Why would anyone object to painting?

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/2/2006 12:00:27 PM
Author: strmrdr



there isnt a room big enough to contain the egos :}

No Storm, not egos, professionals, who may have different opinions, versus outright duffers or wannabes..

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/2/2006 12:37:24 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

I received clarification on this issue. My information was correct re: proprietary grading, but I was mistaken re: lab approach.

The illustrations are examples used away from the lab to estimate grades. As per the article and yesterday''s presentation GIA feels the easiest way to assess this is to look in the profile view. Independent of the rest of the stone, as a whole, as I understand you.

In the lab the Sarin scan is used as a primary means of making angular assessment and determining degree of painting. I''m happy and sad to hear this; happy that the methodology is not so simplistic as I thought, but sad that (a) the principal is still non-assessment of face-up appearance and (b) as we all know, Sarin is not very reliable with these girdle configurations.Possible understatement

Painting discussion:

I spoke with the gentlemen from GIA for some time. We spoke in terms of azimuth deviations from normal indexing, which allowed us to discuss this in practical terms (thank you Serg). GIA is in complete agreement that a blanket statement cannot be made about ''painted'' diamonds: A diamond must be assessed in their lab to know whether it would receive a deduction or not, and not all painted diamonds are equal.

Of course, proprietary, send us money and we will ding you. But given their methodology described, not very reliable.

Surprisingly, GIA says the deduction threshhold between EX and VG, in terms of azimuth deviation, is nowhere near as small as Serg and others have calculated based on initial information (1 degree). We discussed specific numbers: Both Rhino''s survey stone and his porch stone are outside the EX range. However, I gave values for examples of several ACA New Line diamonds and a painted superideal from another manufacturer: Every one of those stones'' numbers was within the tolerances cited for EX. They would not receive deductions.

This is critical, because the initial impression given to some designers, manufacturers and analysts was based on Report Check and early grading.


Pursuant to this, I was told GIA Report Check had some glitches when introduced (diamonds that appeared to have been penalized should not have been). This is important information for consumers who have used RC to check on prior GIA-graded diamonds and were surprised to see ''VG'' or lower within robust proportions sets. Additionally, the lab has been working to fine tune their judgments and the feeling is that diamonds submitted today, as opposed to several months ago, are being more decisively evaluated.I guess Stevie Wonder is looking for a new job (my appologies to Stevie). Seems like a little backtracking (finally).

This is critical for two reasons:

(1) In the macro, assumptions have been made about the level of painting being ''dinged'' - by people on both sides of this debate - without actual information. Shame on us. No.. shame on GIA, for not giving the trade any "correct" information

(2) In the micro it absolutely reinforces that one cannot make a blanket statement regarding painting as there are vastly differing degrees - some which are not visibly distinguishable from normal brillianteering.


The gentlemen from GIA took more than 30 minutes after their presentation to visit privately with me. They were receptive and candid. They are also aware of this sensitive issue as it relates to premium superideals. I''ve omitted some specifics I did not receive permission to cite. I did request permission to share the above information from our conversation as an overview. If I''ve stated something inaccurately I''ll correct it, as our discussions will continue post-JCK.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

There was a glimmer of hope from Barak Green (who John spoke with - I was there for part of the conversation) and Phil Yantzer too (director West coast GIA lab).

Rhino did you know GIA do not use Diamond dock in the lab as part of the grading system.
Apart from visual grading of girdle and culet - the entire system is parametric based.

I asked Phil to consider that painting can improve say a GIA Good and make it a Very good, or a VG to an excellent in a few slightly steep cases.
But this is not so easy for them.

Rhino - where is you home work on https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/ this FAQ thread?
Phil also agreed to try using DD seated and standing - he mainly has used it standing.

When you do your tests Rhino - he will be reading and checking.

 

[Rhino]

Hi John,

Thanks for the update. A few questions.

