Rhino''s Review: The Assessment of Fire Video

[Rhino]

Just a short note regarding Insanes comments and the responses...

Garry, you had that coming. I am a straight shooter as well and never mince my words. If someone is in disagreement with my opinion that is fine but it is not an excuse to talk down to the person and even insult the one who does not agree. We can share our thoughts, whether we agree or not and still talk respectfully to each other as adults. That is all I ask.

Leo ... I too am about no nonsense and have little tolerance for it as well. When I know something to be true, in my mind it is wrong to see ignorance prevail and people deceived along the way. I''ve been railed and attacked over this issue (I''m not talking this thread inparticular) and have oftentimes stood alone (as I currently do on this DD issue) but when I see friends being led astray by what I know to be faulty info, I find it a moral obligation to share my findings.

That''s all I''ll say about that and I think that''s all that needs to be said. Let''s move forward.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/13/2006 2:52:54 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Now let us consider your first statement:

Date: 8/12/2006 6:35:19 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/12/2006 4:48:43 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 8/12/2006 4:04:22 PM
Author: Rhino

1. In a nutshell, when i''m looking at diamonds at a dealers office (which honestly has been quite a long time since i do it here) I bring along a master stone of mine to compare it to and examine and compare it under their standard office lighting *away* from the strong fluoro desk lamp.

1. thank you Rhino - that is what I have observed in almost all cases of watching other buyers - it is instinctive and not something people even know they are doing. The closeness of the light and the usually white back ground of stone pads makes the stones look dark. The light also comes from a narrow feild of view. You might find the next time you are there that some cuts of diamonds look better under the desk lamp than others. This is usually true of diamnds that would show more green in their ASET images.

I hear where you''re coming from Garry and I also think this is where we are bonking heads on this whole DD issue. I think you are perhaps perceiving the DD to mimic diamond dealer lighting. Am I right?

I totally understand what you''re saying how that stones that exhibit more green in the ASET *look better* under this dealer lighting. Garry ... if you recall I demonstrate this in my brightness video.

Based on what I''ve read from you and this graphic from Sergey it appears you are mistaking the DD lighting for what is commonly seen under dealer lighting. If this is the case, this is the reason we are not seeing eye to eye on this issue.

I have an interesting video to share you with which I''ll try to have after this weekend for ya.

I guess we are bonking heads because gIA have made it abundantly clear (ie very clear) that that they did model dealer lighting. remeber most of the observations were conducted by dealers - there we less retailers and even fewer GIA secretaries (ie consumers) - this is what they say about it here Foundation G&G article :

Our observers examined diamonds in a number
of different environments, some variable and some
controlled, including:
• Their own offices and workplaces (using desktop
fluorescent lamps)
• A conference room at the GIA offices in New
York (using similar desk lamps and/or the viewing
boxes described below)
• Retail showrooms (usually consisting of a mix of
fluorescent and spot lighting)
• “Retail-equivalent” environments at GIA in
Carlsbad and New York, set up according to recommendations
by a halogen light-fixture manufacturer
(Solux)
• Standardized color-grading boxes, including two
commercially available boxes (the Graphic
Technology Inc. “Executive Show-Off” Model
PVS/M—the “GTI” environment—and the
Macbeth Judge II Viewing Booth, both with daylight-
equivalent D65 fluorescent lamps)
At least three versions of a standardized viewing
box of our own design (the common viewing
environment, or “CVE”)
• A variety of patterned hemisphere environments
(to imitate computer-modeled environments)

And they added this commentary:

with daylight-equivalent fluorescent bulbs; dealers
and brokers generally use similar desk lamps in
their offices (figure 4). However, this type of diffuse
lighting suppresses the appearance of fire (again, see
figure 3). On the other hand, retail environments
generally provide spot, or point source, lighting
(usually with some overall diffuse lighting as well),
which accentuates fire (figure 5).
Therefore, when we wanted solely to study the
effects of brightness, we used dealer-equivalent
lighting, which consisted of daylight-equivalent
fluorescent lights mounted in fairly deep, neutralgray
viewing boxes (e.g., the Macbeth Judge II, as is
used for color grading colored diamonds; see King
et al., 1994).

There is no vagueness about this Rhino - this is what they did, it is what they reported in a 27 page article - and Diamond Dock is what they did to make a repeatable lighting environment.

