Jump to content

Dossier Reports. How Do I Find Perfect Gia Standards?


blinger.mike
 Share

Recommended Posts

So Im finally trying to educate myself more and was looking at the GIA website for a list or report that has the perfect dimensions/measurements for each individual cut or shape. Or at least what the GIA would consider the perfect measurements. Does anyone know if there is a page that shows this? I have some Dossier reports from the GGL that graded some simulated diamonds I bought and wanted to compare the tables, girdles, pavilion etc. Any help is appreciated.

 

Cheers, Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only facet design that GIA has cut grading on is the modern round brilliant and those are far more complicated than the 2 or 3 dimensional table that you’re hoping for. On the dossier it lists their conclusions under 'cut'. There’s an interactive system online at www.facetware.gia.edu that will allow you to look up the proportions of a particular stone if you’ve got the information from some outside source if they include sufficient data. I"ve no clue what GGL uses. Ask 'em.

 

Neil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

If we are considering round diamonds, GIA grades the cut, and there is some sort of rough agreement on what is good, in terms of proportions.

If we're talking about any other shape of diamond, it's subjective to a very high degree.

That does not stop people from publishing charts purporting to say what's best- but there is no consensus on anything other than round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GIA issues a Cut Grade for the round brilliant shape which is based on years of their research which you can read up on on their website: gia.edu

 

Insofar as fancy shapes are concerned, GIA does not issue Cut Grades at this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see. All great feedback. Thank you. After reading a bit more on the GIA site I see that it was quit a big deal to implement this system for the Round Brilliant. I'm curious if they will use the same science and techniques to develop a standard for all cuts/shapes. It would sure make it easier for a new B like me.

Cheers, Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Mike,

 

I read this thread and wanted to chime in too...hope you don't mind a little late feedback. You are correct in saying that the GIA Cut Grade for Rounds is complicated...it is heavily based on observation testing, and that is primarily why the range of variation in the GIA Cut Grade System is so wide. There is also consideration given to proportions, but human eye observation testing is the basis for the cut grade.

 

AGS is a much more dimension, light reflection, scientifically based cut grade system. This also causes its ranges to be much more narrow and well defined.

 

As for using the same basis for grading other diamond shapes...that is a good question. I suppose that it would be possible for GIA to adapt the human eye observation testing to use as a basis for fancy shapes...although I have no knowledge that they are actually doing that.

 

AGS has developed a separate cut grade for princess cuts and emerald cuts, again more scientifically based...looking at light return and dimesions rather than basing the system on human eye observation.

 

At present, one of the best ways to determine the level of light return that a diamond has is to use a simple tool called the Ideal-Scope. As a buyer, I was never without mine. It is a wonderful tool, that is quite simple to use and will tell you much more about how a diamond is returning light than any other tool that is easily accessable to the general public. If you are curious about the light performance of the stones you bought...I would purchase an Ideal-Scope and read up on how to use it, then examine your diamonds under this technology.

 

You can purchase one at www.ideal-scope.com, and they have a tutorial on how to use them there. There are also some independant tutorials on the technology, including one that we will be publishing in the next week or so.

 

I think this is your best way to really understand how the stones you have are reflecting the light, and how they stack up against other stones....as this will give you a way to compare.

 

Hopefully this helps a little.

 

Al the best!

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have to disagree that putting a pink lamp shade on a loupe and putting the stone under it will tell me about light return. First of all you are blocking the light out. Reflector technologies, even though certain labs use them, to me don't tell me anything about how bright a stone actually is. Adding additional colors to the reflector is not a realistic view of the diamond either.

 

So far most of the cut grading systems leave alot to be desired.

 

If you want light performance, you would have to put light on the diamond and measure how much is returned to the eye in my opinion.

The idealscope is similar to hearts and arrows scope with a different color background,( black versus white ) and at a different height. Asset is simlar with additional colors added. Wow !! Is this all that the most brilliant minds can come up with in this century?? It's simplistic and pitiful. :wacko:

Whats more is thousands of consumers have been duped to think that they have actually learned something of value as far as diamond grading goes. I never with a clear concious could talk that crap to consumers.

Edited by jan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jan,

 

Without arguing with you...the Ideal scope and the H&A Viewer are nothing alike...the don't even work the same way. I have spent years working in labs with all of the technologies...including the ones that you use and rely on. I accept that we can agree to disagree, but calling tools used by the two foremost labs in the world...who spend millions on research every year is a bit rash. Don't you think.

