Changing the term "semi-precious" stones

Jewelry Discussion
81 
They may be expensive, even very expensive, but they do exist. I
am sure that GIA can follow the same logical path. Then why all
that nonsense.

The way I understand it, Leonid, is that they wanted the colored
stone grading system to have some degree of consistency with the much
better known and already familiar diamond grading system. Because
users of the diamond grading system have a pretty good idea of what
different grades mean in terms of relative rarity, they wanted the
colored stone system to have some reasonable degree of similarity.
VVS1 or even flawless diamonds are very rare, but not unknown. They
have enough availability that the market can fit them into some
level of market pricing with those grades. The idea of the colored
stone grades, since they use somewhat similar sounding (and meaning)
grades is that the grades would represent some similar level of
rarity and desireability and meaning, since it was felt that if the
definitions themselves were too wildly different, they not only
would never be properly understood and used, but they wouldn’t even
be remembered. Without those, the new colored stone system stood no
chance of acceptance and use.

You are, of course, correct that it is not impossible to have a
truly flawless emerald to the same standards as a flawless diamond.
But stones like that would be so very rare that they’d have no real
meaningful placement in a market pricing system. They’d either be
priced as unique items, or simply lumped in with the very slightly
lower quality stones that could still be obtained and which the
market generally already accepted as top quality. In addition, there
is no flawless grade in colored stones simply because it was felt
that, given the greater degree of fragility and rate of wear in
colored stones, even if a stone came from the cutter in truely
flawless condition, it stood no chance of retaining that condition
for any reasonable minimum time period. Even flawless diamonds are in
peril of loosing that designation from even the slightest wear and
tear, but they are durable enough that some might remain flawless
for a reasonable length of time, thus the utility of that grade in
grading gems for jewelry use. An emerald might be truely flawless
straight from the cutter, but that grade would become meaningless in
any stone destined for jewelry, if one used the same stringent level
of examination used for diamond in that grade. So the top grade in
emerald doesn’t mean there cannot be stones within that grade that
are at it’s top end, maybe even deserving of special mention, it
just means that any grade higher than that doesn’t have any real
meaningful function for stones used in jewelry. They can’t remain
that good for any meaningful length of time, so why set a standard
that won’t ever be reached. There are people for whom nothing but a
flawless diamond is good enough, even when the limitations are
explained to them. Their thinking often is driven simply by the fact
that there IS such a grade, so they want it. Creating a simllar grade
for emeralds would create demand for stones that jewelers simply
couldn’t meaningfully supply, thus frustrating both jewelers and
consumers. Fitting the grades to what actually does exist in a real
world environment is just more reflective of real world grades, and
existing practice in the gem markets.

Peter

82 
Diamonds are not the only white gemstone that is beautiful and
capable of accenting colored stones.

I didn’t say that diamonds are the ONLY “white” (I prefer the word
colourless) gemstone that is beautiful - that’s stretching what I
said. I did say that (IMHO), they compliment other (coloured) stones
better than any other colourless stone - and I still stand by that.
I’ve seen (and tried using) colourless sapphires and topaz but they
are very dull compared to good diamonds. I also like cubic zirconia
(V. good quality CZ that is) too, but there is so much inherent
snobbery that the buying public prefer diamonds if they can afford
them.

Diamonds are not the only white gemstone that can stand alone and
look beautiful.

And I certainly did NOT say that. I DID say that they do stand on
their own beautifully - but didn’t say that they are the ONLY ones
that do that. I’ve seen beautiful Danburite set in jewellery,
standing on their own very nicely, for example.

A diamond that is graded well and hardly included but is lab-grown
is considered worth significantly less (practically worthless in
comparison) than a mined diamond of the same carat weight, size,
shape...even if the stone is significantly flawed.

If the market didn’t care, I would sooner set my gorgeous, top
quality CZ’s in place of diamonds, as for me, they look far superior
to many diamonds that are set into jewellery and sold in jewellery
stores. I personally do NOT fall for the “I’ll wear it because it’s a
real diamond”. I wear CZ’s set in silver (my CZ’s set in my
jewellery, not shop-bought) in preference to poor diamonds. If I wear
diamonds, they have to be good (at least eye clean and of good
colour) diamonds. My comments were about GOOD diamonds, not flawed,
inferior colour diamonds - I was careful to say that.

The irony...if diamonds are the be all and end all because they are
the only white stone to set off everything and be beautiful on its
own as well, how is it champagne-colored diamonds make it?

Again, please stop stretching what I said. I never said or implied
that diamonds are the be all and end all - and for me they are not.
I was merely trying to put into perspective why the GIA place so much
importance on them.