Date: 6/2/2006 12:37:24 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

I received clarification on this issue. My information was correct re: proprietary grading, but I was mistaken re: lab approach.

In your past comments I recall you using the term "mass grading" ... ie. all (the mass) of painted girdle diamonds taking a hit. Clarify "proprietary grading". Are you referring to the the systematic degree of painting GIA does to determine which grade the painted stone will fall in? If so, I understand that.

The illustrations are examples used away from the lab to estimate grades. As per the article and yesterday''s presentation GIA feels the easiest way to assess this is to look in the profile view.

I''d agree. It''s quick and easy however I like to study the face up appearance accompanying any degree of it to see if I can note the differences visually.

In the lab the Sarin scan is used as a primary means of making angular assessment and determining degree of painting. I''m happy and sad to hear this; happy that the methodology is not so simplistic as I thought, but sad that (a) the principal is still non-assessment of face-up appearance and (b) as we all know, Sarin is not very reliable with these girdle configurations.

From what I have learned studying this, the VG grade was determined because of what the observers reported in their observation testing. Since that testing is now complete perhaps the graders in the labs don''t feel the necessity to do it again so it would make sense that they now judge painting or digging to determine the threshold that makes the VG grade. Of the diamonds receiving the VG grade for brillianteering I have been able to note these differences as well. Admittedly however of the one stone I''ve seen that got the "Good" grade I wasn''t able to note any optical difference but only the degree of painting as noted from the girdle measurements and viewing it via the DiamCalc.

Regarding the Sarin I can tell you this. Depending on the machine one has, you are correct in the sense that Sarin has a tough time measuring the angles of upper halves that have been painted. I know this from experience. HOWEVER, even though most Sarin''s have a hard time resolving upper half angles, (as does the OGI) the actualy girdle graphs happen to be right on. Below is an example of an OGI scan of a painted stone.

You can note how bad the model is from the top view as it has a tough time (like most Sarin''s) resolving upper half angles. Next post I''ll show ya the girdle graph.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 6/2/2006 4:04:22 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
There was a glimmer of hope from Barak Green (who John spoke with - I was there for part of the conversation) and Phil Yantzer too (director West coast GIA lab).

Rhino did you know GIA do not use Diamond dock in the lab as part of the grading system.
Apart from visual grading of girdle and culet - the entire system is parametric based.

I asked Phil to consider that painting can improve say a GIA Good and make it a Very good, or a VG to an excellent in a few slightly steep cases.
But this is not so easy for them.

Rhino - where is you home work on https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/ this FAQ thread?
Phil also agreed to try using DD seated and standing - he mainly has used it standing.

When you do your tests Rhino - he will be reading and checking.

Hi Garry

Sort of dissappointed that I can''t be there with you guys, as I haven''t had the privilege of meeting many of you in person, and wish I could. I had hoped that a lot of the group would have been at the AGS Conclave in Orlando, but only part of us were able to be there. Really sorry I missed Peter''s cook out camp, as he was hoping that I would have been able to go.

It is very good that comments on this forum and input from the "group" have been received at GIA with positive and hopefully, some l attention to correcting their various positions and assessments on cut grading and the DD.

Say a big HI to everyone from Rockdoc.

Maybe next year.

Rockdoc

 

[Rhino]

Here''s the girdle graph. As you can see it accurately shows the thickness of the girdle as it proceeds from halves to valley''s to bezels and accurately reports the discontinuity of the girdle thickness from halves to bezels.

So while the OGI and some Sarin''s have problems with the models the actual girdle measurements can be assessed accurately. I have to cut out now but would like to follow up with some more questions/comments to what you''re learning/finding at the show. Thanks for sharing John.

Regards,

 

[Rhino]

Should have your pix up tomorrow mate. My Bday is tomorrow and wifey has a trick up her sleeve so heading out.