 

I am not argumentative, and I have recommended your store several times on other forums, so you know that I hold you and your company in high regard. I know that there are differing opinions, however I have used a combination of BrillianceScope, IdealScope, Sarin, Helium, MegaScope, ASET, ISEE2, and more to purchase millions of dollars in diamond inventory. I would not use the tools if I did not see scientific merit to back them up, and I know that I don't stand alone in my opinion.

 

As I said to the poster...Ideal-Scope is the only effective technology that is available to them with a reasonable cost that he can use to deduce good light return.

 

Perhaps in the future, you can post dissenting opinions without referring to widely accepted and scientifically proven theories by throwing words like "crap" around. Let's remember that all of the experts on this forum post for the benefit of the customer, and that is exactly what I was doing.

 

I have no problem with you or your store. I just ask you to consider the purpose and point of your previous post.

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

Edited by Emma Parker & Co.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know you have and I appreciate it.

 

 

However I never did drink the Kool Aid. Never partied with the labs either. There is alot of things you probably don't know about going on behind the scenes on the web and other places. I've been around a long time on here and have seen it from the beginning. Not going to lie to get a sale or join the good old boys club either. Never have, never will. Even if it cost me business.

 

 

 

Think about this for a moment, if you have the stone in front of your eyes, why would you put a lamp shade over it to tell you how bright it is? You can't see? Are you going to tell me the HCA works too :lol: Even the inventor of it admits it's not correct. They try to tell you to use it as a screening tool? Why, if it doesn't work would you use it as a screening tool?

Edited by jan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your response...and I completely understand your position. I am much deeper into the industry that you probably realize, but that really does not matter and this is not a competition. I look at myself as being in the position to constantly learn something from someone who has come before me, as well as to bring my knowledge to the table.

 

It really has nothing to do with "drinking the Kool Aid" (even through my mom never let me have it as a kid so I never drank it either) (sorry...shameless humor...I am one who believes that if you can't smile, life is not worth the trouble, so I find the happiness in everything I do.)

 

Really it has to do with simple comparison. I believe that you are a proponent of the BrillianceScope...please correct me if I am wrong. I have scanned, as you have...1000nds of stones on this device, and I have looked at these same stones through FireScope, IdealScope, Aset, and more...and the results coroborate one another. I see all the technologies having their place, and the relectors have one...it is not really an opinion...it is just plain science.

 

As to your question of how th light gets through when you put it under the ideal scope....very simple...CORRECTION...I said that the plastic is translucent...in the ideal-scope it is...however the light comes from the under the reflector, usually from a light panel, other reflector technologies are opaque and still work the same. Just wanted to correct that miss-step.

 

As you said the, the idealscope is painfully simple...however...it is also painfully accurate. It is also, the only $30 tool that I know of, that can accurately show painting and digging in a diamond. The tool has a multiplicity of uses, and having sold to the most selective and picky client base I can imagine...I have been invaluably aided by all of the reflector technologies.

 

Although I respect your right to say never, from a "love of diamonds" standpoint...I would encourage you to do your own testing...not for selling or any other purpose other than for gaining knowledge, and see if you don't see the consistancy and veracity of the results yeilded by reflectors. It is there...whether a person believes it or not does not change that.

 

I am sure that you have a rich wealth of knowledge and experience, however I respectfully disagree with you, and point out that there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support veracity and value of reflector technology in the diamond industry, both from interested and disinterested parties.

 

I think you do a great job answering questions on the forums you participate in, and I look forward to reading more of your posts.

 

With the warmest regards,

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

Edited by Emma Parker & Co.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick follow up...

 

BINGO the HCA does not work...but that is because it is not based on science...it is based on the flawed personal preferences of the creator...Unfortunately...computers can't think for themselves...they can only spit out data based on the formula they have been given...besides...there are far more prominent individuals who have proven reflector technology that the inventor of the idealscope.

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would encourage you to do your own testing

 

 

Been their and have done that a long long time ago when it was first marketed. They didn't like the results.

 

 

Prominent? Like who?

 

You do realize that it all started with the Firescope right? Then someone else made a cheap version of it and called it an idealscope so it could be marketed to consumers.

 

When we first announced back in the 90's that the first technique (not technology) didn't work we were viscously attacked.

 

You will also hear how GIA is not as good as AGS because they didn't get into bed with them. In fact sometimes GIA has funny little comments on their reports about the wavy girdles and saying something about brillianteering.

