever know a smelly kid in school?
everyone knows he’s smelly but no one wants to say anything so they stay away from him or hold their breath around him...for years...then one day someone finally says something to him but the smelly kid gets very mad and denies it. even when others agree and tell him, yes, there is a problem.
no one wants to be told they're smelly, especially if they think they aren't. it's human nature to deny and deflect things that you don't want to admit about yourself.
your behavioral denial reminds me of this. some very intelligent and well meaning people have tried to tell you these things so many times. again and again…over a period of years but you will point to anything…anything…to avoid looking in the mirror…
conspiracies…misunderstandings…whatever…
denial is very powerful but it should be a temporary stage.
one clear sign of your stagnant state is your always wanting to always ‘take it private’.
there, you can control the conversation. you tried that route with me in email. very spiritual…very friendly…very emotional…but still the same rhino spin as here. when i didn’t bite, you decided i was the enemy…really?

you told me how much i meant to you…what a dear friend i was…that you cried yourself to sleep thinking about me…but because i agreed to disagree with you on the issues you decided to revoke my membership in the ‘i love you’ club and i automatically got put in the 'personally attacks rhino' club. wow…i wonder how many people you are currently ‘private’ with, playing your role as the spiritual, innocent but persecuted person, like you did with me? sorry but i have seen it firsthand and like alj, i have no respect for it.

my opinion? i think alj is wise to acknowledge that private communication with you is not in one’s best interest in the long run. others will have to find this out for themselves. any future 'dear friends' can take that for what it's worth.

anyway…that is why i chimed in. not to harangue you but to subtly reinforce the observations made not only by alj but by several. i am sorry the subtle did not work.

maybe this helps...???

maybe not.