- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,734
Why would anyone object to painting?
- Thread starter kenny
- Start date
- Status
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Here's the problem with that: A stone near Tolkowsky can take more than one far away from Tolkowsky before it is adversely influenced. Let's say 4 is allowed and all are taken to 4... It's fine for the two (hypothetical) examples on the left... But 4 would be too much for those (hypothetical) on the right...yet they all make EX.
There are too many variables to try and stereotype all diamonds as needing to conform to one set of parameters, which is why GIA's approach is being criticized.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,734
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
belle
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2004
- Messages
- 10,285
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
dhog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 159
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,734
For all those who have DiamCalc and want to see what a diamond looks like in the cat liter box - here is my best approximation for the lighting in DiamCalc.
Go to advanced lighting and save it n the button located in the lower left area.
This has nothng much to do with painting - but the audience is here
Go to advanced lighting and save it n the button located in the lower left area.
This has nothng much to do with painting - but the audience is here
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Date: 5/24/2006 10:32:10 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
For all those who have DiamCalc and want to see what a diamond looks like in the cat liter box - here is my best approximation for the lighting in DiamCalc.
Go to advanced lighting and save it n the button located in the lower left area.
This has nothng much to do with painting - but the audience is here
way too much head shadow compared to the DD, no cigar
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,782
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2004
- Messages
- 2,547
I''m dropping in late on this one - but my first reaction to the question is:
I have no objection to painting by Leonardo de Vinci; but would not be interested in one by Bart Simpson. Of course there are many other great painters - but many more who fall into the Bart Simpson class...
My second thought was: -- well, isn''t that obvious.
My third thought is: -- Same principal applies to painted diamonds. No objection to a master who knows how to do it just right - but a good diamond would be degraded by a bad job at it.
Is there really any more that really needs to be discussed?
Perry
I have no objection to painting by Leonardo de Vinci; but would not be interested in one by Bart Simpson. Of course there are many other great painters - but many more who fall into the Bart Simpson class...
My second thought was: -- well, isn''t that obvious.
My third thought is: -- Same principal applies to painted diamonds. No objection to a master who knows how to do it just right - but a good diamond would be degraded by a bad job at it.
Is there really any more that really needs to be discussed?
Perry
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
That''s the point kenny, nothing should be "sacred", just because GIA (a/k/a "the world''s foremost authority...etc (TM)", says it is so, for marketing and sales reasons.Date: 5/24/2006 11:28:12 PM
Author: kenny
You guys crack me up.
Nothing is sacred.
No wonder I like it here.
Next item on the agenda is the GIA FARCEWARE(TM) slot machine
(Don''t get me wrong, some GIA EX''s are good stones, but when there is probably a 5 to 10 times greater likelihood to get a GIA EX than an AGS 0, something is amiss.. or getting awfully loose..)
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,734
Storm try the attached 46 degree dome lighting that gIA used as their model for obsured lighting.
I modeled it here with fading to the hemisphere light, which i think they would approve of.
Since this was the lighting model they used in their software ''metric'' that approximated the dealer lighting that the fluoro DD light aproximates - check it out and see if you think I have too much head shadow in the DD?
aljdewey
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 9,170
adamasgem
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- May 23, 2003
- Messages
- 1,338
Rhino, then I wonder why Peter proudly wears an EightStar. Just a little inconsistent with the BS thesis you are trying to promote.Date: 5/24/2006 1:41:49 PM
Author: Rhino
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.
Mara
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2002
- Messages
- 31,003
Date: 5/24/2006 1:41:49 PM
Author: Rhino
___________
At the risk of stating the obvious, just because two people stand out from the crowd doesn't mean anything other than they dare to be different and have strong beliefs that they stand behind regardless of what the other sheep believe. If the whole 'well no one else is doing it' argument is what you are putting out here...that's not very strong ground to stand on.
Also in terms of those factories cutting the rarest goods, seems to me that if H&A painted stones are such the extreme minority and yet achieve such a high pinnacle of cut excellence, then THEY are the rarest goods. And to some that is very appealing.
Author: Rhino
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.
___________
At the risk of stating the obvious, just because two people stand out from the crowd doesn't mean anything other than they dare to be different and have strong beliefs that they stand behind regardless of what the other sheep believe. If the whole 'well no one else is doing it' argument is what you are putting out here...that's not very strong ground to stand on.
Also in terms of those factories cutting the rarest goods, seems to me that if H&A painted stones are such the extreme minority and yet achieve such a high pinnacle of cut excellence, then THEY are the rarest goods. And to some that is very appealing.
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Hey Mara,Date: 5/24/2006 12:26:35 AM
Author: 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.
