Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

The Gavin Effect

A

Ashley Hoffman

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 16, 2024
Messages
23
I have purchased in Black by Brian Gavin and am waiting for it to arrive. I was reading about the cut and ancillary angles. I was wondering what everyone's opinion of the "Gavin Effect" is. Do you think it really exists when comparing one stone versus another, especially when comparing two super ideal cut diamonds?
 
Since your post will likely not have any trade members reply due to Pricescope rules, I did some research to try to answer this for you. Years ago, I thought I would also get a Black by Brian Gavin diamond for my engagement ring because I thought it surpassed traditional super ideal cut rounds.

To start off with, I found the actual patent describing how Black by Brian Gavin diamonds are cut. I attached it here. Basically, it describes how to cut diamonds in order to minimize what it calls a "green table effect." Green refers to green displayed on an ASET image. But what exactly is the green table effect Brian Gavin is describing?

Well, he explained it in his own post. Basically, the top ASET image has little green spikes between the blue arrows and it has a large green section at the 11 o'clock position. He's saying that his Black by Brian Gavin diamonds are cut so precisely that they will never display green arrows in the table and they will never have oversized green sections at the edge.

What does this mean? Black by Brian Gavin diamonds are the exact same as any super ideal cut round diamond, whether from Distinctive Gem, JannPaul, or Whiteflash. Just look at the ASET image of his Black by Brian Gavin with an ASET image of any other super ideal cut round.

No super ideal cut diamond has that 11 o'clock green section or those tiny green arrows in the middle. And people who are more versed in optics than I can correct me, but whenever I see those little arrows between the eight traditional arrows, I always think those diamonds have light leakage through the table, the so-called ring of death. My interest lies more in understanding patented cuts though, so I might be wrong in my analysis of the traditional round.

In terms of optics, Black by Brian Gavin = Whiteflash A Cut Above = JannPaul super ideal cut round = Distinctive Gem Distinctive Hearts & Arrows Round Brilliant = Victor Canera Canera Ideal Hearts = High Performance Diamond's Crafted by Infinity (rest in peace). I believe Holloway Diamonds and Continental Diamond, which Wink went and joined, offers super ideal cut rounds as well.

TLDR; Black by Brian Gavin diamonds are no different from Whiteflash ACAs and any other true SIC.
 

Attachments

It almost seems like marketing hype to separate super ideal diamonds and/or vendors. I honestly don’t think there is a difference and others on your thread didn’t think so either. No one pushed one diamond over the other because they were so similar.
You will love your new diamond so just enjoy it and don’t doubt your decision. You really could not have made a wrong choice between those two diamonds!
 
Been here a long time and never heard of the "Gavin effect". Where are you hearing this from? I have a BG stone and a WF ACA stone.
No difference IMO. Marketing BS, I mean hype, IMO.

Dont get me wrong...I'm sure you'll love your stone because its a nicely cut stone like other Super Ideals but this "effect" seems like
marketing to me.
 
I have BG earrings, never heard of this either.
 
He has it on his website, in explanation of his signature line (s).
I enjoy that it’s capitalized and trademarked and still pointed out to be patent pending.

Am now curious
Was secret sauce, actually SecretSauce(tm)?

tyty333 said:
Where are you hearing this from?
Click to expand...


MMtwo said:
never heard of this either
Click to expand...

www.briangavindiamonds.com

Black by Brian Gavin vs Brian Gavin Signature

It has been said that the road to success is always under construction. As a fifth generation diamond cutter, it has always been Brian’s aspiration to cut the most perfect diamond. However there really is no such thing as a perfectly cut diamond, it is merely something that we can aspire towards...
www.briangavindiamonds.com www.briangavindiamonds.com
 
Rfisher said:
He has it on his website, in explanation of his signature line (s).
I enjoy that it’s capitalized and trademarked and still pointed out to be patent pending.

Am now curious
Was secret sauce, actually SecretSauce(tm)?






www.briangavindiamonds.com

Black by Brian Gavin vs Brian Gavin Signature

It has been said that the road to success is always under construction. As a fifth generation diamond cutter, it has always been Brian’s aspiration to cut the most perfect diamond. However there really is no such thing as a perfectly cut diamond, it is merely something that we can aspire towards...
www.briangavindiamonds.com www.briangavindiamonds.com
Click to expand...

No, secret sauce never existed either nor was it trademarked to my knowledge. Trying to separate top tier from top tier seems like fool’s work!
 
Rfisher said:
He has it on his website, in explanation of his signature line (s).
I enjoy that it’s capitalized and trademarked and still pointed out to be patent pending.

Am now curious
Was secret sauce, actually SecretSauce(tm)?






www.briangavindiamonds.com

Black by Brian Gavin vs Brian Gavin Signature

It has been said that the road to success is always under construction. As a fifth generation diamond cutter, it has always been Brian’s aspiration to cut the most perfect diamond. However there really is no such thing as a perfectly cut diamond, it is merely something that we can aspire towards...
www.briangavindiamonds.com www.briangavindiamonds.com
Click to expand...

Just weighing in that the article you linked was published September 27, 2016. If you look at the patent documents I uploaded, this is the exact day that a provisional application was filed. The patent was published (and therefore officially registered) about three years later on September 10, 2019. So the patent is a real thing which is in force and effect.

Side note that patents protect inventions, like gemstone designs. Trademarks protect company logos and are not related to diamond cutting techniques or facet patterns.

I do think it's pretty ridiculous to patent specific proportions of a standard diamond facet design though. I'm surprised the patent was issued at all. Thankfully, it didn't form the basis of a litany of lawsuits to try and claim a monopoly on SIC rounds.

