Differences in Sarin and AGS???

[Rhino]

Thank you for taking the time to read it Sergey. If there is anything in my response that is not clear let me know and I''ll help clarify. That goes for anyone reading this thread.

with kind regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Amazing Rhino

One poorly done study with one pair of stones - one painted stone - and one slight steep deep - but no where near the limits of GIA''s system is enough to change your entire point of view.

And waste all our time.

 

[Rhino]

Dear Alj,

I apologize for anything I may have said about you that offended you. I know I have expressed my frustration with you to others in email but nonetheless if what I said offended you, I sincerely apologize.

 

[whatmeworry]

Rhino,
When you say in your experiment that it was an AGS0, was that AGS0 based on the old cut standard or a AGS0 based on new light return?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/22/2006 8:05:53 PM
Author: whatmeworry
Rhino,
When you say in your experiment that it was an AGS0, was that AGS0 based on the old cut standard or a AGS0 based on new light return?

New.

 

[aljdewey]

Rhino.....

Thank you for the acknowledgement... (meaning that you finally have come clean on the forum here that you did talk disparagingly about me to others behind the scenes).

Thank you for the apology for same.

(Edited for the sake of clarity.....I understand it wasn't quite clear from my initial post.)

 

[Rhino]

Your welcome Alj.

I do have one more question before this thread comes to a close though...

 

[Mara]

are you going to ask the question or not?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/22/2006 3:54:38 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Amazing Rhino

One poorly done study with one pair of stones - one painted stone - and one slight steep deep - but no where near the limits of GIA''s system is enough to change your entire point of view.

And waste all our time.

This question remains too Rhino.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/23/2006 4:01:21 PM
Author: Mara
are you going to ask the question or not?

I was going to ask ... Could you please make sure my lemon pie is sugarless?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/23/2006 4:08:19 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/22/2006 3:54:38 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Amazing Rhino

One poorly done study with one pair of stones - one painted stone - and one slight steep deep - but no where near the limits of GIA''s system is enough to change your entire point of view.

And waste all our time.

This question remains too Rhino.

I didn''t see any question marks in that post Garry. I wasn''t aware you were asking a question and I wasn''t going to waste any more of your time.

In response to your post: I have said in other threads on this very subject that I am currently researching the limits of the GIA system. I don''t know where you come up with that I have entirely changed my POV because I haven''t.

What I have learned while researching GIA''s logic and approach to their cut grading system is that what I have always deemed as "steep/deep" (generally stones with pavilion angles greater than 41.0 and especially with crown angles over 35) is that this leakage that exists under the table, and is visible in reflectors and detectable with technologies is not discernable to the human eyes. At least this is what I had found with the 35.1/41.2 combo I had here not long ago. You and I may consider this a slightly steep/deep, but the consumer who sees an HCA score of 3.8 will run from it when in fact it was quite a beautiful diamond and preferred by 90% of the observers in our study against the H&A HCA 1.0 with altered girdle cutting. It is interesting to see now how that same stone (which I still have here) grades with the new Helium reports and Sergey''s grading and info regarding the notches and azimuth deviation. It all totally makes sense.

I have not personally inspected stones with the particular proportion combos that fall on the extreme outskirts of their system and I will not judge the appearance of a diamond I have not seen. I expressed this recently in a conversation with a consumer named "rogue" who had in his possession a GIA Ex with a 41.6 pavilion angle (can''t recall the exact crown angles but I recall it was a proportion combo on the outskirts). I showed him what a visible "ring of death" looked like in diffuse daylight to see if he saw the same effect in the stone he had. His repsonse to me was that he could not see that in normal daylighting viewing conditoins (lending credence to GIA''s observation testing) but could see it when he observed the stone against a dark backdrop. This totally made sense to me however I''m not arriving at any conclusions until I have such a specimen in my own hands for personal observation testing. I already know how such a stone will test out on technology. That''s virtually a no-brainer. A current personal goal of mine is being able to determine precisely what angle combo''s produce a visible ring of death that is discernable to the layman.

After symposium I have some stones to send out for recut and and will be having some of these GIA outskirts cut so I can see them for myself. Only then will I offer an opinion.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/23/2006 4:46:13 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/23/2006 4:08:19 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/22/2006 3:54:38 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Amazing Rhino

One poorly done study with one pair of stones - one painted stone - and one slight steep deep - but no where near the limits of GIA''s system is enough to change your entire point of view.

And waste all our time.

This question remains too Rhino.

I didn''t see any question marks in that post Garry. I wasn''t aware you were asking a question and I wasn''t going to waste any more of your time.

In response to your post: I have said in other threads on this very subject that I am currently researching the limits of the GIA system. I don''t know where you come up with that I have entirely changed my POV because I haven''t.