Can you or anyone else understand why I think your hide is thick? You have had nearly 2 years to read this!

You said: I think you are perhaps perceiving the DD to mimic diamond dealer lighting. Am I right?
Yes - I said that. about 10 times. Now can you believe that that is what GIA did and that is what DD does (to the best of GIA''s ability?)

Let me allow you to peer into this rather dangerous mind for a moment.

Yes ... Garry I have read this. Even in their new Diamond Grading Lab Manual they suggest it as an alternative. In that lighting (diamond dealer lighting) which I also have in my store, a similar assessment can be drawn however the lighting is not exact to that of the DD.

When I had learned that the DD was the actual CVE that GIA used to conduct their observation testing I wanted to see for myself just how exact or not it was to actual dealer lighting but most of all ... which lighting scheme it mimicked best and if indeed it gave an accurate view to a lighting environment that is indeed "common" to most viewing conditions depicting brightness.

If you recall in the video I had done on the subject I compare these very 2 lighting conditions. I also demonstrate quite graphically how that in dealer lighting, false conclusions can be drawn about diamond brightness.

You, Sergey and myself are on the same page regarding that Garry whether you realize it or not.

I agree 100%. Dealer lighting SUCKS. It makes leaky stones appear *lighter* often confused with *brighter*.

If the DD mimicked that don''t you think I''d be ready to POUNCE on the opportunity to help my friends at GIA correct this? And if I''d get a deaf ear, publish it all over this forum with documented evidence?

One thing you must understand about me Garry and Sergey ... you will never find me making conclusive statements about a diamond or a technology (or anything for that matter) unless I have worked with it hands on and have examined a number of samples under it (and usually can back the results with another competing technology). I purchased the DD for experimentation purposes to really put it through the paces and was ready to return it at the drop of a hat should I find it was giving faulty assessments. I can tell you in all solemness it is not. This is why I went through the paces in our brightness video to show and demonstrate the comparisons.

Let me also say I understand where you guys are coming from as well, especially regarding the Fall article and what you''ve quoted above Garry. I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt and based on hands on experience ... they are not the same lighting. I like the DD lighting 110% more than I do dealer lighting. Even though elements of brightness can be assessed in both, IMO there is no comparison between the 2. I don''t show clients under dealer lighting for the very reasons you don''t like it.

I was a little tied up the past couple of days as I had to have an operation done but as soon as I tidy up email tomorrow I''d like you to see your comparison stones which Wink sent me. You may not realize this but Wink has been led to believe (because of your journal article) that the DD lighting does indeed make bad stones look good and good ones bad based on the examples you gave. Of course I don''t believe you knowingly tried to fool Wink (and other trade members who bought into your theory). I know you''re trying to do the right thing Garry, but sincerely ... you got it wrong concerning this issue.

Tomorrow I''ll take some photography under typical dealer lighting, normal office lighting and DD daylight diffuse lighting and put them all side by side for ya to see.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/13/2006 3:02:08 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Rhino when you understand the issues to do with DD you could test it and then share your theories and video''s with us.

Sergey and I have gone out of our way to explain why GIA accept steep deep''s because of their observation stury (their earlier computer studies favoured shallower stones).

Perhaps then you will see that the reason they used domes with 46 degree obscuration to assess brightness!

When you model DD and 46 degree obscuration in DiamCalc the same stones score well. tolkowsky just scarpes in near the shallow end - which extends to C35 P41.6 steep deeps. How hard is it to understand? They made a bad job of it for the likes of us - a great job for cutters and yeilds.

Since I''ve yet to see a 41.6/35 I can''t comment there. However the cones with 46 degree obscuration I''ve done further research on and while that was one prototype that the research team used nothing conclusive was drawn from that model nor was it used to determine their grades. The 70k observations done were not with a dome with 46 degree obscuration. It was just the diamonds and the DD.

Peace,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Agreed - Sergey - we will let this go until after the Symposium (Insane Rhino will be there too i believe)

Date: 8/14/2006 8:49:51 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 8/13/2006 3:02:08 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Rhino when you understand the issues to do with DD you could test it and then share your theories and video''s with us.

Sergey and I have gone out of our way to explain why GIA accept steep deep''s because of their observation stury (their earlier computer studies favoured shallower stones).

