Surveying Diamonds in New York - Video

[strmrdr]

I was waiting to see if they were going to be posted but can we get IS images for all 3 diamonds?

 

[Rhino]

Leonid,

I would suggest to you that the science you are presenting is the best type of scientific input you could ever receive.

The reasons are obvious to me personally.

1. The input is not based solely on the opinion of 1 or 2 people who may have tendencies towards one certain type of cut.
2. The input is coming from the most important source possible ... the end consumer.

I'm not sure whehter you realize this or not but you are demonstrating the logic and science behind GIA's cut grading system. Interestingly your observation testing with the GIA Ex steep/deep is similar to our own observation testing with a similar stone and if one can read past all the emotional hoopla in the thread I had started on this very subject about a month ago, Sergey himself stated that leakage in the type of stones we were discussing were not visible when you consider stereo vision.

So, one thing is established from both of our observation testing experiments Leo.

Certain steep/deep combinations do not present any problems at all (I would add, as long as there is no painting or digging or being set in a bezel mount).

The question that begs an answer at this point is ... "At what threshold does it become an issue?"

GIA's observation testing suggests proportion combinations up to 36/41.x. I have not yet acquired such a stone but will have one cut specifically for this reason.

Movie Zombie's conclusions are quite accurate I would say as well based on these facts brought out in this and our experiment as well.

Ie. if you are not mounting the diamond in a bezel setting, certain steep/deep combo's are just fine and that includes stones on the HCA that would seem to be no good but in reality are. This puts new light and value on the FacetWare IMO regarding certain steep/deep combos.

Of course the best advice to offer when entering those zones is *see the diamond* and compare it to others of known great dimensions.

Peace,
Jonathan

 

[Rhino]

Date: 4/20/2006 10:47:35 AM
Author: James Allen Schultz

Date: 4/20/2006 6:25:38 AM
Author: blodthecat
That was just so interesting guys!

I wonder what the outcome would have been if the Park was full of pricescopers that day

The folk surveyed were a bit ''indifferent'' and not real diamond nuts!

I still have the three rings and would be more than willing to do this again in a more controlled lighting environment next week in DC.

How many people could/would come?

Hey Jim,

Good to cya man. How about instead of using 2 GIA Ex/AGS Ideal and one GIA Ex/AGS 1, try a comparison using a diamond that was a GIA EX/NON AGS Ideal and an AGS Ideal/NON GIA Ex and see what the consumers say?

 

[pricescope]

Date: 4/20/2006 12:22:53 PM
Author: strmrdr
I was waiting to see if they were going to be posted but can we get IS images for all 3 diamonds?

Jim promised to do it after he removed the diamonds from the mountings.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 4/20/2006 12:28:20 PM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 4/20/2006 12:22:53 PM

Author: strmrdr

I was waiting to see if they were going to be posted but can we get IS images for all 3 diamonds?

Jim promised to do it after he removed the diamonds from the mountings.

kewl, thanks

 

[Rhino]

Date: 4/20/2006 12:28:20 PM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 4/20/2006 12:22:53 PM
Author: strmrdr
I was waiting to see if they were going to be posted but can we get IS images for all 3 diamonds?

Jim promised to do it after he removed the diamonds from the mountings.

If you''d like and if Jim wouldn''t mind I''ll provide Helium scans on them plus full workups including Gem Advisor/DiamCalc models, ASET images, etc. If not no sweat.

 

[pricescope]

Jonathan, as I wrote above, this video is neither a scientific study nor a basis for any conclusions. The most I fear is that some people will use it for proving their theories and vendors selling their goods

I hope that real open and scientific study will be done eventually. Until then, these arguments are not very productive.

If I understand correctly, GIA used standardized (Diamond Dock) environment, not polling people on the streets.

I don''t want to promote or trash steep/deep stones. I just don''t want anybody jumping to conclusion because of this small experiment.

Besides bezel settings there are other lightning conditions where leakage will show up (dirt on pavilion, dark walls, etc). Moreover, the area with significant leakage won''t reflect any light - dead area. If you want your diamond to be bright because it is illuminated from underneath, why not to use a small lamp instead of a diamond?

