Why would anyone object to painting?

[hlmr]

Date: 5/23/2006 11:23:43 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/23/2006 10:50:26 PM
Author: hlmr

Thanks for the info Mara....I honestly can say I have missed the boat on this topic.

Must go and educate myself.

hlmr, you haven''t missed a boat - you''re seeing a few sailors arguing about knots. Go into several jewelry stores in your area and ask about painting. I wager not many salespeople will even know what you are talking about, much less the variables we are slicing and dicing here.

If you want to delve into a ''boatload'' of GIA grading semantics (case study here), look up issues like the many discussed here if you''re interested).

Pop some popcorn and enjoy.

Thanks John!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/23/2006 7:44:15 PM
Author: strmrdr

'Why would anyone object to painting?'

Because I don't care for the looks of diamonds with painting that I have seen in person.
If someone else likes em that's kewl :}
What ever floats their boats.

Should diamonds get downgraded for minor painting?
If everything else is spot on nope they shouldn't.
That doesn't mean id buy em however.

This is valid - but it also may be like saying ‘A dog bit me so now I fear all dogs.’

Without knowing specifics (how many you have seen/parameters, etc.) it’s impossible to know the big picture. I’d love to get Strm's take on a New Line, or better, I’d love to get his take on 12 of them.

Painting is variable. Some people prefer D diamonds to K (does that mean they won’t like F?). People prefer Flawless to I3 (does that mean VS is going to look bad to them?) The term ‘Painting’ should not be stereotyped any more than color or clarity should be. There are different degrees of painting, just as with color and clarity.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Maybe it will help casual readers to explain (sic) how a diamond is ‘painted:’

At the risk of simplifying this (oversimplification alert!), it is most important to know there is variability involved: The typical tang used in diamond cutting has clicks at the normal mains and halves, which are 11.25 degrees apart. To cut the painted crown halves the cutter sets the index to the nearest main click on the tang, and then uses the cheater screw to ‘cheat’ or adjust, a small amount to either side. How much can vary. Painting to 3.75 degrees may be a minor amount, whereas painting to 7.50 degrees may be major. More complex is the fact that overall configuration and optical symmetry change the playing field: This means diamonds cut near Tolkowsky proportions with good OS can perform their best even when painted significantly (but not to extremes), whereas those with less optimum proportions and poor OS cannot take even moderate painting before the look changes.

Some painted can’t be distinguished from non-painted, because the amount was negligible or appropriate to overall configuration. If in doubt, the AGS 0 grade in light performance is a nice reassurance.

Rhino is using examples of painted diamonds that don’t hold up well in his tests. Reading his posts I suspect his samples are not representative of those carried by some of the other sellers here. It is unlikely that thousands of consumers and analysts who love these diamonds (not just the hundreds we deal with each month) in all lighting conditions are ‘wrong.’ Further, After lifetimes of cutting I am certain if something was wrong with diamonds under the watchful eyes of Brian Gavin & Richard VS they would have changed their approaches, since they can cut their diamonds to any parameters they choose.

My point: The term ‘painting’ should not be tossed around like slang when there are significantly different degrees to it.

 

[kenny]

strmrdr, you wrote you didn't like the looks of the painted diamonds you've seen.

I'm not in the industry.
I have nothing vested in this.
I'm just a guy about to buy a diamond.

I'm considering a NL ACA, and value your opinion as a person eyes more experienced than mine.
I'm not baiting you, and hope I'm not putting you on the spot.

When I see them, what exactly - in your words - should I look for?
What do you recall about them that you didn't like?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/23/2006 11:33:10 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/23/2006 7:44:15 PM

Author: strmrdr


''Why would anyone object to painting?''


Because I don''t care for the looks of diamonds with painting that I have seen in person.

If someone else likes em that''s kewl :}

What ever floats their boats.


Should diamonds get downgraded for minor painting?

If everything else is spot on nope they shouldn''t.

That doesn''t mean id buy em however.

This is valid - but it also may be like saying ‘A dog bit me so now I fear all dogs.’

Without knowing specifics (how many you have seen/parameters, etc.) it’s impossible to know the big picture. I’d love to get Strm''s take on a New Line, or better, I’d love to get his take on 12 of them.


Painting is variable. Some people prefer D diamonds to K (does that mean they won’t like F?). People prefer Flawless to I3 (does that mean VS is going to look bad to them?) The term ‘Painting’ should not be stereotyped any more than color or clarity should be. There are different degrees of painting, just as with color and clarity.