Perhaps then you will see that the reason they used domes with 46 degree obscuration to assess brightness!

When you model DD and 46 degree obscuration in DiamCalc the same stones score well. tolkowsky just scarpes in near the shallow end - which extends to C35 P41.6 steep deeps. How hard is it to understand? They made a bad job of it for the likes of us - a great job for cutters and yeilds.

Since I''ve yet to see a 41.6/35 I can''t comment there. However the cones with 46 degree obscuration I''ve done further research on and while that was one prototype that the research team used nothing conclusive was drawn from that model nor was it used to determine their grades. The 70k observations done were not with a dome with 46 degree obscuration. It was just the diamonds and the DD.

Peace,

Rhino when you use the word research all the time it gauls a bit.
15,000 of the 70,000 observations were done with salad bowl domes.
http://www.gia.edu/pdfs/cut_table_1.pdf

I have mentioned it at least twice to you before??????

 

[Rhino]

Greetings Sergey,

re:''As one who has used and worked with this device now for the past 7-8 months on a daily basis, what is your basis for saying ''it is main problem with DD''? I don''t see any problems with DiamondDock lighting whatsoever and have compared its views and have documeted these views both with photography and video. The same assessment that is drawn in DD diffuse daylight is identical to natural diffuse daylight which I graphically have shown in our video on that subject.

My question to you Sergey is ...
How many man-hours or days have you spent viewing diamonds under the DD, then comparing those same stones to natural daylight environments in order to arrive at your conclusion?''


ZERO!


Firstly I received this my conclusion then check . It is better way for research than just do observation tests several months. Firstly you need build model, then predict new knowledge, then check it. It is real science way.
And I have not DD in Moscow and enough diamonds. Some ideas I can check only outside Russia( Usually in India).

This perhaps underlies the basic methodology between how you and I arrive at our conclusions.

As you have stated "Firstly you make your conclusion then check." Some would consider this putting the cart before the horse. Like before a trial is about to take place you have already judged the person/item guilty without viewing the actual evidence pertinent to the case and now you''re going to set out to find the proof to make them so.

My approach is 180 degrees different Sergey. I don''t draw any conclusion until I''ve heard all the eyewitness testimony, have *seen* the evidence (and in this case have worked with it for a number of months). Then I draw my conclusion. I personally do not understand how you can make conclusive statements such as "it is problem with DD lighting" when in fact you''ve never even seen the DD.

Can you imagine if someone purporting to be an *expert* in our field came on this forum and starting saying negative things about the Helium Scanner? My first question to them would be "how much time have you spent with it and how many diamonds have you scanned with it?" Ie... what''s your hands on experience with the Helium Scanner and can you provide me with examples that drew you to your conclusion??!?! If his answer is NONE/ZERO, how much weight should we give to this individual''s testimony? Do you understand where I''m coming from friend?

Sergey, don''t think for a moment that I don''t respect your work and the contributions you''ve made in way of technology and software. Your tools have no equal and is why I am a huge fan of Octonus and will always continue to promote it. Your tools along with the other technologies we employ has taught me volumes I would have never learned and for that I am truly grateful. On this issue of DD lighting however you will understand (hopefully sooner than later), that I know exactly what I''m talking about.

But
1)I received same questions when I was explaining main problems FS and BS. It is last question when opponent has not real arguments. My advice do not use it more. It is not helpful at all
2)You changed your mind about FS and BS and most probably you will change your mind about DD in next year.

Rhino,
My question is
How many months was you happy with:
1) FS?
2) BS?

I have changed my mind with FS and BS?!?!? Who has spread this false rumor?

In answer to your questions I am still VERY happy with Red Reflector technologies (FireScope/IdealScope/DiamXray) as well as BrillianceScope.

Please allow me to share with you my take on/approach to technologies so there is no confusion.

Firstly ... when I am investigating a technology (optical technologies in this case) what I do is see if its results do indeed corellate to human observation. If that technology can help communicate truths to our clients that we can''t always put into words (ie. as most do through graphics), I will continue to employ the technology. The longer I work with a technology and the more diamonds I scan and test, the more I learn it''s strengths and at the same time its limitations. As I learn these things I publish my findings so that anyone of our clients who are consulting these tools knows both of their stregths as well as their shortcomings.