As for champagne, pink, blue, yellow and all other colours of
diamond - I love those too - but I was NOT talking about those. For
me, they are coloured stones, comparable to Imperial topaz, pink
sapphire, cornflower blue Ceylon sapphire or yellow sapphire
respectively, but with more “life”, fire, scintillation, whatever you
like. I was very careful to say "Diamonds (for the purpose of my
argument) are colourless. In other words "I’m not talking about
coloured diamonds.

When I post, I am always very careful with the words I use. I go
over it afterwards and re-read it, making sure that I am using the
exact words that convey what I am trying to say. I know it’s easy to
read things between the lines that have not been said and have done
it myself - just the other day in fact. But my words have been
stretched far beyond their intended meaning. GOOD diamonds do what
they do well and they do it BETTER than other colourless stones (a
good diamond is better than a good CZ). Poor diamonds are just what
they are - POOR. They are unattractive and dull and do not compliment
anything or stand alone well, and if it was a choice between a poor,
grey, heavily included diamond and a white (colourless) sapphire,
then I’d take the sapphire any day. Please read more carefully.

Helen
UK
http://www.hillsgems.co.uk
http://www.helensgems.etsy.com

83 
Diamonds are not the only white gemstone that can stand alone and
look beautiful.

Very thoughtful post, Kim. And on the face of it, the above quote is
true. I would argue that there is no clear (white) stone that can
appproach diamond, though. They are a pretty unique blend of lustre,
refraction and the rest. But arguing about such a thing is a
monumental waste of time…

My own take on the emergence of fancy color diamonds in the
marketplace is that it coincides with the emergence of colored
stones. About 20 years or more ago, the industry began a push for
the acceptance of the “orphan” stones - tourmaline, fine garnets,
tanzanite, etc. To my knowlege no single entity was the nucleus of
that push, it just sort of formed itself, seemingly. Maybe GIA had a
hand in it, I don’t know. And little by little it seems to have
succeeded pretty well - awareness that there is more than the big 4.
And part of that awareness is that diamonds can be more than white.
As with all things there have been fans of colored diamonds since
there were diamonds - see The Hope Diamond - but the public
perception has changed. I don’t attribute it to what the diamond
business has done, though - I attribute it to a tag-along with the
colored stone business.

84 
it is not impossible to have a truly flawless emerald to the same
standards as a flawless diamond. But stones like that would be so
very rare that they'd have no real meaningful placement in a market
pricing system.

Yes, I agree with all your points about marketing and reality of
gemstone grading, but there is one small wrinkle as far as GIA is
concern. A few years ago, GIA proudly announced that their
publication Gems and Gemology is included in, I do not remember exact
wording, group of publication having designation as scientific. In
another word, Gems and Gemology is suited for publishing research
papers and etc. It implies that from now on they have follow rules of
scientific reasoning and within other constrains of academic
literature. (sorry for the winded preamble, but I had to make a
point)

Now, scientific reasoning is not what average person would consider
reasonable. Scientist are the guardians of logic and must take into
account each and every possibility, no mater how improbable, it is.
Let me use a somewhat exaggerated example. According to Quantum
Mechanics there is a chance, however small it may be, that a living
person can pass through a wall made of solid brick without any harm
to
himself or to the wall. The quantum particles comprising his body can
assume such a position that they fit exactly in inter-particle space
of the wall. Not an ideal comparison, but similar to water passing
through a sieve. The chance of it happening is so small that a person
has to make attempts at passing through the wall for 72 years and
make an attempt every second. Since none of us is going to spend life
bumping into wall, to the average human, the practical importance of
that scientific theory is zero. But that does not matter, no
scientist would ever make a statement that it is impossible for a
living being to pass through the brick wall unharmed. Chances for the
perfect emerald are not that extreme, so GIA position is kind of hard
to understand.

Leonid Surpin

85 
They may be expensive, even very expensive

This is not really on topic, but I don’t see that it’s worth a whole
new thread, and it’s about stones, so…

A friend of mine lost a 4 1/2 ct. diamond last week, that wasn’t
his. He found it after a time, though. So, I told the story to
another mutual friend who’s a colored stone dealer, just
conversation.

He told me that 20 years ago he closed his safe. Wouldn’t close, so
he slammed it harder. Still wouldn’t close, so he slammed it harder.
Still wouldn’t close, so he looked inside, around the edge. Down at
the bottom was a little pile of green powder, and he said he stood
there for about ten minutes realizing it was what was left of a
$10,000 (20 years ago) emerald… Just thought I’d share a
good/bad story…

86 
Creating a similar grade for emeralds would create demand for
stones that jewelers simply couldn't meaningfully supply, thus
frustrating both jewelers and consumers. Fitting the grades to what
actually does exist in a real world environment is just more
reflective of real world grades, and existing practice in the gem
markets.