Its nice that im allowed to have an opinion
When you going to be in town to visit the regiment? :}
Ill buy the pepsi you bring the ice LOL
Should be fun :}

For the sake of arguement are someone that ownes an ACA new line but has only seen a few "classic" style super-ideal diamonds opinions like being scared of the cute puppy dog too?

(out-there-tag)
Hey iv got an idea anyone who hasnt seen a 50 thousand of each type of diamonds cant comment in this thread.
(end tag)

seriously how many painted diamonds does someone have to see to form an opinion?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/23/2006 11:39:03 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

My point: The term ‘painting’ should not be tossed around like slang when there are significantly different degrees to it.

JQ

how about Garry''s "CHEATED" term?

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 5/23/2006 10:58:14 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)



Wink you should know better than to look at diamonds in normal lighting.


The only way to know for sure is to buy a GIA Diamond Dock and then you will see just how bad your 8*''s look.


Really - sometimes Wink, you really disapoint me!

Sigh, okay, I confess, I am not a fan of that contraption either. It''s just that I like my pretty diamonds to look pretty. Sigh...

If I buy you a drink in Vegas will you at least allow mm to think I am forgiven?

Wink

 

[Mara]

i didn't like the look of eightstars when i saw them when we were looking for diamonds.

but i love the look of many of the new line stones. i have also seen numerous classic ACA stones and other super ideal and ideal stones elsewhere. i feel pretty well-rounded.

i love the look of painted and unpainted. for me it would be hard to choose between the two if every other element of the stone was exactly identical.

so i guess it could be said that all painting is not consistent and that you can see one painted stone and not like it but like another.

which would make sense considering each stone is unique and just because a stone is painted doesn't mean it looks the same as another painted. esp with degrees of painting.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/24/2006 12:11:07 AM
Author: strmrdr

Its nice that im allowed to have an opinion
When you going to be in town to visit the regiment? :}
Ill buy the pepsi you bring the ice LOL
Should be fun :}

For the sake of arguement are someone that ownes an ACA new line but has only seen a few 'classic' style super-ideal diamonds opinions like being scared of the cute puppy dog too?

(out-there-tag)
Hey iv got an idea anyone who hasnt seen a 50 thousand of each type of diamonds cant comment in this thread.
(end tag)

seriously how many painted diamonds does someone have to see to form an opinion?

That depends. To what degree was the diamond painted when the person formed his/her opinion? It makes a dif.

It would be instructive to have several examples, all Tolkowsky, same configs, with great OS, each painted to a different degree. This would be like showing people different colors and asking when they noticed tint.

As for PR: I'll bring the ice as long as you don't pour pepsi on them... Well, only the ones you ID as 'painted.'

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/24/2006 12:26:35 AM
Author: Mara

so i guess it could be said that all painting is not consistent and that you can see one painted stone and not like it but like another.

which would make sense considering each stone is unique and just because a stone is painted doesn't mean it looks the same as another painted. esp with degrees of painting.

Eureka!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/24/2006 12:17:57 AM
Author: Wink

Date: 5/23/2006 10:58:14 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)






Wink you should know better than to look at diamonds in normal lighting.


The only way to know for sure is to buy a GIA Diamond Dock and then you will see just how bad your 8*''s look.


Really - sometimes Wink, you really disapoint me!

Sigh, okay, I confess, I am not a fan of that contraption either. It''s just that I like my pretty diamonds to look pretty. Sigh...

If I buy you a drink in Vegas will you at least allow mm to think I am forgiven?

Wink

Only if its a Belgian beer (not that boring old Stella either) sigh

Looking forward to catching up Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Okay, Belgian it is, you name it, I buy it.

Wink

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 5/24/2006 12:11:07 AM
Author: strmrdr

Hey iv got an idea anyone who hasnt seen a 50 thousand of each type of diamonds cant comment in this thread.

seriously how many painted diamonds does someone have to see to form an opinion?

That depends......the criteria for *an* opinion and a *meaningful* opinion are different.

One doesn't have to have seen *any* diamonds to form an opinion......after all, even baseless opinions are still opinions. I could say that I think liver tastes terrible even if I've never tried it. It would be a baseless opinion, but an opinion nonetheless.