Totally makes sense. Varying degrees may or may not appeal to different individuals. The greater the degree of painting the more it will be easier to see the differences of course. Even the stones that we''ve surveyed that were GIA VG''s wherein I was able to see the differences, there were folks who had a tough time seeing it although most could. You''re right on in your statements though ... "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". It''s also possible that the one you don''t like someone else will. It is also very possible that individuals develope an acquired preference or taste for a certain appearance which they enjoy. Once again ... they should buy what appeals most to them.
I recall when I first received our very first red reflector and the instruction I received. Red and black in is supposed to be red and black out right? That would be best when combined with superior craftsmanship. When we were showing folks the painted stones vs the non painted without showing them what they were supposed to conclude through that reflector, at first we thought these folks were off their rocker for not choosing the solid red/black image. To many of these clients price wasn''t an issue either. They would have gladly sacrificed a clarity/color grade or both to get what they deemed as the best appearance. Then we started investigating other technologies that provided light measuring analysis and started seeing some contradictions in the things we were taught and also amongst consumer response. Some radically voiced their opinions on the forums too as I think back over the years. Totally changed my perspective on reflectors and technologies in general. Now the most important part of our research when investigating technologies is how the common layman''s perspective corellates to the data. Of course there will always be varying opinions but when I see a strong curve in consumer opinion (say greater than 80% or better yet 90% and over) that gives us more insight into strengths/weakness of the tool we''re investigating.
I made some HUGE purchasing mistakes at that time which taught me some extremely valuable lessons in reflectors. I have published on our site what I have found to be pitfalls in reflectors (just as I do with the other technologies). Please don''t take my words wrong though ... I am not anti painting or digging. Folks who have shown preference for those types I am quick to congratulate them on their purchase and even suggest them if that is indeed their preference. I don''t prefer either on a personal level, particularly when it impacts the appearance that I can see... just like you.
Thanks for sharing.
Kind regards,
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Hi Garry,
I respect Sergey''s opinion. When he speaks on a subject I am all ears and to say I don''t learn from him would not be true. With regards to this issue however Sergey is not the one paying my bills here.
My clients could care less what Sergey or any expert says for that matter becuase they purchase what appeals most to their eyes. I''ll be the first to admit I am "tang/index/gear ignorant". I know the basics... 11.25 degrees from half to bezel (or whatever) but this is foreign language to the layman and generally to 99.99% of most people in the retail trade. Kinda like talking azimuth angles or yaw.
Upper half angles I know. Even their relationship to lower halves in many instances. ASET images, red reflectors, Helium/full Sarin numbers ... I understand this language for the most part and how they translate to face up appearance. So giving gear numbers and saying "silly" doesn''t tell me anything. All I know is if I show 100 clients 2 diamonds and the greater majority of them pick x over y ... 100 experts could disagree and say "silly", I''m going to side with what the majority of consumers choose... everytime (even if it went against my own personal preference for that matter). No disrespet to Sergey but when he''s footing the bill to purchase stones for inventory I''ll pay closer attention. If he can explain why its silly and demonstrate it in a way that makes sense I am all ears of course.
Peace,
I respect Sergey''s opinion. When he speaks on a subject I am all ears and to say I don''t learn from him would not be true. With regards to this issue however Sergey is not the one paying my bills here.
Upper half angles I know. Even their relationship to lower halves in many instances. ASET images, red reflectors, Helium/full Sarin numbers ... I understand this language for the most part and how they translate to face up appearance. So giving gear numbers and saying "silly" doesn''t tell me anything. All I know is if I show 100 clients 2 diamonds and the greater majority of them pick x over y ... 100 experts could disagree and say "silly", I''m going to side with what the majority of consumers choose... everytime (even if it went against my own personal preference for that matter). No disrespet to Sergey but when he''s footing the bill to purchase stones for inventory I''ll pay closer attention. If he can explain why its silly and demonstrate it in a way that makes sense I am all ears of course.
Peace,
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,734
Date: 5/25/2006 7:53:51 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Garry,
I respect Sergey''s opinion. When he speaks on a subject I am all ears and to say I don''t learn from him would not be true. With regards to this issue however Sergey is not the one paying my bills here.My clients could care less what Sergey or any expert says for that matter becuase they purchase what appeals most to their eyes. I''ll be the first to admit I am ''tang/index/gear ignorant''. I know the basics... 11.25 degrees from half to bezel (or whatever) but this is foreign language to the layman and generally to 99.99% of most people in the retail trade. Kinda like talking azimuth angles or yaw.