I always assumed that Black by Brian Gavin were painted, like the Whiteflash New Line diamonds and Eightstar diamonds of old. Disappointed it's nothing more than a SIC despite the marketing saying it's not.
 
I have read the patent. Interestingly there is nothing in the world to stop anyone polishing diamonds within those parameters defined in the all important CLAIMS at the end of all patent.
That the UPTO granted it is not unsurprising, but given that perhaps 5% of all RBC's could be found to have been cut to these proportions - I would like to learn how the patent could be enforced?
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
I have read the patent. Interestingly there is nothing in the world to stop anyone polishing diamonds within those parameters defined in the all important CLAIMS at the end of all patent.
That the UPTO granted it is not unsurprising, but given that perhaps 5% of all RBC's could be found to have been cut to these proportions - I would like to learn how the patent could be enforced?
Click to expand...

Very nice to see you weigh in Garry! Patent litigation isn't a field of practice at the law firm I work for, unfortunately, but I did reach out to some colleagues to help me answer your question.

As it turns out, the Brian Gavin patent was indeed issued on 09/19/2019, but only for a period of 182 days. This was a technical grant due to USPTO delays. So this patent actually expired on 03/19/2020. As for why there was no activity on this patent after that, we don't know, but my speculation is perhaps the technical granting of the patent made him think the patent was granted for the typical 15 year period?

Interestingly, Brian Gavin filed to reissue the patent on 09/10/2021. This was filed under USPTO application number 17/472,249 if you wanted to look at the "Documents & Transactions" log on the USPTO website. (The original 09/19/2019 patent application number is 15/717,472 if you wanted to look at it too.) The most recent update was on 07/31/2024 where the USPTO rejected the patent application, which isn't final. They granted a three month period to respond, and theoretically overcome, their grounds for denial.

The denial letter is 48 pages long and lists a multitude of issues. But I think ultimately, page 17, paragraph 44 summarizes why no one can actually patent SIC proportions: that one of the requirements is that "the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention."

So suffice to say that there wasn't any patent infringement claims because the patent was so short-lived on a technicality and will likely never be issued for the typical 15 years we usually see. No one individual or company has exclusive possession of super ideal cut rounds!

Hypothetically speaking though, if the patent really was issued for that long, I think whoever the grantee was would have a heck of a time trying to sue. As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as being able to sue retroactively on a patent, so Holloway Diamonds couldn't be sued for past sales for instance. I think there's an argument that the HCA tool and Idealscope inventor of all people has a superior claim to the discovery of SIC proportions anyway.

Long story short, the strategy of patenting common industry knowledge to prevent competition doesn't work. Good thing too!
 

Attachments

Shiyui said:
Very nice to see you weigh in Garry! Patent litigation isn't a field of practice at the law firm I work for, unfortunately, but I did reach out to some colleagues to help me answer your question.

As it turns out, the Brian Gavin patent was indeed issued on 09/19/2019, but only for a period of 182 days. This was a technical grant due to USPTO delays. So this patent actually expired on 03/19/2020. As for why there was no activity on this patent after that, we don't know, but my speculation is perhaps the technical granting of the patent made him think the patent was granted for the typical 15 year period?

Interestingly, Brian Gavin filed to reissue the patent on 09/10/2021. This was filed under USPTO application number 17/472,249 if you wanted to look at the "Documents & Transactions" log on the USPTO website. (The original 09/19/2019 patent application number is 15/717,472 if you wanted to look at it too.) The most recent update was on 07/31/2024 where the USPTO rejected the patent application, which isn't final. They granted a three month period to respond, and theoretically overcome, their grounds for denial.

The denial letter is 48 pages long and lists a multitude of issues. But I think ultimately, page 17, paragraph 44 summarizes why no one can actually patent SIC proportions: that one of the requirements is that "the inventor had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention."

So suffice to say that there wasn't any patent infringement claims because the patent was so short-lived on a technicality and will likely never be issued for the typical 15 years we usually see. No one individual or company has exclusive possession of super ideal cut rounds!

Hypothetically speaking though, if the patent really was issued for that long, I think whoever the grantee was would have a heck of a time trying to sue. As far as I'm aware, there's no such thing as being able to sue retroactively on a patent, so Holloway Diamonds couldn't be sued for past sales for instance. I think there's an argument that the HCA tool and Idealscope inventor of all people has a superior claim to the discovery of SIC proportions anyway.

Long story short, the strategy of patenting common industry knowledge to prevent competition doesn't work. Good thing too!
Click to expand...

Wonderful assessment Shiyui!
For future patents i may need to use your team - but then on the other hand - it is possible they will be billing me for messing around with more fun things with colleges!
But thanks for confirming and reaffirming my knowledge as a guy with a handful of experience :-)
 
Garry H (Cut Nut) said:
Wonderful assessment Shiyui!
For future patents i may need to use your team - but then on the other hand - it is possible they will be billing me for messing around with more fun things with colleges!
But thanks for confirming and reaffirming my knowledge as a guy with a handful of experience :)
Click to expand...

Thank you so much Garry! It's quite an honor to be complimented by you of all people haha. Glad I could help out a bit when you've been such a huge help to consumers like me. Many thanks. :angel:
 
Shiyui said:
Thank you so much Garry! It's quite an honor to be complimented by you of all people haha. Glad I could help out a bit when you've been such a huge help to consumers like me. Many thanks. :angel:
Click to expand...

Please get my book and write me a review Shiyou - its a real self help manual for serious fun loving collectors. https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B0D9N16QWC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top