Great post, Peter. I would not have thought about it like that
although I have experienced this when someone wants something that
is hard or impossible to find or that if acquired would not stay in
the condition if worn and used. Practical as opposed to theoretical,
and logical rather than emotion backed issue orientation IMNSHO. This
is particularly evident when looking for a gemstone for example on
Stuller’s site that is easily available if fine or AAA quality in
2mm-3mm size, but not found in 6mm size. They might exist, but so far
and few between (and so expensive) they are not listed or if they are
there is no price quote. Thanks for articulating that.

Richard Hart G.G.
Jewelers Gallery
Denver Co. 80210

87 
Chances for the perfect emerald are not that extreme, so GIA
position is kind of hard to understand.

First, Gems and Gemmology is indeed a fine place for Gemmological
research to be published. In fact, since it’s the major trade
publication on the subject of gemmology, it’s the most logical.
There is no specific set of regulations about what any scientific
publication can, or cannot, either publish or establish as it’s
editorial policy. The marketplace itself will establish the
reputation of the publication. It’s not set in stone. In general,
rules of science (which, while generally accepted, are not
unchangeable) are respected, and papers accepted for publication
will be subject to at least some peer review. That’s about it. Some
scientific publications do better at this than others. Just because
quantum physics says that some things, no matter how improbable, are
indeed potentially possible, has no bearing at all on whether a
colored stone grading system developed by GIA should have to equally
establish seperate grades for every extreme potential. For one
thing, Gems and Gemology is the magazine, which is one
function/entity/activity of GIA. The colored stone grading system is
not beholden to Gems and Gemology. It was developed by GIA, but for
it’s educational program, and in hopes of it’s being of use to the
industry. Although Gems and Gemology may publish papers describing
that system, there’s absolutely no reason why the nature of the
magazine should somehow dictate the nature of the grading system.
There’s no connection between the two, other than the parent
organization. The grading system was not devised as an attempt to be
able to describe all possible minute differences in grade of all
possible stones. In fact, the myriad possibilities of such a system
is one reason why such grading systems have not generally caught on
in the past. To be commercially viable and usable for most people,
the system had to be simplified enough so normal human users could
make use of the system. Lots of compromises there were needed, but
the goal of such a system is to make it useful in the real world, for
people working with the vast majority of the gems available. To
suggest that the colored stone system is lacking and remiss because
the Gems and Gemology publication, which has no relationship to the
reasons the goals and nature of the grading system were established,
is itself a publication which might be suited to the presentation of
research that describes a more exactingly minute and detail oriented
bit of gemmology, is just bizzare. Sometimes, Leonid, you leave me
just plain scratching my head in puzzlement at how you arrive at
these relationships. You have, obviously, a vast body of experience
in jewelry making and expertise in this field. But I’d have to
hazard a guess that it’s been a while since you studied the nature of
logic, and what does or does not constitute a valid conclusion to a
given set of facts…

I’ll say it again. The GIA colored stone system is intended to give
a useful general means by which the grades and qualities of the vast
majority of gems can be meaningfully described. It needs to do this
in a language that is simple enough so as to not be too cumbersome,
in order that the greatest number of situations can adequately be
described. But to do that, some extremes and highly unusual
situations simply won’t fit. This itself is not a problem with the
system. There is nothing, for example, that prevents an appraiser or
gem grader from appending a comment of some sort to a GIA colored
stone grade. In this case, if the grader feels that a given emerald
is substantially better than the normally assigned top grade might
suggest, he or she can simply indicate this in the comment section.
Stones in this catagory most likely cannot be evaluated solely on the
basis of a GIA grade anyway. At this point, it will take a human eye,
with experience in valueing emeralds, to really know the full finest
degrees of quality. The GIA grades simply don’t divide down fine
enough.

This is, by the way, not limited to the colored stone system. Look
at the well loved (or hated) diamond grading system. How good is an
I-1 stone anyway? Some are not so desireable, others seem to get
called SI3 by people who feel the GIA grade is too broad and need to
invent their own. Within each grade, there’s a good deal of variance.
Yet for most purposes, it’s close enough. You don’t need grading
systems to seperate or describe differences out to millions of minute
differences, even if in some ways, with modern science and
technology, the grades could be divided up a good deal (color
grading, via optical measuring devices, for example, can be much more
precise than the plain old GIA grades.)