 

[RockDoc]

Rhino

Geez, that image is horrid. While I do not have an OGI, I haven''t received an image which is that poorly represented with my Sarin on ANY stone .

I do have two files that are designed for indexed stones, one from AGS and one from Sarin. In many cases they are helpful especially when running the scan in the "more accurate" mode.

I know I have, and Marty has brought this to the attention of Sarin at the AGS meeting, and I think some measures will be taken to make the scans and reports for these stone a bit more accurate.

Will look with interest on seeing the girdle scan you''re going to post.

Rockdoc

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/2/2006 4:13:40 PM
Author: Rhino


Regarding the Sarin I can tell you this. Depending on the machine one has, you are correct in the sense that Sarin has a tough time measuring the angles of upper halves that have been painted. I know this from experience. HOWEVER, even though most Sarin''s have a hard time resolving upper half angles, (as does the OGI) the actualy girdle graphs happen to be right on. Below is an example of an OGI scan of a painted stone.

You can note how bad the model is from the top view as it has a tough time (like most Sarin''s) resolving upper half angles. Next post I''ll show ya the girdle graph.

Seems that OGI has even worse problems than SARIN.. Since you have evidently all three machines (Helium, Sarin, OGI) it would be interesting for you to start a thread comparing results on this class of stones everyone maybe having a problem with. I know it has been discussed before, but maybe SHOWING examples like this would light a fire under everyone''s butt to FIX the problem for their users.

The girdle profile appears reasonable...

Thanks for posting this..

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/2/2006 4:47:20 PM
Author: adamasgem

Seems that OGI has even worse problems than SARIN.. Since you have evidently all three machines (Helium, Sarin, OGI) it would be interesting for you to start a thread comparing results on this class of stones everyone maybe having a problem with. I know it has been discussed before, but maybe SHOWING examples like this would light a fire under everyone''s butt to FIX the problem for their users.

The girdle profile appears reasonable...

Thanks for posting this..

Yeah - a competiion

The tightests diaaond measured on all 4 machines - now that GIA have darted into the fray.

 

[lawmax]

Date: 6/2/2006 9:50:07 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 6/1/2006 9:52:02 PM
Author: lawmax

Date: 5/31/2006 8:56:51 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi Allison

Good to see you. I don't see why he would. He picked it so he must enjoy its appearance.

Hi Jon,

It just struck me as funny! My odd sense of humor and irony, perhaps.

This whole industry is positively surreal!!!!

Allison

Allison... didn't you hear the next 'Surreal Life' show on VH1 is going to feature Garry, Marty, JohnP, Wink, RockDoc, Rich Sherwood, Leonid, and myself?

The best to you,

LOL!!!

Having met many of you in person, many other industry regulars in person, and communicated with others of you via phone/email over the last 5 years, I'd have to say.......uhh......I think I've already seen the show!!!!!

There's nothing quite like it. A beer helps...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rhino - you are slacking off

 

[RockDoc]

Hi Garry

It''s Rhino''s birthday..... so he''s entitled

Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/3/2006 10:41:46 PM
Author: RockDoc
Hi Garry

It''s Rhino''s birthday..... so he''s entitled

Rockdoc

Your right - he is entitled to do what ever he wants - not what his wife and Mom tell him to do Roc

 

[Dancing Fire]

rhino got so scare he didn''t even go to Vegas. it would of been open season for rhino hunting.

 

[dhog]

Date: 6/4/2006 9:20:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
rhino got so scare he didn''t even go to Vegas. it would of been open season for rhino hunting.

A good game of
PAINT BALL would be alot of fun for every one.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Reminder Rhino

BTW, this is not about GIA bashing, it is about consumer protection.
It is about questioning the science because ti seems now very obvious to me that GIa has made a mistake in their planning of their cut study when they moved from computer ray tracing to a survey based system.
Easy to do, and not hard to rectify with small adjustments.

So Rhino - this is important.

