Why would anyone object to painting?

[diamondseeker2006]

This conversation is over my head completely, but I''d like to say that I agree with King of Diamonds that Jonathan is only reporting his experiences as a longtime diamond vendor and as a consumer, that is how I take his posts. I don''t think he was representing his experiments as something to be presented to a scientific journal.

But y''all need to think about the new people on here who will be totally confused by these arguments. Because at times it makes us feel that it will be impossible to choose a diamond via the internet unless we order multiple stones at a time as Kenny has done or else travel to a vendor which takes $$$ away from the diamond budget!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/26/2006 7:55:13 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006

...y'all need to think about the new people on here who will be totally confused by these arguments. Because at times it makes us feel that it will be impossible to choose a diamond via the internet unless we order multiple stones at a time as Kenny has done or else travel to a vendor which takes $$$ away from the diamond budget!

You’re right DS. This issue is fractional, compared to other worthy subjects.

Premium diamonds of the kind seen on PS, painted and non, are at equal levels of beauty because the top vendors here care enough to stock the best of the best. Fear should not be created about one style or the other. So far, Kenny’s thread is an extended version of what we see in our offices during client viewings. Pricescope members who have been here will attest to that. As with other aspects there are deleterious levels possible, but they will be screened out by top vendors.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/25/2006 7:53:51 PM
Author: Rhino

...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'll try to explain it, Rhino.

It's key to understanding what Serg was discussing with us back in March (the wide range of variability), and may explain why some assumed you were being stubborn on this issue.

NORMAL INDEXING

The typical tang used in diamond cutting has clicks at the normal mains and halves, which are 11.25 degrees apart.

If you look at the diagram below the red arrow points to a bezel-main junction that would be normally indexed at 00.00 deg (not labeled).

Now we will begin moving counter-clockwise (CCW).

11.25 deg CCW is an upper girdle facet, labeled 11.25...
11.25 deg CCW is where upper and lower halves meet at 22.50 (not labeled)...
11.25 deg CCW is another upper girdle facet, labeled 33.75...
11.25 deg CCW the where bezel meets main at 45.00 (not labeled)...
11.25 deg CCW is another upper girdle facet, labeled 56.25...

And so forth.

You have 16 upper girdle facets (upper halves).
Normal indexing for upper halves occurs every 22.50 deg.
All 16 are listed below in their normal indexed positions.

 

[JohnQuixote]

ACTUAL INDEX POSITION / PAINTING

Diamond rough will not always take normal indexing. Cross-workers do things which cause a polishing error for many reasons. The whole art of brillianteering is to observe these minor polishing faults and attempt to create a faultless finish, which may include azimuth shift, digging and painting. This is the brillianteerer's job.

To cut the painted crown halves the cutter sets the index to the nearest main click on the tang (there is a click each 11.25 deg). He must then use the cheater screw to 'cheat' or adjust a small amount to either side of that normal index. How much can vary.

Example: Painting to 3.75 deg may be very a minor amount. Painting to 7.50 deg is relatively much greater.

Below I've noted index positions for 4 painted upper girdle facets (green), their normal index (white) and the deviation from normal in degrees (blue).

These are positions for upper girdle facets from Rhino's survey stone. I only put 4 of them on the drawing (got sleepy). Data on all 16 is in the next post.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/24/2006 1:41:49 PM
Author: Rhino

...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.

Serg was first to point out that Rhino's survey stone, while not extreme, is painted more than many may be. It's not painted as much as others may be. That is why it cannot be used to make judgments about painted stones of other configs (nor can any single diamond).

It has 7.2 deg average dev in the upper halves (data below). Per Serg, GIA allows only 1 deg for EX (edited: 1 click or 3.75 degrees). Rhino agrees this diamond is not an extreme example. That is a major point I've been trying to make: Even 7.2 deg is a whopping 55% beyond 1 deg (w/11.25 max). That is a lot of territory!

Should an identical diamond with only 5 deg be 'dinged?' One with 4 deg? What about other configurations?

There are many variables.