(Not saying this is you or anyone else, by the way......just explaining the my answer from a rhetorical standpoint first.)

For a meaningful opinion, I'd hazard a guess.......at least a dozen or more. Certainly more than 2 or 3. And in person......not on a monitor.

It would have to be enough diamonds to isolate that it's actually the painting effect that one does/doesn't like and not some other factor that happens to occur in two painted diamonds. And it would have to be determined the degree of painting didn't matter at all to preference, which I don't think would happen.

If I dislike diamond 4 and diamond 6, and both of them are on the steeper end of pavilion angle, one cannot say if it's the deeper pavilion (potential light leakage) or the painting that's causing me not to prefer them.

This is why Leonid and Garry have been so insistent on a much wider scale before drawing conclusions about what preferences mean, and I agree.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/24/2006 12:16:26 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 5/23/2006 11:39:03 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

My point: The term ‘painting’ should not be tossed around like slang when there are significantly different degrees to it.

JQ

how about Garry''s ''CHEATED'' term?

Ah yes.

Cheating...Azimuth Shift...Painting...Lemon Pie...

The classics.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/24/2006 12:36:55 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/24/2006 12:26:35 AM
Author: Mara

so i guess it could be said that all painting is not consistent and that you can see one painted stone and not like it but like another.

which would make sense considering each stone is unique and just because a stone is painted doesn''t mean it looks the same as another painted. esp with degrees of painting.

Eureka!

Let me throw in another analogy. I resisted making a study of minor facets for HCA because the level of complexity means it will take 10 to 100 times longer than the original work on HCA. eg
the optimum lower girdle for a 53% table size is longer than 80% and up to nearly 90%.
The optimum for a 65% table is under 75% and probably around 70% for the most effective crown and pavilion combinations
BUT all those #''s vary based on the crown and pavilion #''s - so you end up with a huge set of seperate spread sheets for each and every combination.
As it is HCA has thousands more times data points than GIA''s Facetware because GIA did such huge rounding.

Now let''s consider the same thing as the minor facets - and apply it to say GIA''s 38.5 million data points - there are say 10 degrees of girdle indexing for the crown and 10 for the pavilion - and then the combinations of each. That jumps you to 15,400 million data points. With GIA''s approach that is just not do-able.

(So until my patent is granted I am not spending more time and money to further develop HCA which has cost me many tens of thousands in patent fees so far - and is used free of charge.)

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/23/2006 11:32:14 PM
Author: hlmr

Date: 5/23/2006 11:23:43 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/23/2006 10:50:26 PM
Author: hlmr

Thanks for the info Mara....I honestly can say I have missed the boat on this topic.

Must go and educate myself.

hlmr, you haven''t missed a boat - you''re seeing a few sailors arguing about knots. Go into several jewelry stores in your area and ask about painting. I wager not many salespeople will even know what you are talking about, much less the variables we are slicing and dicing here.

If you want to delve into a ''boatload'' of GIA grading semantics (case study here), look up issues like the many discussed here if you''re interested).

Pop some popcorn and enjoy.

Thanks John!

You''re welcome. Careful now. Garry & Wink are going to go after your popcorn.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/24/2006 12:41:28 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/24/2006 12:16:26 AM

Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 5/23/2006 11:39:03 PM

Author: JohnQuixote

My point: The term ‘painting’ should not be tossed around like slang when there are significantly different degrees to it.

JQ


how about Garry''s ''CHEATED'' term?

Ah yes.


Cheating...Azimuth Shift...Painting...Lemon Pie...


The classics.

dont forget the pepsi they all go better with pepsi :}

 

[Mara]

no that''s REAL whipped cream that goes best with the lemon pie!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/23/2006 11:57:23 PM
Author: kenny
strmrdr, you wrote you didn''t like the looks of the painted diamonds you''ve seen.


I''m not in the industry.

I have nothing vested in this.

I''m just a guy about to buy a diamond.


I''m considering a NL ACA, and value your opinion as a person eyes more experienced than mine.

I''m not baiting you, and hope I''m not putting you on the spot.


When I see them, what exactly - in your words - should I look for?