Furthermore, the industry charges extra money for the changes of the color and clarity grades invisible to the naked eye in any lightning conditions or settings. Small changes in the crown and pavilion angles won''t affect the price as much.

Finally, any diamond will sparkle (more or less) - steep/deep will sparkle too: buy it if the price is right.

 

[Capitol Bill]

Date: 4/20/2006 11:29:45 AM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 4/20/2006 10:48:06 AM

Author: Capitol Bill

....

1) For me, the absolute ideal lighting condition for comparing cut and ''light performance'' is an overcast sky. Standing under a tree in total shade on a sunny day would be my second choice. The presence of too much direct light (especially sunlight) overwhelms the viewer''s eyes with too much reflected light. Most of your participants viewed the diamonds in lighting conditions that included direct sunlight. In that lighting even most experts would have difficulty discerning a difference in cut.

Bill, the length of the video clip restricted us from showing all the footage. You have to take my words that we (Jim and I) tried to se a difference both in the shade and open sky, turning our backs to the sun (creating head obstruction) as well as facing it. We did see minor differences but not the light leakage. Leonid, in no way do I doubt your sincerity. I believe you and Jim were 100% earnest in your endeavor. Given the lighting conditions, the differences in the stones were probably as subtle as you describe.

Jim for example noticed that stone #2 is lighter and arrows are slightly less pronounced when he''s standing with the sun behind him. If Jim held stone #2 in any way that it was exposed to direct sunlight then I would expect it to appear lighter.

During the filming, people in the park looked at the diamonds when the sun was shining as well as covered with clouds... Just to make sure, I went back and looked at the entire video. Every participant had at least some measure of direct sunlight as part of their viewing environment, which made their task more difficult. In fact I noticed when some participants were actually holding the rings in a patch of shade, they would move them into the direct sunlight in an apparent attempt to see the stones better. Of the participants I saw in the video, the following two had the best chance of viewing the diamonds without direct sunlight affecting their judgment as much as the others -- 1) The second participants (a woman and man wearing black). The man was holding the diamonds at more of an angle toward him (away from the sun) and was wearing an obviously non-reflective, light absorbing color. 2) The fourth participants (man with sunglasses and woman with diamond jewelry). The woman was looking at the diamonds while apparently blocking most of the sun with her head and back.

2) Covering the diamonds'' pavilions does not have any effect on the diamonds'' face-up view.

I''m afraid you are mistaken here, Bill. In order to show the effect of the light leakage one has to close the light coming from pavilion. This way you will see leaking areas turn dark because they are not reflecting light back to you. (see pictures from Garry''s article above. You''re right, Leonid. I was mistaken. I was thinking inside my usual world of "ideal." That is, I was thinking in terms of mounting an AGS-0 in a bezel setting, and not a steep deep with obvious light leakage. Sometimes my mind gets in the way of my writing.

Thank you for kind words

No worries, mate! The spirit of friendly, open exchange is alive and well on PriceScope -- another of the many positive attributes to be found here!

 

[firebirdgold]

THANK YOU!

A big thank you to both of you! (or I should say all three

)

I feel so much more confident about my bf buying a diamond now! I am reassured that my beloved can buy a beautiful diamond off of the internet based largely on the cut grading without knowing anything about angles and such. Sure, a connoisseur might notice the differences in the fine gradations of cut quality within the ideal/excellent range. But I probably won''t. I just want a pretty, sparkly diamond that I''ll love to look at while driving! (What? It''s not like I pay attention anyway!

j.k.)

Perhaps, in the end, this is more of a matter of mind clean vs eye clean?

 

[Rhino]

Thanks for the response Leo. Please don''t take my comments/questions as any kind of arguement. My comments are strictly my observations of your experiment and the concluding results. While you may deem the responses of the common NY folks as invalid for any real truth, I happen to think differently on the matter but that''s ok for us to disagree.

I do have a question for ya.

What exactly would you consider a valid scientific study/observation/comparison for determining optical characteristics of brightness, fire and scintillation or in short ... the "umph" factor in diamonds?

Curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Peace,

 

[yeewl]

Indies Jones:
I feel so much more confident about my bf buying a diamond now! I am reassured that my beloved can buy a beautiful diamond off of the internet based largely on the cut grading without knowing anything about angles and such. Sure, a connoisseur might notice the differences in the fine gradations of cut quality within the ideal/excellent range. But I probably won''t. I just want a pretty, sparkly diamond that I''ll love to look at while driving! (What? It''s not like I pay attention anyway! j.k.)

Well said!!

 

[yeewl]

Pricescope: Finally, any diamond will sparkle (more or less) - steep/deep will sparkle too: buy it if the price is right.

That''s true.I agree with that comment

 

[yeewl]

Hello Leonid,

For whatever reasons, (Rhino''s most recent research on the diamond dock, garry''s video comment on the diamond dock and yours with James in central park NY....So sorry if I have left out others, can''t remember all off-hand) I still believe all these research were done in good faith and a good opportunity for everyone to gain some new insight.

You must be passionate in what you are doing, finding out the truth so as to benafit end users like me, a consumer, and not treating us like suckers or morons.

I have learned alot from everyone for the past few days, more than I could ever ask for. You can''t get this kind of unbiase free education from other sources like the B&M here in singapore. All they know is just waiting for you to handover the credit card and don''t ask too much questions.

Thanks you again for providing such a wonderful forum, a place for the experts like you to help greenhorns like me, to learn and gain new knowledge.

 

[pricescope]

Date: 4/20/2006 6:21:35 PM
Author: Rhino

...While you may deem the responses of the common NY folks as invalid for any real truth ....

You are twisting my words

and drawing conclusions to support your own hypothesis from this limited experiment, Jonathan. It is called demagogy, not a science.

The problem with your logic is that you ignore results that could be used to support a hypothesis opposite to yours.

What we saw is that in that particular lightning environment and ring settings, 10-12 observers couldn't see much difference between these particular three diamonds. Namely:
one stone, #3 - closest to Tolkowsky was graded Very Good by GIA
#2 (steep/deep) was graded Excellent by GIA
#1 (slightly shallow) was graded Ideal by AGS and on the border line between GIA Very Good and Excellent.

If I understood you correctly, you are drawing a conclusion from this experiment that GIA cut grading is good because the observers didn't see a difference between Steep/Deep and two others more traditionally "ideal" cut stones.

Someone who wants to prove the opposite could use the same approach and say that GIA grading system is not good because real New Yorkers did not see any difference between Very Good and Excellent graded stones. Therefore, "very good" is as good as "excellent" - the whole grading system is wrong... That would be another example of demagogy.

One can also design a special experiment with selected stones and environment to demonstrate that most people prefer "very good" graded stones (e.g. shallower) to "excellent" graded ones. However, it won't constitute a scientific experiment, Jonathan. It would be misleading and not ethical if used to promote certain type of merchandise...

Savvy?

One cannot use this experiment to conclude that:

* any particular grading system is more accurate than anther
* any of these three diamonds is any better than another
* people won't differentiate these diamonds in some other lightning conditions/setting.

That's why I suggested not to use this limited experiment to draw far-fetched conclusions. Please do not imply that I "deem the responses of the common NY folks as invalid"

What exactly would you consider a valid scientific study/observation/comparison for determining optical characteristics of brightness, fire and scintillation or in short ... the 'umph' factor in diamonds?

Curious to hear your thoughts on this.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific#Scientific_method:

"The scientific method provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields. Often scientists have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important that this preference does not bias their interpretation. The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and thorough peer review of experimental design as well as conclusions of a study.

Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven scientific theory is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others."

This is pretty thorough description of what constitutes truly "scientific method". If you would read this carefully, you could also find out the problems/flaws of the previous studies...

Another thing that is common among the scientists is to be familiar with the previous publications. I believe Sergey and other participants of the International Diamond Cut Conference already outlined requirements of the study.