Just because I learn of and discover a short coming of a technology does not nullify the truths I have learned of it. What it does it make me wiser in discerning what kind of diamonds the technology is accurately portraying and which they aren''t.

I do not dictate what the technology should or shouldn''t say ... I observe the results and compare it to the common person''s opinion (and having a bricks and mortar store I have great accessibility to consumer input/opinion). I become a student of both the technology and the diamonds being assessed in it. If the 2 do not corellate then I''ve discovered limitation. When the 2 do corellate I''ve discovered a strength.

Concerning BrillianceScope ... excellent results on that technology tells me beyond a shadow of a doubt that the diamond in question is one that will excel in direct or spot light environments. More accurately than a red reflector will.

Concerning Red Reflectors ... seemingly excellent results (under FS and IS) can still result in non ideal cuts (from both labs) and some reflector images are downright misleading depending on the photographer. Now when I view a red reflector image, the next thought in my head is ... I''d like to see the ASET image that goes along with that (because knowing where a diamond is drawing its light from is equallly if not more important than knowing the facet is functioning as a reflector).

Knowing the shortcomings of red reflectors however doesn''t mean I don''t like the technology. I''ve learned alot from it and next year I hope to have learned even more from all the technologies we employ.

Of all the stores/websites featuring any of the technologies that we employ I think we are perhaps the only one that tells the whole story regarding them. Who else discovers and publishes the shortcomings of these who has real hands on experience? I like to think we give a very balanced view to technologies and do not hype or hold out any of them as the end all - be all to cut grading. We will point to their strengths as well as their limitations. That is where I stand on that and have never changed my mind about any of them. In the 6 years I''ve been publishing data on them openly on these forums I don''t recall any conclusive statement I have made that I would retract.

Sergey ... you should consider getting a DD and experimenting with it. You may be surprised at what you find and it''ll help you to better understand the how/why''s behind the GIA system.

It''ll also help you discover any weakness'' in it as well.

With Kind Regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/14/2006 9:27:36 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Agreed - Sergey - we will let this go until after the Symposium (Insane Rhino will be there too i believe)

Rhino when you use the word research all the time it gauls a bit.
15,000 of the 70,000 observations were done with salad bowl domes.
http://www.gia.edu/pdfs/cut_table_1.pdf

I have mentioned it at least twice to you before??????

Yep... Insano me will be there.

Leo and I have been asked to participate in "The Great Internet Debate". You and Sergey will be there too?

Garry ... ask any member of the research team how much weight was put on the 46 degree dome if you doubt me. Or better yet ... save the question for when we get to symposium.

Peace,

 

[Serg]

Rhino,

Please read what I said ( Usually you read what do you want to see). I did not say what I did not check my conclusion.
One advice. Please think what is scientific method. What is difference between science and observations?

BTW. We started MSSs. You will have possibility to check my conclusion too

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/14/2006 8:44:48 PM
Author: Rhino

One thing you must understand about me Garry and Sergey ... you will never find me making conclusive statements about a diamond or a technology (or anything for that matter) unless I have worked with it hands on and have examined a number of samples under it (and usually can back the results with another competing technology).
Peace,

And on a seperate Rhino post also on this page:

Since I''ve yet to see a 41.6/35 I can''t comment there.

Peace,
Rhino
GoodOldGold.com

Rhino we have said before that it is very difficult to discuss things with you.
I can not understand you. It is useless trying to discuss things with you.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 8/14/2006 9:38:59 PM
Author: Rhino
Greetings Sergey,

This perhaps underlies the basic methodology between how you and I arrive at our conclusions.

As you have stated ''Firstly you make your conclusion then check.'' Some would consider this putting the cart before the horse. Like before a trial is about to take place you have already judged the person/item guilty without viewing the actual evidence pertinent to the case and now you''re going to set out to find the proof to make them so.

My approach is 180 degrees different Sergey. I don''t draw any conclusion until I''ve heard all the eyewitness testimony, have *seen* the evidence (and in this case have worked with it for a number of months). Then I draw my conclusion. I personally do not understand how you can make conclusive statements such as ''it is problem with DD lighting'' when in fact you''ve never even seen the DD.