It is why I have repeatedly said there's no way one painted diamond can represent all.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Optical properties of one configuration can't be stereotyped for another.

This is the flaw with GIA's stereotyping approach: Overall configuration and optical symmetry change the playing field: Diamonds cut near Tolkowsky proportions with good OS can perform their best even when painted to a large degree, whereas those with less optimum proportions and poor OS cannot take even moderate painting before the look changes.

There are too many variables to try and stereotype all diamonds as needing to conform to one set of parameters.

(hypothetical numbers)

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/24/2006 1:41:49 PM
Author: Rhino

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.

When the system came out in January I tried to wrap my mind around that idea. After weighing the issues the evidence suggests it was not 'conservative,' but it was easier.

Consider: GIA has a top grade many times wider than AGS, allows 4 of 6 measurements to be rounded off, gives stones appearing 10% smaller than they should EX, doesn’t report extra facets/naturals but they were more ‘conservative’ with painting??

Hey. I may moonlight as a drummer, but you can’t fool me on this one.

AGS calculated over 550 different painted configurations (for the 0 grade alone) to avoid stereotyping. Their whole system tailors itself to the individual diamond. It’s not ‘more liberal,’ it’s more detailed.

GIA arrived at 3 drawings of painted girdles for EX by which to judge all diamonds.
I think GIA took a shortcut.

 

[JohnQuixote]

All things considered:

It strikes me as bizarre that so much exaggeration is happening lately regarding these minute painting differences when diamonds within GIA EX take on vastly different appearances for more glaring reasons.

Here’s a true challenge: Rhino, if you can explain to Mara how her 2.32 ct firecracker can be judged less attractive than 41.6-35.0-62.9 steep/deeps that look 10% smaller than they should and have undisclosed naturals…but get GIA EX in cut…THAT will be pulling a rabbit from your steep/deep hat.

If you can pull that off, I have a few thousand people you can begin calling… “Lucy…you got some ‘splainin to do!”

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 5/26/2006 8:38:06 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
All things considered:

It strikes me as bizarre that so much exaggeration is happening lately regarding these minute painting differences when diamonds within GIA EX take on vastly different appearances for more glaring reasons.

Okay John, I gotta admit I don''t begin to understand all the stuff you just posted, but maybe you can get enough Belgian beer in me when we meet with Gary that I can sort of pretend that I do...

However, I do understand the above quote and I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head!

Rhino and I already agree to dissagree on the painting thing, but there are a lot of areas about the GIA system that I bet Jon would agree with you and I on. I am still hoping that the system they have come up with will be changed to one that is less politically motivated to keeping the diamond cutters happy and more motivated to rewarding excellence.

Thank you for taking a very complex issue on and trying to explain it to us, but more importantly, thank you for simplifying the whole thing in your last post to the actual issue once we get past the intricacies of painting.

Wink

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/24/2006 11:37:23 PM
Author: perry

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

Perry,

The comparison is appropriate and easy to understand.

 

[RockDoc]

Hi John

Very well explained about indexing and and azimuth/ yaw shift.

I'm familiar with the index wheels for colored stones of different shapes.... not familiar with the diamond index wheels, but I am going to guess they are the different for other shapes in diamonds as well. Is that so?

Rhino

I got a suggestion for you.

Order a colored stone cutting machine..... buy some cheap quartz rough to experiment with.

Colored stones are a lot easier to start with as you'll get some familiarity with the index wheels, which vary for each shape.

Colored stone cutting machines are not too expensive and the experience of learning to facet will be of tremendous help in understanding in very basic form what the cutter is up against in cutting colored stones. Then multiply it many times due to the polishing angles needed to deal with the cleavage in diamonds and you have a really good sense of just how precise the best of the best are cut.

With colored stones you don't have the graining situations to deal with, and it is rather relaxing, and very good feeling when you take a rough rock and fashion it into a great stone.

If you get Lapidairy Journal, there are a lot of colored stone cutting equpment advertised in there, plus lots of sources for colored stone rough.

Be a rather good promotion for customers in your store to see too.... and maybe profitable in the end.