There should be statistically reliable number of observers and diamonds. Observations should be conducted in several common lightening environments - not only one of them.

Garry already named some lightning conditions for you: "...use some normal lighting - under tree with no direct sunlight, in normal office lighting - lights on ceiling, under living room type halogens etc - because these situations are what consumers look at diamonds in - and then we can expect some valid results rather than relying on LED and Fluoro's 10 inches from the diamond...".

The method must be carefully described and the result must be repeatable by any independent researcher who is willing to repeat that experiment. Interpretation of the results should not reflect any bias.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Nice simplification of a complex concept Dr. Leonid.

Rhino remeber that Leonid has a PhD.
They never handed them out easily in Russia.

Date: 4/21/2006 5:27:38 AM
Author: Pricescope

What exactly would you consider a valid scientific study/observation/comparison for determining optical characteristics of brightness, fire and scintillation or in short ... the ''umph'' factor in diamonds?

Curious to hear your thoughts on this.

Garry already named some lightning conditions for you: ''...use some normal lighting - under tree with no direct sunlight, in normal office lighting - lights on ceiling, under living room type halogens etc - because these situations are what consumers look at diamonds in - and then we can expect some valid results rather than relying on LED and Fluoro''s 10 inches from the diamond...''.

The method must be carefully described and the result must be repeatable by any independent researcher who is willing to repeat that experiment. Interpretation of the results should not reflect any bias.

Rhino after some frustration about Diamond Dock discussions Storm Rider posted this thread :https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/garrys-diamond-viewing-room.43330/=

It is one of the things that is very important - along with the type of words that are used. My daughter is doing her Masters and the rigour of the surveying thecniques is amazing. Nothing in the process is variable.

 

[strmrdr]

Leonid well said, but id have aimed it a whole lot wider, demagogy and agenda sum up a whole lot of what goes on in the study of cut around here in a lot of threads.
Cutting thru that is the hardest part of trying to learn and is extremely frustrating.
Iv found that a lot of times both sides will be right in a specific condition but it doesnt hold up accross many lighting conditions.

As far as Jon goes he is far from the worst and he is well meaning with it.
Saying that he is just doing it just to sell is far from the truth too.
Anyone who has talked to him knows that diamonds are his passion and his life.
He gets very excited sometimes when he finds out something new and that''s kewl and that''s Jon being Jon not some great evil to increase sales.
Is he looking at the trees and missing the forest sometimes sure but don''t we all do that sometimes?
Iv noticed more than a few times lately that people are quick to say that someone else is just pushing sales well if that is the case then I can start posting quotes from all the PS experts and vendors painting them with that brush.
But I wont because I know them and its not their intent and its not Jon''s either.

anyway enough of that.......

Thanks Garry for reminding me of that thread, I was going to bump that thread then forgot about it.
Nailing the lighting environment has to be the first step in any diamond study.
It is the single biggest variable in how a diamond looks and the hardest hurdle to overcome.

 

[flint]

I enjoyed the video. If there is anything I learned from the video, it is that people are unable to appreciate the subtle differences of a well cut diamond from a super ideal cut diamond, or a high-end branded diamond.

Basically, not a lot of people know what to look for in a diamond''s cut. Even less peoplee would go out of their way to look at differences in the steepness of the angles. A lot of people who were interviewed were unsure of their decision and kept asking what they should be looking for, or whether the rings were real? Jim had to keep assuring them that they were similar in size, color, clarity and price.

As long as the rock is eye clean, sparkly, most of the regular folks would be happy.

 

[pricescope]

Strmrdr, I understand and agree with most of what you''re saying...

Date: 4/21/2006 9:57:43 AM
Author: strmrdr

...As far as Jon goes he is far from the worst and he is well meaning with it.
Saying that he is just doing it just to sell is far from the truth too.
Anyone who has talked to him knows that diamonds are his passion and his life.

I have no problem with that. I''m just afraid that Jonathan is not reading or listening to what other people are saying and taking only those details that support his current believe/hypothesis.

Anyway, Jonathan wrote to me that he''s doing his own research and I asked to submit it (video or article) for an open discussion and peer review.