Upper half angles I know. Even their relationship to lower halves in many instances. ASET images, red reflectors, Helium/full Sarin numbers ... I understand this language for the most part and how they translate to face up appearance. So giving gear numbers and saying ''silly'' doesn''t tell me anything. All I know is if I show 100 clients 2 diamonds and the greater majority of them pick x over y ... 100 experts could disagree and say ''silly'', I''m going to side with what the majority of consumers choose... everytime (even if it went against my own personal preference for that matter). No disrespet to Sergey but when he''s footing the bill to purchase stones for inventory I''ll pay closer attention. If he can explain why its silly and demonstrate it in a way that makes sense I am all ears of course.
Peace,
You are geting close to our old friend Demagogy again Rhino.
Sergey and my comments were purely about the communication from GIA that you linked to - the one intented to ''teach'' the diamond community about painting and digging.
Neither Sergey nor i have supported or said painting is bad. We simply mentioned that GIA does not appear to have a system for grading it or its effects.
This is what Sergey wrote about the issue again for the benefit of other readers.
It would be helpful if you were more careful about reporting others opinions:
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.
aljdewey
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2002
- Messages
- 9,170
The highlighted phrase goes exactly back to why Leonid said a few weeks ago that the anecdotal observances you offered weren't broad enough to draw conclusions from. If you show 100 clients 2 diamonds and the greater majority of them pick x over y, that means ONLY this: Between those two diamonds, they prefer x (which happens to be non-painted) over y (which happens to be painted to some unspecified degree).
If "y" equals the painted diamond, all you've proven through that exercise is that people don't prefer THAT particular painted diamond (Y) over THAT particular non-painted diamond (X). What you haven't proven with that limited exercise: That diamond X would be consistently preferred when compared to OTHER painted diamonds----painted to lesser and greater degrees than diamond Y. What else you haven't proven with that limited exercise: That diamond Y wouldn't be the preferred diamond when compared to other non-painted stones that aren't stone X.
So, it's not broad enough to say with certainly that non-painted diamonds will always be preferred to painted diamonds (regardless of degree).
I agree that you need to worry about being the steward of your own inventory. As you aptly pointed out, you're the one footing the bill, and if you are comfortable making your buying decisions based on assumptions or conclusions arrived at by comparing just two diamonds, that's your business and your prerogative. You're the boss, and it's your dough. It also doesn't matter is 20 other experts disagree, as you noted, because they aren't financially responsible for your business.
On the other hand, when it's the dough of posters here, different issue. Since some folks DO prefer the look of painted stones, and because some folks here do not see an appreciable difference when comparing some mildly painted stones to non-painted stones, it does a disservice to potential shoppers to go on a "painted diamond" witch-hunt and/or plant a seed of fear that selecting a painted diamond (simply because it's painted, with no consideration to what degree) might be a bad choice or mistake.
If a stone takes a grading hit simply because it's painted (even if that painting doesn't adversely affect light performance).......I'd personally consider that arbitrary, not necessarily conservative, but that's me. Just my two cents.
^
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- May 9, 2006
- Messages
- 91
As a consumer, I''d report that Rhino''s postings haven''t been nearly as one-sided as you imply. He''s never said (that I''ve seen) "that non-painted diamonds will always be preferred to painted diamonds." Of course, that''s a ludicriously broad generalization. To the contrary, he often says that some people prefer painted diamonds and he advises them to buy what they like, again and again I''ve seen him say this. His emphasis has been on reporting his results from his tests, which I think rational humans reading this board would take as one data point on the whole chart. At the very least, interesting findings.
I think it''s far from a witch hunt ("I am not anti painting or digging. Folks who have shown preference for those types I am quick to congratulate them on their purchase and even suggest them if that is indeed their preference. I don''t prefer either on a personal level, particularly when it impacts the appearance that I can see..."), Rhino seems to settle on the heart of the issue every time, which "is how the common layman''s perspective corellates to the data."
I''m a newbie here and I have a lot more reading to do, but it seems we get caught up in the numbers a lot here when the "best" diamond really is a personal choice (IE the new ACA vs. Classic thread). HCA can narrow down good diamonds, but until it can tell me which I will like best, I still have to use my eyes. As my father says, "that''s why there are horse races."
I don''t think it''s a "disservice to potential shoppers" for him to speak up about his contradictory findings on this board. Otherwise a consumer like me might blindly believe that all painted diamonds are better than non-painted diamonds, an assertion I assume you''d agree is equally false. Instead, issues that are debated like this teach me that the difference must come down to personal taste, and I''d be well-advised to let my eyes do the choosing.
What''s odd is that, even though I often see several posts that attack Rhino''s posts, I rarely see people implementing their own real-world tests to contest his results...
Don''t forget what the OP''s question was. "Why would anyone object to painting?" I think he tried to answer that. As a newbie, I hope I don''t ruffle anybody''s feathers, I love everybody''s input on these boards, I find them all extremely useful.
Especially the cat pooping in a DiamondDock.
^
- Status
300x240.png)