What do you recall about them that you didn''t like?

getting serious again, it was a long day yesterday and a longer day today coming up, I will try and answer your question later today.
Have a fire extinguisher ready cuz its gonna get hot :}
I didn want you to think I was ignoring you there just isn''t time nor the energy to answer tonight and its going to take a lot to explain it.
Im not 100% sure I can put it into words.
If you want to start there is a new line vs classic thread around here that matches my observations about scintillation between the 2 styles even with non-ACA''s

linkage:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/a-cut-above-new-line-vs-classic-line-a-review-of-the-2-cutting-styles.24185/

 

[He Scores]

RE: My point: The term ‘painting’ should not be tossed around like slang when there are significantly different degrees to it
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Regarding the use of the term "painting", I'd like to make a suggestion. It has to do with the term "over painting".
When girdle facets are made, they remove material from the diamond. As an analogy, think of this as digging a hole in the ground. The more material that is removed, the more the facet(read hole) is dug, correct?

In that respect then, there's no real use for the term "over painting"...just like there is no way of saying anything other than the hole isn't dug enough. There's no such thing as "over not enough digging".

I don't know how you will come to terms with facets that are left "not dug enough" or"too painted", but I'm sure it's something better than "over painting".

Just for everyone's edification, the measurement of the g-min that is used in an abbreviated BrayScore is a measurable indication of whether EACH of the girdle facets are "dug", 'dug too much" or "not dug enough" and is considered in the final score. Additionally, girdle facets that are dug too much could compound their effect on the stone by varying the diameter of the diamond, another measurable factor taken into account in compiling a BrayScore.

Respectfully,
Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/23/2006 10:58:14 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/23/2006 6:58:22 PM
Author: Wink

Rhino, I just can''t buy into it. I got out my EightStars and I got out my Infinity diamonds and I looked at them side by side, comparable size to comparable size, and I just can not see this darkness that you talk about.

I put them on the ASET and I agree that the EightStar does in fact draw more green than the Infinity, but I can not see any darkness. I tried it with my spots on, and with my spots off in fluorescent lighting like a typical office. Two gorgeous diamonds, without doubt. One painted, one not, but not a bit of darkness around the edges could I find.

I showed them to four random people, two could not make a decision which was better than the other and one like the painted stone, one the none painted stone, neither could say exactly why. Gotta confess, it is pretty hard to tell them apart and I am good at it. I am afraid I am just going to have to dissagree with you, and GIA, on this. I think they are wrong. The rest of the world may think they are right, but heck, just call me stubborn, I think they are wrong.

Wink you should know better than to look at diamonds in normal lighting.

The only way to know for sure is to buy a GIA Diamond Dock and then you will see just how bad your 8*''s look.

Really - sometimes Wink, you really disapoint me!

Your sarcasm is funny Garry however it appears you are still under the illusion that the DD was somehow designed to make painted stones appear darker when in fact the identical phenomena can be seen and observed in many normal lighting environments. You are forgetting the fact that for 6 years before the DiamondDock was ever released we were sending these comparisons to hundreds of clients all over the country.

Regards,

 

[Rhino]

Hi John,

Date: 5/23/2006 11:39:03 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


Maybe it will help casual readers to explain (sic) how a diamond is ‘painted:’

At the risk of simplifying this (oversimplification alert!), it is most important to know there is variability involved: The typical tang used in diamond cutting has clicks at the normal mains and halves, which are 11.25 degrees apart. To cut the painted crown halves the cutter sets the index to the nearest main click on the tang, and then uses the cheater screw to ‘cheat’ or adjust, a small amount to either side. How much can vary. Painting to 3.75 degrees may be a minor amount, whereas painting to 7.50 degrees may be major. More complex is the fact that overall configuration and optical symmetry change the playing field: This means diamonds cut near Tolkowsky proportions with good OS can perform their best even when painted significantly (but not to extremes), whereas those with less optimum proportions and poor OS cannot take even moderate painting before the look changes.

While I am a nut for optical symmetry, I am finding that optical symmetry doesn't bear an impact when it comes to painting and digging. I am finding that it has equal results regardless of optical symmetry. One of our most recent surveys (ie. the one I reported here) was of a superior craftmanship with ideal optical symmetry yet featured painting and 90% of our observers clearly chose against the painted stone. Since this survey I had to return the GIA Ex in that demonstration but I am in the process of having another re-cut out of my inventory (along with other proportion combos). Once I do I will be glad to send it to whomever if they'd like to make the comparison for themselves as long as they cover the shipping.

Some painted can’t be distinguished from non-painted, because the amount was negligible or appropriate to overall configuration. If in doubt, the AGS 0 grade in light performance is a nice reassurance.