What I have learned while researching GIA''s logic and approach to their cut grading system is that what I have always deemed as ''steep/deep'' (generally stones with pavilion angles greater than 41.0 and especially with crown angles over 35) is that this leakage that exists under the table, and is visible in reflectors and detectable with technologies is not discernable to the human eyes. At least this is what I had found with the 35.1/41.2 combo I had here not long ago. You and I may consider this a slightly steep/deep, but the consumer who sees an HCA score of 3.8 will run from it when in fact it was quite a beautiful diamond and preferred by 90% of the observers in our study against the H&A HCA 1.0 with altered girdle cutting. It is interesting to see now how that same stone (which I still have here) grades with the new Helium reports and Sergey''s grading and info regarding the notches and azimuth deviation. It all totally makes sense.

I have not personally inspected stones with the particular proportion combos that fall on the extreme outskirts of their system and I will not judge the appearance of a diamond I have not seen. I expressed this recently in a conversation with a consumer named ''rogue'' who had in his possession a GIA Ex with a 41.6 pavilion angle (can''t recall the exact crown angles but I recall it was a proportion combo on the outskirts). I showed him what a visible ''ring of death'' looked like in diffuse daylight to see if he saw the same effect in the stone he had. His repsonse to me was that he could not see that in normal daylighting viewing conditoins (lending credence to GIA''s observation testing) but could see it when he observed the stone against a dark backdrop. This totally made sense to me however I''m not arriving at any conclusions until I have such a specimen in my own hands for personal observation testing. I already know how such a stone will test out on technology. That''s virtually a no-brainer. A current personal goal of mine is being able to determine precisely what angle combo''s produce a visible ring of death that is discernable to the layman.

After symposium I have some stones to send out for recut and and will be having some of these GIA outskirts cut so I can see them for myself. Only then will I offer an opinion.

Sergey explained to me, and I have explained here, why monoscopic ideal-scope views do not correspond with stereoscopic human eye sight. I posted the explanation more than 1 year ago. It explains why I am happy to accept slightly steeper deeper stones - possibly taking HCA excellent on the steep side up to about 3.0.

You never read it I expect, because you dont do that sort of thing.

I am off to the airport.
If someone could find the topic where I reviewed the first GIA Foundation article please?

Why recut a stone to steep deep (other than to be a knight in shining armour?) when you can buy them because cutters are cutting them still?

 

[Eva17]

When I come accross a thread like this one, it reminds me that this place if full of scientists that love to debate the infinate details.

That is what the scientific mind does. New technology is fueled by this.

So as professionals, show some respect for each other, agree to disagree and continue to experiment with new techology. There are some professionals that seem to have trouble with that.


As far as GOG, there aren''t enough minutes in the day to satisfy the walk in customers waiting to purchase their diamonds. The attention and education is bar none.

 

[Rhino]

I recall that thread from last year Garry. Not necessary to link it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Then why did you not know about this before?

Date: 8/23/2006 4:46:13 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/23/2006 4:08:19 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/22/2006 3:54:38 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Amazing Rhino

One poorly done study with one pair of stones - one painted stone - and one slight steep deep - but no where near the limits of GIA''s system is enough to change your entire point of view.

And waste all our time.

This question remains too Rhino.

I didn''t see any question marks in that post Garry. I wasn''t aware you were asking a question and I wasn''t going to waste any more of your time.

In response to your post: I have said in other threads on this very subject that I am currently researching the limits of the GIA system. I don''t know where you come up with that I have entirely changed my POV because I haven''t.

What I have learned while researching GIA''s logic and approach to their cut grading system is that what I have always deemed as ''steep/deep'' (generally stones with pavilion angles greater than 41.0 and especially with crown angles over 35) is that this leakage that exists under the table, and is visible in reflectors and detectable with technologies is not discernable to the human eyes. At least this is what I had found with the 35.1/41.2 combo I had here not long ago. You and I may consider this a slightly steep/deep, but the consumer who sees an HCA score of 3.8 will run from it when in fact it was quite a beautiful diamond and preferred by 90% of the observers in our study against the H&A HCA 1.0 with altered girdle cutting. It is interesting to see now how that same stone (which I still have here) grades with the new Helium reports and Sergey''s grading and info regarding the notches and azimuth deviation. It all totally makes sense.

I have not personally inspected stones with the particular proportion combos that fall on the extreme outskirts of their system and I will not judge the appearance of a diamond I have not seen. I expressed this recently in a conversation with a consumer named ''rogue'' who had in his possession a GIA Ex with a 41.6 pavilion angle (can''t recall the exact crown angles but I recall it was a proportion combo on the outskirts). I showed him what a visible ''ring of death'' looked like in diffuse daylight to see if he saw the same effect in the stone he had. His repsonse to me was that he could not see that in normal daylighting viewing conditoins (lending credence to GIA''s observation testing) but could see it when he observed the stone against a dark backdrop. This totally made sense to me however I''m not arriving at any conclusions until I have such a specimen in my own hands for personal observation testing. I already know how such a stone will test out on technology. That''s virtually a no-brainer. A current personal goal of mine is being able to determine precisely what angle combo''s produce a visible ring of death that is discernable to the layman.