It is not a war or a fight. It is not personal.
So far I am quite impressed with GIA''s new scanner. They do some good stuff.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rhino forget the photo''s - just do some look testing.
I did today with the gem instruments product manager and he picked it exactly as i expected out of 4 CZ

 

[Iiro]

GIA new scanner? Tell us more Garry.

 

[Rhino]

Darnit. Everytime I sit to respond to this thread I get interrupted.

It''ll have to be tomorrow but I got your shots Garry with some interesting observations.

 

[Rhino]

Ok. Sorry for not answering sooner Garry but wifey had some nice surprises planned for me over the weekend and when it comes to taking pictures for Garry vs Wife ... well it goes without saying who''s gonna win that one every time.

Last Saturday it was just too busy in the store to sit and do what you asked but today after emails I did with interesting results. I had my assistant take pictures of me exactly as I take the shots, the angles, distance etc. which are provided in the graphic below.

Here''s my comments/observations as I was doing this.

1. Standing up and viewing the diamonds as we do in the picture on the right is how we normally look at the stones under the DD although sitting down doesn''t change the view. Standing vs sitting ... no difference. This is the way I was instructed to use the device just as Phil Yantzer communicated to you at the show. We are in accord on that.

2. What did make a difference however is when we tilted the diamonds as depicted in the picture on the left and took the photograph sitting down. This more radical change in the tilt angles directed the tables of the diamonds to reflect moreso the atmosphere in front of them as opposed to the lighting above and the shallow diamond appeared darker in that observation. This is also evident in the photograph below.

I would like to note that this is not the way to use the DD as the diamonds were all but on the verge of falling out of the tray. The slightest tilt more in that direction and they would have fallen out. We do instruct consumers to rock and tilt the diamonds at angles they would normally do so for viewing but not to the point where the diamonds are falling off the tray.

So ... what to conclude from this?

The GIA Ex/AGS Ideal stone won out in each view. I think this is evident from the photography. If a person/gemologist is using the DD as it is supposed to be used shallow angled combo''s do appear bright. Not as bright as Ex/Id stones but definitely brighter than steep/deep combos (another reason why I side with Garry on the shallow angled combos).

Garry ... while you are seemingly on a campaign to find fault with GIA''s approach, if you stop and take a breather mate you''d realize that the DD, when properly utilized makes a case for your personal preference. I believe I''ve communicated this with you in email as well and also in my response to your article in the journal. Photographing and observing the shallow stone in the DD, in the manner you suggest makes the shallow stone appear worse.

What are we to conclude from this mate? Interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/4/2006 9:20:56 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
rhino got so scare he didn''t even go to Vegas. it would of been open season for rhino hunting.

LMAO.

Na... I would have gladly went to Vegas. While some of us may be at odds regarding certain issues I consider most everyone here friends. It''s not in me to hold grudges or bitterness towards anyone DF. I quite enjoy friendly conversation and debate. And btw ... Rhino''s hunt too.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/2/2006 4:26:28 PM
Author: RockDoc
Rhino

Geez, that image is horrid. While I do not have an OGI, I haven''t received an image which is that poorly represented with my Sarin on ANY stone .

I do have two files that are designed for indexed stones, one from AGS and one from Sarin. In many cases they are helpful especially when running the scan in the ''more accurate'' mode.

I know I have, and Marty has brought this to the attention of Sarin at the AGS meeting, and I think some measures will be taken to make the scans and reports for these stone a bit more accurate.

Will look with interest on seeing the girdle scan you''re going to post.

Rockdoc

In fairness I should post the Sarin and Helium scans on the same stone. They are not the same. Actually I cover these topics in our tutorial on our website but only compare the Sarin and the Helium in our Technologies section. I still gotta make a section for the OGI.

I really do hope to see these other manufacturers take steps in improving the integrity of their model making especially since the AGS PGS software (which you own) makes a very critical analysis of these models. These issues of course make me Helium''s biggest cheerleader on this front. I''ll see if I can get the graphics together. Perhaps a new thread?