Rockdoc

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/26/2006 9:11:09 AM
Author: RockDoc

Colored stone cutting machines are not too expensive and the experience of learning to facet will be of tremendous help in understanding in very basic form what the cutter is up against in cutting colored stones. Then multiply it many times due to the polishing angles needed to deal with the cleavage in diamonds and you have a really good sense of just how precise the best of the best are cut.

With colored stones you don't have the graining situations to deal with, and it is rather relaxing, and very good feeling when you take a rough rock and fashion it into a great stone.

A colored stone faceting machine also has a click every 3.75 degrees; 96-index gear. The diamond cutter's tang has clicks only at mains and halves, every 11.25 degrees (as per above).

There is a book by Basil Watermeyer that's a follow up for colored-stone faceters who want to become diamond cutters. There are six separate areas of study in the fashioning of a diamond: designing, cleaving, sawing, bruting, cross-working, and brillianteering. The last four require a full apprenticeship (or at least a cup of coffee with Bill Bray).

 

[strmrdr]

te:[/b] 5/26/2006 8:38:06 AM
Author: JohnQuixote
All things considered:


It strikes me as bizarre that so much exaggeration is happening lately regarding these minute painting differences when diamonds within GIA EX take on vastly different appearances for more glaring reasons.

[/quote]
There are 4 or 16 things well ahead of painting that are more important to how a diamond performs than painting.. I think we agreed that's very true.
But its also equally true across a wide variety of lighting conditions it has a noticeable effect on the diamonds personality which can make someone prefer one style over the other.

The things I feel have a greater effect by far are:
1-10 are lighting lighting lighting
11: pavilion angle
12: crown angle and its relationship to the pavilion angle.
13: optical symmetry
14: LGF%
15: type of setting open or bezel, one thing that the discussion of the GIA grading system has shown me is that the type of setting can be a huge consideration once you get outside the traditional super-ideal range.
16 then finaly girdle treatment.

 

[RockDoc]

John Q wrote:

A colored stone faceting machine also has a click every 3.75 degrees; 96-index gear. The diamond cutter''s tang has clicks only at mains and halves, every 11.25 degrees (as per above).


John.....

Mine has all different type gear wheels for each different shape. But they are sort of basic shapes.

I haven''t done any faceting in a long time, as I''ve been just too busy at the computer and doing other stuff.

When I did do some cutting, I would want the stones so "perfectly" cut that I would spend sometimes months cutting just one stone. The last one I did has 180 facets on it, all just "perfect".

Have you tried doing a little diamond cutting to just get the "feel" of it?

Rockdoc

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/26/2006 9:11:09 AM
Author: RockDoc
Hi John

Very well explained about indexing and and azimuth/ yaw shift.

I''m familiar with the index wheels for colored stones of different shapes.... not familiar with the diamond index wheels, but I am going to guess they are the different for other shapes in diamonds as well. Is that so?

The tangs come in different combinations. Index wheels are not typically used (hardness constraints on positions and directions of cutting and polishing) but the indexing technique is practiced, thus digging and painting.

 

[Rhino]

Aight... have some time to play catch up here.

Date: 5/24/2006 9:31:50 PM
Author: adamasgem
Highest and best use, based on previously discussed analyses..

LMAO ... ok that''s funny.

Seriously though Marty, the DD introduces into the jewelry store environment (which is typically strictly a spot lighting environment) an accurate assessment of brightness which the consumer typically doesn''t see when viewing diamonds in a jewelry store atmosphere. That is a HUGE plus IMO.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/24/2006 10:54:50 PM
Author: strmrdr

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

definitely.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 5/26/2006 11:18:33 AM
Author: Rhino
Seriously though Marty, the DD introduces into the jewelry store environment (which is typically strictly a spot lighting environment) an accurate assessment of brightness which the consumer typically doesn''t see when viewing diamonds in a jewelry store atmosphere. That is a HUGE plus IMO.

If only it were true. Rhino, I guess this is just going to be another area in which we have to agree to dissagree. This device simply does not create an accurate assesment of brightness, as is easily and convincingly shown with Gary''s pictures of the good and bad stone side by side both looking pretty good in the DD.