Nailing the lighting environment has to be the first step in any diamond study.
It is the single biggest variable in how a diamond looks and the hardest hurdle to overcome.

Very true.

 

[jasontb]

Leonid,

I think you are being a bit hard on Jon. Calling him a demagogue seems harsh and uncalled for, and based on Wiki's definitions, I think also just plain wrong. Do you really think Jon is arguing in bad faith for personal gain? He can only get a hold of steep/deep stones so he has to convince us they are OK?

And...I can't imagine Jon has ever claimed his persuits are purely scientific. Obviously he is out to sell stones. But *everybody* has an agenda. Even you. You have prejudices/predispositions that you try to prove. That doesn't make you a bad scientist. And because you have a PhD, I know you realize that Jon is by no means the first person to show how data fits his predispositions...while ignoring the ways it doesn't. It's up to your peers to shoot holes in your conclusions.

Date: 4/21/2006 5:27:38 AM
Author: Pricescope


One cannot use this experiment to conclude that:
* any particular grading system is more accurate than anther
* any of these three diamonds is any better than another
* people won't differentiate these diamonds in some other lightning conditions/setting.

So what can we conclude from this experiment? Seems like you are suggesting the only thing we can conclude is that the lady with stroller couldn't tell the these 3 particular diamonds apart under the lighting conditions that were present. Or that the guy in black preferred stone #2 when the clouds partially obscured the sun and people were rollerblading in green shirts in the background. Maybe this movie was just meant to be fun and prove nothing (and I'm not being a smartass here)?

Jason

 

[movie zombie]

as a potential diamond customer who wants to know i''m getting value for my money but doesn''t plan to turn into a geek about it: i appreciated the nontechnical, not in ''the industry'' approach to these videos. they were fun, informative, and what''s more made the information easy to understand without getting into diamond-geek speak. thank you. while i''ve read many posts here in Rocky Talk, i often feel like a deer caught in the headlights when it comes to all the info. if this way of imparting information continues, i will eventually become a diamond buyer.

movie zombie

 

[pricescope]

Jason, I never attack anybody personally

please don't get me wrong.

And...I can't imagine Jon has ever claimed his persuits are purely scientific.

I'm sorry, Jason, but Jonathan calls himself a gemologist and an expert. He calls his experiments "studies" and materials posted on his website - "tutorials". I think, it obliges to a certain scientific level of the studies he's conducting and correctness of the conclusions, appropriate disclaimers, as well as the arguments used in discussions such as "...you may deem the responses of the common NY folks as invalid for any real truth..." (what the...!?!

)

Violation of logic is the method of demagogy, not a science. Twisting your opponent words is just... how shall I put it...

I'm sorry for this boring lecture

So what can we conclude from this experiment? ...Maybe this movie was just meant to be fun and prove nothing (and I'm not being a smartass here)?

You are right. Fun. I wanted everybody to loosen up. But it actually proved something (for me at least) that science shouldn't necessary be boring (articles and closed conferences, etc) but entertaining and fun...

Real scientists are trying to conduct real researches right now but it takes a lot of time, efforts, and money. So we just tried to feel the gap and have some fun. Is it bad?

Thank you, Movie Zombie. You got it...

cheers,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Enough already. Leonid made a point - it would have been quite acceptable in Russia, and laughed off in australia - but i think it is probably considered a bit close to the bone in USA.

Bad Leonid...smack...whack.

Lets take this arguement and turn it around.

We have an example of a survey that shows one thing - running this type of survey is very tricky.

So how would we do it better?
First the lighting environment - please folks comment on this thread.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/garrys-diamond-viewing-room.43330/

Any advances - or other types of environemnt?
Motel rooms are a bad exaple for instance because all the light often comes from lamps as the ceilings rarely have lights in them. This favours very deep stones.

BTW I am a writting an article about shallow stones and the basis of it is to list every possible arguement that I have ever heard against shallow etc. I guess this is what Leonid is on about.

And here is a model of the ASET that I thought would be a cool idea - it came about as a considerartion of AGS''s disdain for shallow stones - and using their own technology - I find that shallow stones actually perfom better than deep ones.
But more of that when i finish the article.