 

It's really just all about money and greed. Believe me it's not just computers that can't think for themselves. :lol: You know if enough people repeat the same thing over and over again, it must be true right?

 

Also they didn't like the results of the brillancescope, even though they use to use it for their stones. They wanted them to change it to show that their stones were the best. When they couldn't get them to make it their way and instead it stayed unpartial, they were attacked as well.

Edited by jan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quick follow up...

 

BINGO the HCA does not work...but that is because it is not based on science...it is based on the flawed personal preferences of the creator...Unfortunately...computers can't think for themselves...they can only spit out data based on the formula they have been given...besides...there are far more prominent individuals who have proven reflector technology that the inventor of the idealscope.

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

 

 

So it doesn't bother you that it is told to consumers to use it even though it doesn't work? And who do you think invented (copied) the idealscope?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have looked at these same stones through FireScope, IdealScope, Aset, and more...and the results coroborate one another.

 

 

 

 

With the warmest regards,

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

 

 

That is because they are all one and the same. I wouldn't go so far as to call it science though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to your question of how th light gets through when you put it under the ideal scope....very simple...the plastic is translucent, and the high angle light return reflects shadow.

 

 

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

 

 

So you are saying that if you put translucent plastic below a diamond that it doesn't block light because it is translucent? Think about that for a moment. How much light really gets in? Is there a certain percentage. Is it natural light? Did the plastic change the amount of light and angle of light going into the stone or is there really no light getting in? If all the plastic is translucent, how does the stone reflect pink?

If I had a flashlight and put a translucent cover over it, how direct of a beam will I have to see the rabbit in the yard at night? How about if I put a pink cover over the flashlight? Will that work better? If the tree falls in the woods and nobody heard it, did it really fall?

 

 

 

This is really science at it's best.

Edited by jan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just tried a science experiment. I took a flash light and shined it on a door. It showed light on the door. I took a bottle of car window cleaner that was translucent and shined the flashlight through it. The light didn't show on the door. What do you think of that? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Why so much poison?

 

The physics of reflectors is basic enough - and by the way what the ASET or BrillianceScope does is not all that dissimilar from what a GemEx or ISEE2 does - it's simply that one has an electronic receptor , the other uses a human eye and brain (with attendant intepretation problems)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you David. I agree to disagree with you Jan, peacefully...I have made no personal attacks but illusions to my insanity seem to continue. Jan, I have made no snide remarks as to your stance...simply engaged in debate...I have no illusion that I can change your stance...I thought the discussion would be good for the customer who started the thread. This is my last post on the matter. I am disappointed that you have refused to engage in debate without making inferences that I am inexperienced, uneducated, ignorant, and an idiot; none of which are true. Perhaps next time we can engage in a more amicable debate? It surprises me greatly, that, even though you disagree with me, which is fine, you would be so derogatory to an individual who has recommended several customers to you. A bit unprofessional in my opinion. I am not upset...simply surprised.

 

All the best,

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you David. I agree to disagree with you Jan, peacefully...I have made no personal attacks but illusions to my insanity seem to continue. Jan, I have made no snide remarks as to your stance...simply engaged in debate...I have no illusion that I can change your stance...I thought the discussion would be good for the customer who started the thread. This is my last post on the matter. I am disappointed that you have refused to engage in debate without making inferences that I am inexperienced, uneducated, ignorant, and an idiot; none of which are true. Perhaps next time we can engage in a more amicable debate? It surprises me greatly, that, even though you disagree with me, which is fine, you would be so derogatory to an individual who has recommended several customers to you. A bit unprofessional in my opinion. I am not upset...simply surprised.

 

All the best,

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

 

 

I'm just telling the truth about the supposed tools. Are you involved personally in the patent and on the recieving end of the royalites?

I don't remember calling you anything above that you said. Don't see it on the posts as well. This is always what happens when anyone doubts the plastic toys. I apologize if you think I've attacked you personally. I had no idea you are affiliated with those people.

BTW I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions.

Edited by jan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just telling the truth about the supposed tools. Are you involved personally in the patent and on the recieving end of the royalites?

I don't remember calling you anything above that you said. Don't see it on the posts as well. This is always what happens when anyone doubts the plastic toys. I apologize if you think I've attacked you personally. I had no idea you are affiliated with those people.

BTW I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions.

 

The only reason I am writing this post...as I said I would not post on this topic anymore, is because of the untrue and inflamatory statement that you have made above.