I carry a set of those stones in my pocket with me where ever I go and I have never seen the bad stone look any where near good EXCEPT in the DD.

Wink

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/25/2006 12:58:01 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/24/2006 10:54:50 PM
Author: strmrdr

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.

way too much head shadow compared to the DD, no cigar

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?

Hi Garry,

The white dome was used in some of the studies but none of the observation testing was performed with this. White dome stuff is kinda moot.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/25/2006 1:03:54 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 5/24/2006 1:41:49 PM
Author: Rhino

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.

Rhino, then I wonder why Peter proudly wears an EightStar. Just a little inconsistent with the BS thesis you are trying to promote.

Watch it Marty because you can be accused of BS as well however I''m not going to stoop there. Don''t make this personal.

A person solicited opinions and I was merely sharing mine. If you doubt my conversation with Pete just ask him. I have no reason to lie or BS anyone.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 5/26/2006 11:29:36 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/25/2006 1:03:54 PM
Author: adamasgem

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.

Rhino, then I wonder why Peter proudly wears an EightStar. Just a little inconsistent with the BS thesis you are trying to promote.

Watch it Marty because you can be accused of BS as well however I'm not going to stoop there. Don't make this personal.

A person solicited opinions and I was merely sharing mine. If you doubt my conversation with Pete just ask him. I have no reason to lie or BS anyone.

Guys, we have friends in common at the lab. Their willingness to speak candidly with many of us is a rich benefit. I would regret any unease caused by painting their names (get it?) on either side of a discussion with multiple aspects.

The official AGS position, stated to a number of us here via email, is to 'neither endorse nor oppose painting or digging... If the stone gets the values for brightness, contrast, dispersion and leakage - it gets the grade.'

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/25/2006 1:13:48 PM
Author: Mara

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.

___________

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.

Hi Mara,

I''ve been around a long time and have sat and watched over years the things that have transpired. There''s more to this than you realize but based on what you''re saying then actually digging would be more rare since there are much less dug out stones amongst precision goods than there is painting yet you don''t see anyone extolling the virtues of digging. Why is this? Can you guess?

 

[Rhino]

Hi alj,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I''d just like to comment on a few things. My apologies for the length.

Date: 5/25/2006 10:42:40 PM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 5/25/2006 7:53:51 PM
Author: Rhino

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.

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).

True but over 6 years do you honestly think this is the only comparison I''ve showed to folks over the course of this time?

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.

There are plenty of other x''s (non painted) out there we show alongside that particular x. And yes ... folks have various preferences. We''ve designed a new cut based on the input we''ve been hearing too which we hope to officially release before years end. Regarding y diamonds (painted) a question that was nagging at me with the release of the new cut grading systems was how consumers would choose if they were comparing a moderately painted diamond (the 1.19ct F VS2 I used in my last experiment) alongside a diamond making the GIA Ex grade that didn''t score well on all the technologies and had leakage under the table. A GIA Ex steep/deep. In my heart of hearts I believed I was going to be demonstrating a weakness of the GIA system (stone had HCA of 3.6 or 3. yet 90% of our observers picked the GIA Ex over the GIA VG with moderate painting. That study has caused me to take a serious look at what many folks have been dissing and my current research at this time is centered around answering the question ... at what point does the "ring of death" become visible to the human eye? Sergey has suggested that the GIA Ex grade of 34.5 coupled with 41.6 pavilion angles will demonstrate. I''m having such a stone cut as well as a 36/41.4 to see if it indeed does.

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 never made such a statement.

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.

Absolutely. However I don''t base my decisions strictly on this one single comparison Alj. I have here in my store a large variety of various types of ideals. Ones with varying lower girdle lengths ranging from the low 70''s to the mid 80''s. Stones with ideal, near ideal and common optical symmetry, varying crown/paviloin angles, varying number of facets from 57 to 91. I take note each time we show comparisons. I just wanted to point out that I don''t base my financial decisions on this one very limited comparison. Even at that, it didn''t cause me to cease carrying painted girdle diamonds, just not go hog wild with them.