 

[pricescope]

Update: Jim just sent the ideal-scope images for the three stones marked A, B, and C (I assume they correspond to stones 1, 2 and 3)

Using Photoshop, I apply Auto Contrast, scaled them down and sharpened up.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

May we have scans please - fully detailed ones. The #2 looks as if it has been painted a little - can Jim have a look and see if the minor facet is thicker at the girdle point than the girdle mains please?

 

[pricescope]

Date: 4/25/2006 3:54:55 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
May we have scans please - fully detailed ones. The #2 looks as if it has been painted a little - can Jim have a look and see if the minor facet is thicker at the girdle point than the girdle mains please?

Too late. Stones are gone.

I thought #1 and #3 has somewhat painted girdle?

 

[Rhino]

Hi Leo,

I've been contemplating this response but will respond off the cuff.

Date: 4/21/2006 5:27:38 AM
Author: Pricescope

Date: 4/20/2006 6:21:35 PM
Author: Rhino

...While you may deem the responses of the common NY folks as invalid for any real truth ....

You are twisting my words

and drawing conclusions to support your own hypothesis from this limited experiment, Jonathan. It is called demagogy, not a science.

Firstly ... Leo I apologise if you feel I am twiting your words. Please understand that you are the one who has suggested there is nothing to learn from this. I'm sorry if you feel this is twisting your words but this is how not only I but also other readers are perceiving your comments. Remember about "perception = reality". When I spend time with people, gaining their input and commentary I always seek to learn from the experience and while I may have fun doing it I don't necessarily see it as a strictly entertaining medium. I seek out the educational benefits from which all people can learn from. I view your experiment with Jim no different and as demonstrated in this thread, whether you intended to or not consumers have indeed learned from your experiment. I think this is positive and is no different than what Tolkowsky did back in 1919. He solicited input from passersby and learned what constituted "ideal" from his experiment.

Secondly to associate my input as demogogy, you are insinuating that I am either

a. lying
b. using a form of deception to communicate

What motivation would I possibly have to do this? I do not lie or use deception in any form to communicate my views/perceptions or results of any study and you can not point to a single instance wherein I have done so over the 6 years I've been participating in forums over the Internet or on my website. I choose not to pursue this portion of the conversation with you unless you want to get personal then you can bring this to me in private so we can clear any misunderstanding that may exist between us.

The problem with your logic is that you ignore results that could be used to support a hypothesis opposite to yours.

I have not seen any results that support a hypothesis that is opposite to mine. I have read Garry's article and am in the process of finishing my response. Your comment suggests that I am narrow minded and close minded to listening to any hypothesis opposite to mine. I beg to differ. I am indeed open minded and approach all my research with an open mind. I don't claim and have never claimed to "know it all" and am alway open to learning more. Once you read my response to Garry's journal article and accompanying video you'll clearly understand why I say what I do.

What we saw is that in that particular lightning environment and ring settings, 10-12 observers couldn't see much difference between these particular three diamonds. Namely:
one stone, #3 - closest to Tolkowsky was graded Very Good by GIA
#2 (steep/deep) was graded Excellent by GIA
#1 (slightly shallow) was graded Ideal by AGS and on the border line between GIA Very Good and Excellent.

If I understood you correctly, you are drawing a conclusion from this experiment that GIA cut grading is good because the observers didn't see a difference between Steep/Deep and two others more traditionally 'ideal' cut stones.

By no means am I viewing your experiment as conclusive or exhaustive. Not by a long shot. All I was saying earlier in this thread is simply noting the similarities between your obesrvations and those we had done. Nothing more nothing less. I also stated that this is how GIA conducted their studies except in a more controlled viewing environment. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of whether they deem observation testing as a good way to determine a cut grading system or not and I could care less ... I was just stating the similarity in helping folks to understand this is how they arrived at their conclusions.