After symposium I have some stones to send out for recut and and will be having some of these GIA outskirts cut so I can see them for myself. Only then will I offer an opinion.

It is hard to have a scientific debate when only one side seems to bother to keep up to date on current knowledge?

For instance it is a normal protocole to acknowledge the prior work of others - and clearly in this instance you acknoledge prior awareness, but choose not to acknowledge it?

Rather you decided to claim that:
leakage that exists under the table, and is visible in reflectors and detectable with technologies is not discernable to the human eyes.
as if it was your own enlightenment when in fact it was Sergey''s and had been previously displayed as such in a clear explanation that I made on a thread maybe 2 years ago?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/23/2006 7:23:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Then why did you not know about this before?

Because when I did make this discovery for myself, I did not remember that thread nor recall the content from it. It was brought up fairly recently here and I went to the link. Fairly recently I even commented to the effect ... "it's funny reading my own words in that thread from last year".

It is hard to have a scientific debate when only one side seems to bother to keep up to date on current knowledge?

Amen to that. Garry ... why can't you accept the fact that our studies take each of us down different paths? You are perhaps learning things that I am not and I on the other hand learning things you aren't. I read a saying from a very wise man who once said ... "The more I learn, the more I realize just how stupid I really am." It's so true.

What may be current knowledge to one may be old news to another and vice versa. Neither of us "know it all". Please don't expect me to know or have read everything you have because there are probably things I know and have read that perhaps you haven't. It would be more conducive to the learning environment of this forum if we share with each other what we do know and if perhaps one of us doesn't recall a thread from 1 or 2 years ago regarding a discovery we personally made earlier this year, lets not make a spectacle of it.

For instance it is a normal protocole to acknowledge the prior work of others - and clearly in this instance you acknoledge prior awareness, but choose not to acknowledge it?

Rather you decided to claim that:
leakage that exists under the table, and is visible in reflectors and detectable with technologies is not discernable to the human eyes.
as if it was your own enlightenment when in fact it was Sergey's and had been previously displayed as such in a clear explanation that I made on a thread maybe 2 years ago?

Garry, when I was doing that testing and then decided to report it on the forum, a thread from 1 or 2 years ago was not on my mind. Had I recalled it, don't you think I would have happily acknowledged it especially in light of the responses??? I would have loved to point back to a prior study by you or Sergey but in that thread neither you or Sergey mention that study to my recollection and I did not remember it when I posted it.

Cya in CA.

 

[Rhino]

Hey Garry,

I do stand corrected regarding my recollection of reference to the thread you mention cause Sergey did say in that thread in the very last clause (I told it on PS several months ago) but at that time I couldn't recall exactly where, what thread and the content. To quote Sergey:

Rhino,
1)Please inform about consumer tests this stones in normal light condition( not DD GIA) , for example in your office light. Result will quite different.
DD is penalty all nice diamonds without leakage. If you want understand why please read https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/how-lighting-can-influence-on-grade-appearance.38583/=
2) If you really want understanding How is GIA system correct? To Take GIA EX with Pav 41.6/Pav34.5 on normal light conditions . This diamond are pointing to GIA cut grade mistake
3) Pav 41.2 Cr 35 is really nice stone. It has not death ring in stereo vision. This diamond are pointing to AGS cut grade mistake( I told it on PS several months ago)
I do recall Sergey's comments but didn't on the last clause. In that thread I believe Sergey's comments sympathized most with what I and our consumers were observing more than anything from all the commentary that was offered in that thread. I don't think Sergey caught the part where I had actually inverviewed the first 10 observers in natural daylighting (not DD) right by our large front window which corellated with the other views (which I then later video taped).

In any case ... kudo's to Sergey for having pointed this out.

night night.

 

[CaptAubrey]

Boy, that Internet forum at the Symposium on Tuesday is going to be entertaining.

 

[pricescope]

...or boooooring

People usually are politically correct when they speak in-front of the audience unlike the Internet forums

 

[Ellen]

lol

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rhino if you want to use the title "researcher" then there is a normal responsability to follow protocoles. It is one of your very annoying habits.
Thank you for acknowlidging it.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-did-gia-included-steep-deep-diamonds-in-excellent.32135/=
This is the thread from just over 1 year ago.

Note the images that attempt to show the reduction in leakage caused by stereo vision.

Now the fact that you were involved in the discussion and debate on that thread................. well............I am out of words