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/2/2006 4:47:20 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 6/2/2006 4:13:40 PM
Author: Rhino


Regarding the Sarin I can tell you this. Depending on the machine one has, you are correct in the sense that Sarin has a tough time measuring the angles of upper halves that have been painted. I know this from experience. HOWEVER, even though most Sarin''s have a hard time resolving upper half angles, (as does the OGI) the actualy girdle graphs happen to be right on. Below is an example of an OGI scan of a painted stone.

You can note how bad the model is from the top view as it has a tough time (like most Sarin''s) resolving upper half angles. Next post I''ll show ya the girdle graph.

Seems that OGI has even worse problems than SARIN..

With regards to model making absolutely.

Date: 6/2/2006 4:47:20 PM
Author: adamasgem

Seems that OGI has even worse problems than SARIN.. Since you have evidently all three machines (Helium, Sarin, OGI) it would be interesting for you to start a thread comparing results on this class of stones everyone maybe having a problem with. I know it has been discussed before, but maybe SHOWING examples like this would light a fire under everyone''s butt to FIX the problem for their users.

The girdle profile appears reasonable...

Thanks for posting this..

I''ll put the graphics together from all 3 machines and start one. Haha... another painting thread! Oh Lord!

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/2/2006 8:48:56 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 6/2/2006 4:47:20 PM
Author: adamasgem

Seems that OGI has even worse problems than SARIN.. Since you have evidently all three machines (Helium, Sarin, OGI) it would be interesting for you to start a thread comparing results on this class of stones everyone maybe having a problem with. I know it has been discussed before, but maybe SHOWING examples like this would light a fire under everyone''s butt to FIX the problem for their users.

The girdle profile appears reasonable...

Thanks for posting this..

Yeah - a competiion

The tightests diaaond measured on all 4 machines - now that GIA have darted into the fray.

Are you serious? I know GIA uses Sarin and owns a Helium but now they''ve developed their own? This should be interesting. Did you actually see it? See the reports it generates?

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/5/2006 9:40:27 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Reminder Rhino

BTW, this is not about GIA bashing, it is about consumer protection.
It is about questioning the science because ti seems now very obvious to me that GIa has made a mistake in their planning of their cut study when they moved from computer ray tracing to a survey based system.
Easy to do, and not hard to rectify with small adjustments.

So Rhino - this is important.

It is not a war or a fight. It is not personal.
So far I am quite impressed with GIA''s new scanner. They do some good stuff.

Hey Garry,

I appreciate your comments. I am equally concerned as you are about these issues which is why I took it upon myself to purchase the materials I felt necessary to investigate. If I felt the DD lighting was portraying an inaccurate view or showing a view that was contrary to normal viewing environments don''t you think I''d be making a case for that? I am in the process of editing a video examining GIA VG''s alongside GIA Ex/AGS Ideal stones (thanks to a suggestion by a forum poster, headlight) to demonstrate the changes in appearance and am using 4 different stones of the VG grade which get the VG grade because of change in appearance and all for different reasons. One a shallow/shallow, one a steep,deep, one painted and one dug. I captured the appearance in both natural diffuse daylight and also under the DD for comparison. It''s very interesting although taking me a while to put it all together but once its completed will help educate consumers to the differences so they can weigh for themselves perhaps which, if any VG''s sit fine with them. There are some that do with me.

I''m interested to hear what youv''e learned about the new GIA scanner.

Peace,

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/7/2006 12:23:19 PM
Author: Rhino

Ok. Sorry for not answering sooner Garry but wifey had some nice surprises planned for me over the weekend and when it comes to taking pictures for Garry vs Wife ... well it goes without saying who''s gonna win that one every time.

Last Saturday it was just too busy in the store to sit and do what you asked but today after emails I did with interesting results. I had my assistant take pictures of me exactly as I take the shots, the angles, distance etc. which are provided in the graphic below.