Someone who wants to prove the opposite could use the same approach and say that GIA grading system is not good because real New Yorkers did not see any difference between Very Good and Excellent graded stones. Therefore, 'very good' is as good as 'excellent' - the whole grading system is wrong... That would be another example of demagogy.

One can also design a special experiment with selected stones and environment to demonstrate that most people prefer 'very good' graded stones (e.g. shallower) to 'excellent' graded ones. However, it won't constitute a scientific experiment, Jonathan. It would be misleading and not ethical if used to promote certain type of merchandise...

Savvy?

One cannot use this experiment to conclude that:

* any particular grading system is more accurate than anther
* any of these three diamonds is any better than another
* people won't differentiate these diamonds in some other lightning conditions/setting.

That's why I suggested not to use this limited experiment to draw far-fetched conclusions. Please do not imply that I 'deem the responses of the common NY folks as invalid'

I think we have slightly different thoughts regarding "demagogy". According to the Widipedia definition you linked, demogogy involves lying or known deception practiced by the one who is attempting to prove a point.

If one were in a lighting environment that depicted balanced views of brightness, fire and scintillation wherein they could prove by popular opinion that a "very good" outperformed an "excellent" then they would have indeed found a potential "hole" in the system. A hole which could be confirmed by other researchers. I don't understand how that could be considered demogogy since no lying or deception was involved. BTW ... why do you think I used the 2 stones in the experiment I conducted? I was trying to find a hole in the GIA system.

I also agree with your statements ...

One cannot use this experiment to conclude that:

* any particular grading system is more accurate than anther
* any of these three diamonds is any better than another
* people won't differentiate these diamonds in some other lightning conditions/setting.

Too limited in scope, and the lighting was on/off in many of the observations. That doesn't mean there isn't anything to learn from it though albeit small.

What exactly would you consider a valid scientific study/observation/comparison for determining optical characteristics of brightness, fire and scintillation or in short ... the 'umph' factor in diamonds?

Curious to hear your thoughts on this.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific#Scientific_method:

'The scientific method provides an objective process to find solutions to problems in a number of scientific and technological fields. Often scientists have a preference for one outcome over another, and it is important that this preference does not bias their interpretation. The scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of a scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. This can be achieved by correct experimental design, and thorough peer review of experimental design as well as conclusions of a study.

I couldn't agree more! In fact when I entered my study of the GIA Ex steep/deep vs the AGS Ideal (painted) I was indeed biased towards the painted stone. You yourself know this about me Leo as well as Garry. My counsel on these forums is no secret as I've been participating for many years. Stop and think Leo ... how many times have I counseled folks into painted stones and how many times have I counseled them into steep/deeps? It is through this latest reserach that I realize I was in error on this account and because I refused to let any personal bias influence any outcome to the results. If my personal bias had come through then the painted stone would have won. In the history I've been on these forums, my recent counsel to Xchick regarding her stone (with pavilion angles over 41 degrees) is the first time in my history on these forums that I've given positive counsel on a stone with pavilion angles over 41 without a "proceed with caution".

Scientists never claim absolute knowledge. Unlike a mathematical proof, a proven scientific theory is always open to falsification, if new evidence is presented. Even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be imperfect if new observations are inconsistent with them. Critical to this process is making every relevant aspect of research publicly available, which permits peer review of published results, and also allows ongoing review and repeating of experiments and observations by multiple researchers operating independently of one another. Only by fulfilling these expectations can it be determined how reliable the experimental results are for potential use by others.'

Amen! I stand in full agreement with this and the entirety of the article on Scientific Method at Wiki. And I would add ... I am only one independant researcher. As I read this it is clear to me that I am not violating any aspect of the "scientific method". Nor was GIA for that matter. As an independant reseracher I am putting some of their claims to the test by performing similar observation studies.

Another thing that is common among the scientists is to be familiar with the previous publications. I believe Sergey and other participants of the International Diamond Cut Conference already outlined requirements of the study.

There should be statistically reliable number of observers and diamonds. Observations should be conducted in several common lightening environments - not only one of them.