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.

Witch hunt?

Alj, ... let me please clarify something for you. I''m not against a person''s preference for any feature in diamond cutting that GIA NOR AGS does not give their top grade to. One member of the cut team had a personal preference for a shallow angled combo that only got a "good". I LIKE SHALLOW angled combos that do not get Ex grade (if I had to choose between a steep/deep with visible ring of death vs a shallow angled stone). Even though I like those stones does not mean I can''t grasp or understand GIA''s reasons for not including them in the Ex grade. I fully understand why they do not just as I understand why they are not including certain degrees of painting in their Ex grade. The reason is simple. It does not agree with majority opinion. The problem is people are taking it personally when they shouldn''t be. I''ve been talking about the issues because I see GIA getting railed by folks who aren''t even attempting to begin to understand their system when in fact its not too difficult to grasp. Painting has been one of the primary issues getting railed and I thought it would be helpful for consumers to know that there is a professional opinion out here that totally understands why they came to the conclusions they have. The picture that was getting painted here (pun intended) during the early part of this year was that GIA doesn''t know what the hell they are doing and a number of statements were made by other tradesmen here that had no basis in fact or truth. I felt it an obligation to share the results of my study and the observation testing we had performed between the GIA Ex steep/deep vs an AGS ideal moderately painted diamond to provide some balance to the bashing that was occurring here (not particularly in this thread but others in the recent past). I''m not on a witch hunt Alj.

Regarding planting seeds of fear, how do you think I feel when I have continually seen attacks on one of GIA''s suggested lighting environments with no real evidence to back it up?

I sit here in my office daily and am viewing diamonds under the DD and I read the statements of people on this forum suggesting to the general public that the GIA DD leads people to faulty conclusions etc. I know for a fact this is the furthest thing from the truth. Who is instilling unwarranted fear?

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.

I''m sorry if you didn''t catch my first comments from my prior post to you. GIA is not dinging stones wherein painting is not visible. At least to date this has been our experience. The stones we have here with painting that get the VG grade, we can indeed see the difference. The added darkness (caused by reflected as opposed to direct light sources) while of a different nature is akin to digging. The stones with neglible painting we can''t see the difference. My advice to consumers is if the stone does have digging or painting ... SEE IT AND COMPARE TO ONE THAT DOESN''T! If you like it buy it! There''s a chance you may not and if not then don''t. As I have stated in other threads, my counsel to Internet consumers who want to play safe is get a diamond that meets both labs requirements for their top grade. If they deviate from that standard, look at the stones side by side and decide for yourself. Is there something wrong with this counsel?

Peace,

 

[Mara]

no rhino i don''t want to guess about dug out stones. i''m talking about painting. they are separate things are they not?

this stuff IS very confusing for the average consumer to understand, DS, but to be honest, most of what is going on here is between the experts of the industry and us consumers just kind of dazzedly sit by taking it all in until maybe someone says a line in english we cana actually understand.

but i love it. that is the beauty of PS for me. trying like hell to figure out all the diagrams and the diamond tech speak is way more interesting than which celebrity got divorced or which bathing suit to buy even though i can subscribe to that kind of stuff too most of the time.

i don''t know if you care about my opinion, DS, but here it is. the painting/non painted discussion for most consumers on here will be a moot point when discussed because they are discussing the tiniest of split hairs amongst exceptional stones. i love my painted stones, i love the classics i''ve seen as long as they are precisely cut to my own requirements, kenny is busy doing his real life study, in reality it all just comes down to preferences. you will NOT be unhappy with a precisely cut classic end-leakage stone and you will NOT be unhappy with a precisely cut slightly painted stone. that''s the bottom line. if you take anything else away from this discussion, realize that these individuals here are discussing the nuances between probably the top 1% of the best cut diamonds in the world. it''s not like a zales stone vs an eightstar. regardless of which you buy, it will be a firecracker to you.

i hope THAT makes sense because newbies should not be confused if they can read and decipher that last paragraph. really no one should. and if they want to delve into the nuances more...then by all means keep reading this thread and others like this. it''s where the real education comes into play.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 5/26/2006 1:23:16 PM
Author: Mara
... in reality it all just comes down to preferences. you will NOT be unhappy with a precisely cut classic end-leakage stone and you will NOT be unhappy with a precisely cut slightly painted stone. that''s the bottom line. if you take anything else away from this discussion, realize that these individuals here are discussing the nuances between probably the top 1% of the best cut diamonds in the world. it''s not like a zales stone vs an eightstar. regardless of which you buy, it will be a firecracker to you.