Here''s my comments/observations as I was doing this.

1. Standing up and viewing the diamonds as we do in the picture on the right is how we normally look at the stones under the DD although sitting down doesn''t change the view. Standing vs sitting ... no difference. This is the way I was instructed to use the device just as Phil Yantzer communicated to you at the show. We are in accord on that.

Rhino.. The GIA evaluation model is supposedly a "Face Up" view (with a small 3 degree cone) , looking perpendicular to the table..

If you look perpendicular to the table, in the standing versus sitting position, one has to change the tilt of the stone with respect to the KD lighting. I don''t understand how you can say there is no "diiference" in the result, the pictures are different. Now maybe what you are trying to say is that when comparing two SPECIFIC and disparate stones, that your judgement of which is best doesn''t change. A specific commentary RELATIVE to the TWO stones in question, not a generality, that can be applied accoss the board to ANY TWO stones.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/7/2006 12:46:53 PM
Author: Rhino

I''ll put the graphics together from all 3 machines and start one. Haha... another painting thread! Oh Lord!

No Rhino.. It would be a thread illustrating the potential problems that differing measurment technologies have in evaluating the small percentage of non-classically brillianteered RBC''s.

IT IS NOT A DISCUSSION ON THE RELATIVE MERITS OF THE STONE''S STYLE OF BRILLIANTEERING AND SHOULD NOT BE INFERRED AS SO.

It would maybe give them (Helium, Sarin, OGI,GIA) some information to help them fix the scanning problem and a little nudge to do so and prioritize it.

Since you have an OGI you might ask them what raw data file to save and send them to help with the problem.

Sarin''s raw data is supposedly in a file called shadow.dat in the Sarin program files directory...

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 6/7/2006 12:23:19 PM
Author: Rhino

2. What did make a difference however is when we tilted the diamonds as depicted in the picture on the left and took the photograph sitting down. This more radical change in the tilt angles directed the tables of the diamonds to reflect moreso the atmosphere in front of them as opposed to the lighting above and the shallow diamond appeared darker in that observation. This is also evident in the photograph below.

I would say "envirionment" rather than "atmosphere"..

I think that illustrates the problem.. Maybe the KittyDock was "meant" to be used on top of a display counter rather than at a desk, the Donald Rumsfeld model (he always stands up to work it is said).

 

[dhog]

Date: 6/7/2006 12:38:20 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 6/4/2006 9:20:56 PM

Author: Dancing Fire

rhino got so scare he didn''t even go to Vegas. it would of been open season for rhino hunting.

LMAO.

Na... I would have gladly went to Vegas. While some of us may be at odds regarding certain issues I consider most everyone here friends. It''s not in me to hold grudges or bitterness towards anyone DF. I quite enjoy friendly conversation and debate. And btw ... Rhino''s hunt too.

I agree 100% although rhino thinks I have a grudge
it''s really not the case.I just happen to have a different
view than he does.

For me it''s just a form of cheap entertainment posting
here.

I really am nothing more than a fisherman and fishing lure manufacture with a quest for beauty for my beautiful wife.

most of my posts are nothing more than joking
around and some of the photos were taken to give
my perspective on the way I see it.

maybe I was a little to hard on the industry
rulers but then again maybe consumers like me
need to fight back for change.

working with a few of my wifes painted diamonds
and a new nikon nikkor ed lens,along with 3d elements
of some night vision equiptment we have come up with
some interesting images. the ed lens has the ability
to remove backgroud artifacts and also works very well
with our night vision equip.

this night vision eq. we have been using to predict
what the fishing lures will look like in deep water
and/ or moon lit nights.

I took these shots to show these stones in several
lighting setups.

Rhino have fun and don''t take my posts so seriously.

or better yet send me your fancy light box and I will
get some more opinions from several jeweler friends of
mine.