I believe by "conclusion" Sergey meant Hypotheses/Theory.

From Wikipedia - Scientific Method:

The essential elements of a scientific method are iterations, recursions, interleavings, and orderings of the following:
Characterizations (Quantifications, observations, and measurements)
Hypotheses (theoretical, hypothetical explanations of observations and measurements)
Predictions (reasoning including logical deduction from hypotheses and theories)
Experiments (tests of all of the above)

If we would based all our knowledge on observations only, we''d still think the Earth is flat.

Proper testing of any hypothesis/theory is essential. The question is how one does the testing, on what specimens, interprets the results, etc.

I agree with Sergey: it is useless to continue this highly philosophical argument and we should wait until more reliable and proper organized experiments will be done.

I like this quote, Rhino :

>>The reason for this doesn''t require a PHD in rocket science. It''s rather simple to understand when you understand how diamonds react/handle light

I agree: the key word here is "understand"

Next day:

IMO, what''s important really is not so much in the understanding of the "why''s" (althought it makes for great research) but the fact that it is present and does exist. There are plenty of things we accept, observe and don''t fully comprehend yet we see and use the results of them daily.

I beg to differ. without proper understanding, one cannot build reliable theory that would produce accurate predictions.

Off with that till Sergey publishes his study and gives models with calculations.

 

[Regular Guy]

Well...4 or 5 thoughts...just because I can.

1) I think there''s a viable basis for "jumping in."

I went to an MBA program at U of MD, that''s actually ranked nationally in the top 30 (why they let me in is another story), and they value statistics a lot. Still (or not still is probably the point, and one to grapple with), they hired Outward Bound to run the orientation for the students. Also, they had us do an "egg drop" experiment, where we had to construct product packaging for dropping an egg from...say 10 feet...to reliably protect it from cracking on cement after the fall...where you''re given a paucity of materials to use to protect it, including paper and tape.

Different types wanted to attack the problem of how you protect the egg best in different ways. The interesting thing was the process we went through, overall. Also, in this specific case...I think we actually couldn''t test our contraption until we did the launch, so this doesn''t map closely to the diamond example here. But, and overall...the ideas that came forward from the orientation, from the hiring program that values statistics, and relatedly, research methods, a lot...is that strategies for understanding...sometimes based on model building, and sometimes based on evaluating while you''re experimenting, are all grist for the mill.

Please allow me to share with you my take on/approach to technologies so there is no confusion.

Firstly ... when I am investigating a technology (optical technologies in this case) what I do is see if its results do indeed corellate to human observation. If that technology can help communicate truths to our clients that we can''t always put into words (ie. as most do through graphics), I will continue to employ the technology. The longer I work with a technology and the more diamonds I scan and test, the more I learn it''s strengths and at the same time its limitations.

So, on the face of it, I don''t think this idea is wacko.

2) For underlying principles, also see Resampling. (This may not apply real well, but I kinda think it does).

3) However...classical approaches to statistics make the counterpoint more than reasonable...

My approach is 180 degrees different Sergey. I don''t draw any conclusion until I''ve heard all the eyewitness testimony, have *seen* the evidence (and in this case have worked with it for a number of months). Then I draw my conclusion. I personally do not understand how you can make conclusive statements such as ''it is problem with DD lighting'' when in fact you''ve never even seen the DD.

Classically, logically, this approach is not ideal, and presents problems. Before making observations, you''d like to set up logical predictions...lest you let your hunches guide your perceptions of the results of the observations.

You want to begin...setting out some presumptions, to test your conclusions. Of 100 people, if more than 20 don''t agree this one is best...it can''t be categorized as best. That, for example, could be a way to start. Only then, with this prediction set up (or however you want to model it & test it, that you could publish as a presumptive litmus test) would you begin observational testing.

4) Bayes. I only finger paint with Bayes. But...I think understanding him lets you slide a lot and get it right.

5) Funding. It''s not clear that research methods employed in the natural environment, i.e., by diamond buyers, needs to map onto research methods employed by experts in the field. But...and especially with an environment like Pricescope, which is about consumer information, it wouldn''t be bad if the two correlated. The real funding is from diamond buyers. What research methods do we "naturally" bring to the table. To what extent do we either employ methods to analyze our picks, or need to do this.

Some items for you.

Many thanks.