Garry already named some lightning conditions for you: '...use some normal lighting - under tree with no direct sunlight, in normal office lighting - lights on ceiling, under living room type halogens etc - because these situations are what consumers look at diamonds in - and then we can expect some valid results rather than relying on LED and Fluoro's 10 inches from the diamond...'.

The method must be carefully described and the result must be repeatable by any independent researcher who is willing to repeat that experiment. Interpretation of the results should not reflect any bias.

Which is why I believe you are going to enjoy the video I will be editing over the next couple of days.

Regards,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Jonathon there is a cultural difference between the "severity" of this word as the definitions posted above.
I wrote this above
Enough already. Leonid made a point - it would have been quite acceptable in Russia, and laughed off in australia - but i think it is probably considered a bit close to the bone in USA.

Your research on the topics above has been very limited. You were going to show a video of consumers experiances in a variety of lighting conditions to support GIA and DD - but that never surfaced.

Date: 4/25/2006 6:03:26 PM
Author: Rhino

The problem with your logic is that you ignore results that could be used to support a hypothesis opposite to yours.

I have not seen any results that support a hypothesis that is opposite to mine. I have read Garry''s article and am in the process of finishing my response. .................Once you read my response to Garry''s journal article and accompanying video you''ll clearly understand why I say what I do.






By no means am I viewing your experiment as conclusive or exhaustive. Not by a long shot. All I was saying earlier in this thread is simply noting the similarities between your obesrvations and those we had done. Nothing more nothing less. I also stated that this is how GIA conducted their studies except in a more controlled viewing environment. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of whether they deem observation testing as a good way to determine a cut grading system or not and I could care less ... I was just stating the similarity in helping folks to understand this is how they arrived at their conclusions.

Before you read my article or made any attempt to understand the issues being discussed you introduced painted stones to the DD debate. I based my study on 3 very carefully chosen stones, and that study was done in a manner that you or anyone esle could replicate.
As you have acknowledged you joined that debate without having read it. This is the way that you behaved that led to a certain frustration.

For a few weeks been going to respond to that actual Journal article. I for one would like to read your response, and I would like to see your work and research before we hear about it, because often we hear about it - and sometimes we never see it, or what we see does does not always fit the scientific method of ''repeatable'' and the stone data is sometimes presented way after we have spent several days discussing it. (and i know I do all these things too in the excitement of it all - eg the current pinned discussion that I want to edit into a Journal article AFTER I have had enough valuable critical feedback).

So this need not be a bigger issue than it became - my advice is simply to read, think, test, question, understand, resopond, suggest, question more etc.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/21/2006 11:56:54 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


We have an example of a survey that shows one thing - running this type of survey is very tricky.

Amen.




So how would we do it better?
...
Any advances - or other types of environment?

I''ve always liked the colorful reflector tools for their attempt to take the natural lighting out of the equation in favor of something manageable.

At the other extreme, there really isn''t an ''impartial'' natural setup, is there? Or controllable enough. I wonder if observation would not turn awkward if folks are asked to examine diamonds in some unnatural setup (controlled light, posture etc.).

One way to control observation conditions without preselecting them beforehand, might be to repeat observation in two scenarios (whatever is considered ''opposite'' in some meaningful way for you). This may reduce potential non-constructive criticism of the survey''s results... that it started from biased assumptions built into the choice of lighting environment. And hopefully facilitate correlation with the representation of the diamonds via a standard reflector tool. And allow some measure of the results robustness...

Just an idea

What constitutes ''opposite'' observation environments might be quite as hard to crack. But at least some mode could kick in. (say, light vs. dark background/ diffuse light vs direct / more or less close viewing/ or?)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Ana

A year or 2 ago we were working on a box that was a minaturized version of a room with digitally controlled lighting to imitate say office and living rooms. The walls could be painted and minature furniture could be placed around.
Such a thiing could even be placed at a south faciing window and have real natural light?

But the lighting control would be critical as we would take the box from one country to anohter = different voltages etc.

The voyers would have a carefully restricted view points.

But this would be a very expensive exercise - probably 100-300k to get it right.

 

[glitterata]

Or you could just use my old dollhouse, my mom has it somewhere...