In my dreams that would be the case. In reality, I suspect you are talking about diamonds in the one tenth of one percent range. Sadly, most stones are not well enough cut to be worthy of worrying about the distinctions. That does not mean we do not enjoy arguing about those distinctions, as they are what make these top stones so incredible.

Heck, as long as we are dreaming, someday maybe we will be talking about stones in the top 20% of all stones that are cut. With technology today there is no longer an excuse, other than having something cheap to sell to people too poorly educated about quality to know better than to buy. Maybe when the education catches up, people will start refusing to buy the poo and then these arguments will mean something to many instead of to only a few... Sigh!

Wink

P.S. My apologies to any English majors out there... (speaking of education) , I hope that last sentence did not break too many rules.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/26/2006 11:37:53 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/26/2006 11:29:36 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/25/2006 1:03:54 PM
Author: adamasgem

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.

Rhino, then I wonder why Peter proudly wears an EightStar. Just a little inconsistent with the BS thesis you are trying to promote.

Watch it Marty because you can be accused of BS as well however I''m not going to stoop there. Don''t make this personal.

A person solicited opinions and I was merely sharing mine. If you doubt my conversation with Pete just ask him. I have no reason to lie or BS anyone.

Guys, we have friends in common at the lab. Their willingness to speak candidly with many of us is a rich benefit. I would regret any unease caused by painting their names (get it?) on either side of a discussion with multiple aspects.

The official AGS position, stated to a number of us here via email, is to ''neither endorse nor oppose painting or digging... If the stone gets the values for brightness, contrast, dispersion and leakage - it gets the grade.''

Well put John


The official AGS position, stated to a number of us here via email, is to ''neither endorse nor oppose painting or digging... If the stone gets the values for brightness, contrast, dispersion and leakage - it gets the grade.''

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/26/2006 8:15:20 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/26/2006 7:55:13 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006

...y''all need to think about the new people on here who will be totally confused by these arguments. Because at times it makes us feel that it will be impossible to choose a diamond via the internet unless we order multiple stones at a time as Kenny has done or else travel to a vendor which takes $$$ away from the diamond budget!

You’re right DS. This issue is fractional, compared to other worthy subjects.

Premium diamonds of the kind seen on PS, painted and non, are at equal levels of beauty because the top vendors here care enough to stock the best of the best. Fear should not be created about one style or the other. So far, Kenny’s thread is an extended version of what we see in our offices during client viewings. Pricescope members who have been here will attest to that. As with other aspects there are deleterious levels possible, but they will be screened out by top vendors.

I would add ... as long as the painting or digging doesn''t impact face up appearance. If it does then I don''t think you nor I should be the one to decide they are equally beautiful. That is your opinion. I say let the person who is purchasing make that determination. Don''t you think?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 5/26/2006 1:23:16 PM
Author: Mara
no rhino i don''t want to guess about dug out stones. i''m talking about painting. they are separate things are they not?

this stuff IS very confusing for the average consumer to understand, DS, but to be honest, most of what is going on here is between the experts of the industry and us consumers just kind of dazzedly sit by taking it all in until maybe someone says a line in english we cana actually understand.

but i love it. that is the beauty of PS for me. trying like hell to figure out all the diagrams and the diamond tech speak is way more interesting than which celebrity got divorced or which bathing suit to buy even though i can subscribe to that kind of stuff too most of the time.