First sentence is true however regarding the degree of painting I personally feel AGS is grading these more on the liberal side rather than the conservative approach GIA took to the subject. My feeling is the same regarding their grading of shallow angled combos.

Rhino is using examples of painted diamonds that don’t hold up well in his tests. Reading his posts I suspect his samples are not representative of those carried by some of the other sellers here.

To my knowledge there are only 2 factories in the world who cut painted diamonds purposely and consistently. I am intimately familar with the manufacturing from both of these factories and have in my possession painted diamonds of various degrees from both. In my survey (linked above) I used a painted stone that does not represent an extreme degree of painting yet did not qualify as a GIA Ex. This was confirmed by Sergey who analyzed the model in detail for me.

It is unlikely that thousands of consumers and analysts who love these diamonds (not just the hundreds we deal with each month) in all lighting conditions are ‘wrong.’ Further, After lifetimes of cutting I am certain if something was wrong with diamonds under the watchful eyes of Brian Gavin & Richard VS they would have changed their approaches, since they can cut their diamonds to any parameters they choose.

John ... I approached said factory to cut me what we were finding the majority of our consumers wanted. The response was refusal to change anything in their approach.

Also, while I respect both Brian and Richard their opinion remains in the extreme minority when it comes to this issue. The top cutting facilities, the rare ones who cut the worlds rarest goods primarily do not cut with either painting or digging. Pete of AGS has told me himself, if given the choice normal indexing (no painting or digging) is always preferred.

My point: The term ‘painting’ should not be tossed around like slang when there are significantly different degrees to it.

True. My advice to John Q Public is if they're going to consider them just look at them and compare. If our observers (lots who have also reported their finding on the net) and over 70,000 observations performed during GIA's study saw a difference there's a good chance today's observer will too. If not, then I'll reiterate what I wrote previously ... buy it!

If you don't prefer it don't!

If a person is considering them and is tossed, they should be fair to themselves and see both to make an informed choice. That's all I'm saying.

My .02c

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/24/2006 12:41:28 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/24/2006 12:16:26 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 5/23/2006 11:39:03 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

My point: The term ‘painting’ should not be tossed around like slang when there are significantly different degrees to it.

JQ

how about Garry''s ''CHEATED'' term?

Ah yes.

Cheating...Azimuth Shift...Painting...Lemon Pie...

The classics.

LOL... I agree with Mara ... keep the whipped cream real on that Lemon Pie.

 

[aljdewey]

What I find really interesting is the propensity to consider all painted diamonds "the same"...with no regard for the extent to which a diamond is painted/dug out.

In reading a published article that appeared in RDR last year that talks about painting/digging and the impact on GIA cut grading, I kept seeing recurrent phrases throughout the article......including:

“beyond a certain degree”
“beyond a minimal amount”
“beyond minimum thresholds”
It even goes so far as to point out that SEVERLY painted diamonds are significantly affected in performance, and that MINIMAL painting/digging impacts performance MUCH LESS.....to the point it’s considered negligible (as in SO small as to be considered insignificant)......and wouldn’t be penalized in grading.

The devil is in the DETAILS.....to what degree are the diamonds painted? That makes an enormous difference.

Given that, I think it''s a bit broad to suggest a wholesale avoidance of painted diamonds, becuase all painted diamonds aren''t created equal. That would be as brash (and grossly misleading) as saying "SI1 stones aren''t eyeclean" based on seeing a few non-eyeclean SI diamonds.

All SI diamonds are not created equal. And all painted stones are not created equal. Those more severly painted will likely be less preferred, and those with very modest or minimal painting aren''t likely to appear arguably different from non-painted stones.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/24/2006 2:33:32 PM
Author: aljdewey

What I find really interesting is the propensity to consider all painted diamonds ''the same''...with no regard for the extent to which a diamond is painted/dug out.

In reading a published article that appeared in RDR last year that talks about painting/digging and the impact on GIA cut grading, I kept seeing recurrent phrases throughout the article......including:

“beyond a certain degree”
“beyond a minimal amount”
“beyond minimum thresholds”

It even goes so far as to point out that SEVERLY painted diamonds are significantly affected in performance, and that MINIMAL painting/digging impacts performance MUCH LESS.....to the point it’s considered negligible (as in SO small as to be considered insignificant)......and wouldn’t be penalized in grading.