 

I have no tie or involvement to anyone or anything to do with any of the reflector technologies, and making the following statement is exceedingly uncalled for and intentionally misleading to readers. "I had no idea you are affiliated with those people."

 

That makes me sound biased, and I am not. I am simply stating my opinion...we still live in a free country...right? Your statements made illusions to me as being dishonest, ignorant, uneducated, and an idiot...here are your own statements...

 

"Whats more is thousands of consumers have been duped to think that they have actually learned something of value as far as diamond grading goes. I never with a clear concious could talk that crap to consumers." (You insist that anyone who's opinion backs these technologies is full of "crap" and liar.)

"However I never did drink the Kool Aid. Never partied with the labs either." (Insinuating that I have "drunk the kool aid" or "partied with the labs" neither of which I have done. This is again a derogatorily statement against me suggesting I am a "sell out" and "dishonest")

 

"Been their and have done that a long long time ago when it was first marketed." (Insinuating that because you have been in the market so long, you have an unfathomable wealth of knowledge and that I am uneducated.)

 

I did not and will not answer you qustions, because they were asked for the purpose of causing arguement and not beneficial discussion. If I were to answer them, you would continue your personal barrage on me and my answers. I believe that your opinions are wrong and I disagree with them, however, I don't believe that you are misleading customers, but simply showing them your opinions that you have developed over your time in the industry.

 

I believe that two professionals can, in a courteous manner disagree and remain cordial, if not friendly.

 

All the best,

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Why so much poison?

 

Why is the truth poison?

 

It's not the content - on that we can discuss, though I'm very far from taking your statements as "truth". It's the style and tone.

 

As the saying goes, one catches more flies with a teaspoon of honey than with a barrel of vinegar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just telling the truth about the supposed tools. Are you involved personally in the patent and on the recieving end of the royalites?

I don't remember calling you anything above that you said. Don't see it on the posts as well. This is always what happens when anyone doubts the plastic toys. I apologize if you think I've attacked you personally. I had no idea you are affiliated with those people.

BTW I noticed you didn't answer any of my questions.

 

The only reason I am writing this post...as I said I would not post on this topic anymore, is because of the untrue and inflamatory statement that you have made above.

 

I have no tie or involvement to anyone or anything to do with any of the reflector technologies, and making the following statement is exceedingly uncalled for and intentionally misleading to readers. "I had no idea you are affiliated with those people."

 

That makes me sound biased, and I am not. I am simply stating my opinion...we still live in a free country...right? Your statements made illusions to me as being dishonest, ignorant, uneducated, and an idiot...here are your own statements...

 

"Whats more is thousands of consumers have been duped to think that they have actually learned something of value as far as diamond grading goes. I never with a clear concious could talk that crap to consumers." (You insist that anyone who's opinion backs these technologies is full of "crap" and liar.)

"However I never did drink the Kool Aid. Never partied with the labs either." (Insinuating that I have "drunk the kool aid" or "partied with the labs" neither of which I have done. This is again a derogatorily statement against me suggesting I am a "sell out" and "dishonest")

 

 

 

"Been their and have done that a long long time ago when it was first marketed." (Insinuating that because you have been in the market so long, you have an unfathomable wealth of knowledge and that I am uneducated.)

 

I did not and will not answer you qustions, because they were asked for the purpose of causing arguement and not beneficial discussion. If I were to answer them, you would continue your personal barrage on me and my answers. I believe that your opinions are wrong and I disagree with them, however, I don't believe that you are misleading customers, but simply showing them your opinions that you have developed over your time in the industry.

 

I believe that two professionals can, in a courteous manner disagree and remain cordial, if not friendly.

 

All the best,

 

Tim A.

Emma Parker & Co.

www.emmaparkerdiamonds.com

 

 

 

I said I never drank the Koolaid or partied with the labs. I never said you did or were in any pictures with them. You are mistaking someone else that I'm talking about as yourself. That is probably why you think I'm attacking you.

 

You said I should test them out, I simply replied that I did a long time ago. Again don't see how that has anything to do with you.

 

 

Again at the top speaking of the good old boys club, as far as I know you were not there at the time they tried to get us to join using pressuring tactics.

 

About my other questions about light, I was not trying to belittle you. Just asking some simple questions that I thought might make you think a little bit.

 

I really did try the experiment this morning and those were my findings.

 

I asked if you were affiliated because you took the postings as personal attacks and you said you were deeply involved in the industry in some way.

 

I was sharing some information with you that I thought you might not know about. Unless you were around on the web 9 years ago when it all began.

Edited by jan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...