i don''t know if you care about my opinion, DS, but here it is. the painting/non painted discussion for most consumers on here will be a moot point when discussed because they are discussing the tiniest of split hairs amongst exceptional stones. i love my painted stones, i love the classics i''ve seen as long as they are precisely cut to my own requirements, kenny is busy doing his real life study, in reality it all just comes down to preferences. you will NOT be unhappy with a precisely cut classic end-leakage stone and you will NOT be unhappy with a precisely cut slightly painted stone. that''s the bottom line. if you take anything else away from this discussion, realize that these individuals here are discussing the nuances between probably the top 1% of the best cut diamonds in the world. it''s not like a zales stone vs an eightstar. regardless of which you buy, it will be a firecracker to you.

i hope THAT makes sense because newbies should not be confused if they can read and decipher that last paragraph. really no one should. and if they want to delve into the nuances more...then by all means keep reading this thread and others like this. it''s where the real education comes into play.

Thanks, Mara. That does help to put things into perspective. I am happy to have some knowledge like the range of measurements that are acceptable, etc., but I didn''t want to have to do PhD level research and a thesis in order to buy a great diamond!

 

[Rhino]

Hi John,

Thank you kindly for the explanation.

Date: 5/26/2006 8:27:43 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 5/24/2006 1:41:49 PM
Author: Rhino

...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.

Serg was first to point out that Rhino''s survey stone, while not extreme, is painted more than many may be. It''s not painted as much as others may be. That is why it cannot be used to make judgments about painted stones of other configs (nor can any single diamond).

It has 7.2 deg average dev in the upper halves (data below). Per Serg, GIA allows only 1 deg for EX. Rhino agrees this diamond is not an extreme example. That is a major point I''ve been trying to make: Even 7.2 deg is a whopping 55% beyond 1 deg (w/11.25 max). That is a lot of territory!

I think you may have this confused just a tad but we''ll check to make sure. The diamond I used in my survey was a 1.19ct F VS2. If memory serves me right the painted stone with 7.2 deg average dev was on a 1.18ct K VS2 which Sergey expressed that he felt had too much painting. The 1.18ct K VS2 was not used in my most recent survey (although I have used this stone in many other surveys comparing ideal vs painted girdles). I gave that model to Sergey on that thread when I had posted a picture of a painted vs non painted wherein I could easily see the difference when I was sitting on my porch in the shade and Sergey asked me specifically for the models of the 2 stones in that particular photograph. Sorry if there was any confusion there John.

Kind regards,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 5/26/2006 11:29:36 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 5/25/2006 1:03:54 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 5/24/2006 1:41:49 PM
Author: Rhino

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.

Rhino, then I wonder why Peter proudly wears an EightStar. Just a little inconsistent with the BS thesis you are trying to promote.

Watch it Marty because you can be accused of BS as well however I''m not going to stoop there. Don''t make this personal.

A person solicited opinions and I was merely sharing mine. If you doubt my conversation with Pete just ask him. I have no reason to lie or BS anyone.

Your "BS", so to speak, has more to do with your probably taking out of context any statement made to you ( which I have no direct knowledge of) which are contradictory with FACTS.

As to my humor with the KittyDock, you just don''t get it Rhino. The KittyDock envrionment, in my opinion, and I believe others here who are capable of doing the analysis, is inconsistent with GIA''s stated baselines for their "metrics", an obscured hemisphere.

It is a SALES tool, base on the fact that RBC diamonds typically have their highest efficiency for "light return" from direct overhead lighting. That "mirror" (as well as confusing glare) effect will be a function of the look angle.

And you, like GIA, seemingly tried to overly simplify "painting", and failed miserably at characterising it. And given your position as a merchant who may not be able to get the type of painted high optical symmetry stones you once promoted and sold, have tried, at least in my opinion, to trash them.

Your customers will purchase from you what you have in your inventory, and probably largely based on the particular "spin" EVERY merchant puts on their products, glossing over deficiencies or trying to put everything in the best "light", hence the KittyDock.

I doubt that you will tell a customer that the GIA EX you are trying to sell them would get an AGS 3 or 4, or would have been classically called a commercial or promotional make stone 6 months ago.. But that is just my opinion.