The devil is in the DETAILS.....to what degree are the diamonds painted? That makes an enormous difference.

Given that, I think it''s a bit broad to suggest a wholesale avoidance of painted diamonds, becuase all painted diamonds aren''t created equal. That would be as brash (and grossly misleading) as saying ''SI1 stones aren''t eyeclean'' based on seeing a few non-eyeclean SI diamonds.

All SI diamonds are not created equal. And all painted stones are not created equal. Those more severly painted will likely be less preferred, and those with very modest or minimal painting aren''t likely to appear arguably different from non-painted stones.

Well said Al.

The point is that this issue is like asking an Irishman for directions

"Ohie, I wouldnee try to gat thar from ere"

GIA has no technology or methodology to assess the beauty of painted or dug stones.

AGS can - but if they tried to do a study to indicate it they would be wasting their members and ibvestors funds (in my opinion) because the task is huge beyond comprehension. I will discuss it next week with Jason Qucik their mathematician.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Alj,

Good post. Just some thinking/typing out loud as I read...

Date: 5/24/2006 2:33:32 PM
Author: aljdewey

What I find really interesting is the propensity to consider all painted diamonds ''the same''...with no regard for the extent to which a diamond is painted/dug out.

This is not true regardless of statements that have been published on this forum. GIA has defined the parameters where the line is drawn on these issues. Here is a direct link to the chart showing the tolerances allowed for painting/digging on the crown, the pavilion and both demonstrating what their tolerances are for each grade. It is not a mass grading approach as some here have suggested.

In reading a published article that appeared in RDR last year that talks about painting/digging and the impact on GIA cut grading, I kept seeing recurrent phrases throughout the article......including:

“beyond a certain degree”
“beyond a minimal amount”
“beyond minimum thresholds”

It even goes so far as to point out that SEVERLY painted diamonds are significantly affected in performance, and that MINIMAL painting/digging impacts performance MUCH LESS.....to the point it’s considered negligible (as in SO small as to be considered insignificant)......and wouldn’t be penalized in grading.

Correct. The linked chart above shows the layman with simple graphics what they consider neglible (Ex), moderate (VG), significant (G) and severe (Fair). We have had the chance to inspect painting that ranges from Excellent to Good and a visual inspection along with examining the degree of painting has been consistsent with what they are teaching on the subject.

The devil is in the DETAILS.....to what degree are the diamonds painted? That makes an enormous difference.

Given that, I think it''s a bit broad to suggest a wholesale avoidance of painted diamonds, becuase all painted diamonds aren''t created equal. That would be as brash (and grossly misleading) as saying ''SI1 stones aren''t eyeclean'' based on seeing a few non-eyeclean SI diamonds.

All SI diamonds are not created equal. And all painted stones are not created equal. Those more severly painted will likely be less preferred, and those with very modest or minimal painting aren''t likely to appear arguably different from non-painted stones.

And a hearty amen to this. This is precisesly what they''re doing Alj. If you inspect the above chart you''ll see that they are not lumping all painting into one category. The degree of painting bears impact on the final grade. A primary concern of my own was to determine if stones that had what they consider "moderate" painting (enough to warrant the VG grade) showed a visual difference to diamonds with neglible or no painting. My own conclusions and those of the folks we have showed these comparison to come back with a resounding yes.

However it should be noted that amongst the surveys we have taken with such stones, there are folks who could see the difference but not obviously then there were others who were able to pick it up more easily than others and others who had trouble detecting a difference at all although this segment were in the minority. Each individual brings different elements to the table. GIA based their determinations on majority opinion so even amongst the pollers in their survey there wasn''t unanimous agreement to my knowledge.

AGS system for grading painting is on the more liberal side. The stone we had here that had received a GIA Good for reasons of painting got an AGS 1 for Light Performance. Here is the IS image of that stone based on the Helium scan. So stones with this IS image make neither GIA nor AGS'' top grade. Interesting stuff as the info rolls down the pipeline.

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/24/2006 4:33:55 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Well said Al.

The point is that this issue is like asking an Irishman for directions

''Ohie, I wouldnee try to gat thar from ere''

GIA has no technology or methodology to assess the beauty of painted or dug stones.

AGS can - but if they tried to do a study to indicate it they would be wasting their members and ibvestors funds (in my opinion) because the task is huge beyond comprehension. I will discuss it next week with Jason Qucik their mathematician.

I beg to differ mate. Their technology, could be argued is the best technology for the task. Human observation in an environment accurately depicting the optical characteristics of diamond.

I love technology. I love the charts. I love the graphs, graphics, numbers, etc. ad nauseum. You already know this about me. But ... Garry, if a technology suggests one thing yet the human eyes do not agree ... what takes precedence? You know my answer to this which is a strong element I LIKE about the GIA system. From what I have been able to see and test to date (even when they contradict with technologies), their Ex grade does agree with observation testing. Nobody has presented any evidence to the contrary.

It is my conviction after working with light measuring technologies that their validity and cohesiveness relevant to diamond beauty must stand the ultimate test of human observation. That is the final arbitrator in my book. It is very easy to get our heads stuck in a technology but it''s vitally important to pull our heads out of that box and listen to what the consumers are saying. When I first got a FireScope I made some HUGE financial mistakes with it. In the beginning I was led to believe it was the end all be all for juding light performance. Man was I wrong but after you make mistakes that cost you tens of thousands you start learning from these. This has been my experience.

Garry ... don''t you agree that the human eyes must be the final arbitrator even when technology suggests differently?

Peace,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/24/2006 5:26:48 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Alj,

Good post. Just some thinking/typing out loud as I read...

Date: 5/24/2006 2:33:32 PM
Author: aljdewey

What I find really interesting is the propensity to consider all painted diamonds ''the same''...with no regard for the extent to which a diamond is painted/dug out.

This is not true regardless of statements that have been published on this forum. GIA has defined the parameters where the line is drawn on these issues. Here is a direct link to the chart showing the tolerances allowed for painting/digging on the crown, the pavilion and both demonstrating what their tolerances are for each grade. It is not a mass grading approach as some here have suggested.



Correct. The linked chart above shows the layman with simple graphics what they consider neglible (Ex), moderate (VG), significant (G) and severe (Fair). We have had the chance to inspect painting that ranges from Excellent to Good and a visual inspection along with examining the degree of painting has been consistsent with what they are teaching on the subject.

Rhino you know that is dumb
A comment from Sergey with regard to the GIA''s painting and digging (indexing examples)

BTW Misleading illustrations

1) Facet girdle is not same for all images. They change facet and bone girdle in same time.

2)

Painting crown Excellent -1 degree

Painting crown VeryGood -6 degree

Painting crown Good -8 degree

Painting crown Fair -9 degree

Maximum 11.25( Diamond with -11.25 painting has Girdle facets at all)

1, 6, 8, 9

Silly system

Serg.

As i have been saying - this task is too difficult.
Is anyone listening?
One simple solution is to use DiamCalc / Gem Adviser and compare the light return and contrast scores.
But GIA could not admit to doing that now could they. But if they did - then we could all have an open and transperant system and know where we stand.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/24/2006 6:01:04 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Painting crown Excellent -1 degree

Painting crown VeryGood -6 degree

Painting crown Good -8 degree

Painting crown Fair -9 degree

Maximum 11.25( Diamond with -11.25 painting has Girdle facets at all)

1, 6, 8, 9

Silly system

huh? silly?
some is ok but once it gets too a point it falls off fast,
GIA is saying up to 6 is very good or better, then it falls off quickly once it hits 6.
This is inline with what everyone else is saying.
The cut off between EX and VG well thats open to more debate....
Would up to 4 being EX and and 4-6VG make people happier?

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/24/2006 6:25:42 PM
Author: strmrdr


huh? silly?
some is ok but once it gets too a point it falls off fast,
GIA is saying up to 6 is very good or better, then it falls off quickly once it hits 6.
This is inline with what everyone else is saying.
The cut off between EX and VG well thats open to more debate....
Would up to 4 being EX and and 4-6VG make people happier?

Twins strmrdr & Rhino

"Painting" and how it effects performance and/or look of the stone has to be taken in context with the rest of the stone as a whole, all the facets interact, and creating the desired balance can''t be defined like GIA wants to define it..
Hell, they don''t even ray trace a stone, might as well as use the old cut class 1,2,3,4 system, at least you''d be more assured of getting a better stone than some of the "new" GIA EX''s..

GIA EX was about marketing and politics and selling paper.. You see where it got Billy Boy..

Rhino, Keep your DD and buy a kitty cat, at least there will be a useful purpose for it