And at the other end of the scale, there’s a vast range of gem
materials that the GIA system simply doesn’t attempt to grade at all,
since they’re too low in clarity of quality. The lowest clarity grade
gets simply called declasse (nice french for unclassified. why they
used a french word is anyone’s guess.) That catagory will range from
stuff that does have decent uses, perhaps as a cabochon or carving
material, to stuff that’s fit for driveway gravel or aquarium rock.
You don’t seem upset that the system ignores these gradations. But
it’s reasonable for it to do so, simply because the gem marketplace
doesn’t want or need grading reports for this type of stuff.

It’s not about quantium physics, Leonid. Or whether a given magazine
publishes serious research papers. It’s simply about a tool developed
to teach colored stone grading, and intended as well to be a useful
and usable tool within the trade.

One other comparison as to why too much detail might not be so good.
Do you happen to remember Cap Beesleys attempt, via AGL, to come up
with a color grading system? They developed and sold a rather costly
set of color grading cards (which must have been a bitch to make
since they never actually finished publishing all the planned cards).
emeralds had something like a half dozen cards, with extremely fine
graduations in color. Much more exacting, I thought, than the GIA
system. So exacting, in fact, as to be almost unusable to anyone
other than another owner of a set of those cards, and even then, a
bit incomprehensible. You needed the cards, then sets of charts to
determine what some grade number meant in terms of quality.
Cumbersome. The GIA system is designed so that, although grading
tools like the gemset sample set can be useful, it can actually be
used just by people with a good loupe and decent eyesight, just as
the diamond grading system can be. The terms and nomenclature make
decent sense once you learn them, and are reasonably consistent.
Does it do everything? Hell no. Does it do most of it? Sure. And the
result is that people use it. I don’t know too many graders or
appraisers now who even remember the AGS colorscan cards, and if I
were to ask a gem dealer for an emerald that matched card number
such-and-such, I’d most likely be out of luck.

Peter

88 
There is no specific set of regulations about what any scientific
publication can, or cannot, either publish or establish as it's
editorial policy.

Au contraire! There are rules which scientific publications must
follow, and scientific publication cannot have an editorial policy.
That is the difference between scientific publication and the rest.
In scientific publication nothing gets printed, unless it can be
rigorously proved. The only logic behind GIA grading system is
marketing convenience. Upon close examination, using scientific
principals, it falls apart.

Leonid Surpin

89 
a little pile of green powder, and he said he stood there for about
ten minutes realizing it was what was left of a $10,000 (20 years
ago) emerald....... Just thought I'd share a good/bad story.....

If I may…

At a low point in my career I had just taken a job at a really high
end store. Xmas rush was just getting under way when I started. Set
up my bench where they told me to. I dropped a carat diamond and it
was nowhere to be found. “Good grief, new job on the line”, I’m
thinking as I tell the boss. So I pulled the bench out and
searched…nothin. Pulled up the floor boards and moldings…nothin.
Approached it from below in the basement…nothin. After a full day
of angstified fruitless searching, Xmas work stackin up, I’m sitting
there totally bummed, getting ready for the unemployment line. I’m
looking at the big hole in the floor I have created where the bench
was. And then there it was…perched precariously on top of a floor
joist six inches into the wall. A veritable vision in the
wilderness! Hallelujah Brothers and Sisters, we have found the
promised land!

So I inform the boss, proud that my persistence just saved him a few
thousand and me a job. Told him how it must have slipped between the
openings where the raggedy baseboard was supposed to meet the floor
in this hundred year old building. His reply…

“did you happen to see the 2ct sapphire we lost there last year?”

DOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

90 
The GIA colored stone system is intended to give a useful general
means by which the grades and qualities of the vast majority of
gems can be meaningfully described.

I could put Peter’s very erudite post in much simpler terms -
gemstone grading is not so much science as it is art. As he pretty
much says, there is no D, E, F color, nor is there an SI1 and SI2.
You could split the colors between D and E into a thousand parts and
still do it again, though the human eye can’t detect such nuances,
in practice. It is, as he also essentially says, a way to bring
order out of chaos, and form a common language. And I do remember
the AGS system. “Let’s see, we have 250 8 color families,
500 tones, plus saturation, that’s only 350,000 combinations -
easy!”

Personally, I think that everyone should stick to gem ID, certs. and
appraisals and keep out of the “Let’s try to define gem quality”
business altogether. There is no such thing as a perfect emerald
because it’s subjective. Or you could say that every emerald is
perfect because nature made it that way, if you wanted to be smarmy.
I personally don’t like the “ideal” of emerald (ruby, too, for that
matter) because they are too saturated and too dark in color for my
taste. That doesn’t make me or the industry wrong, it means it’s
more art than science. If an emerald is of exquisite color and has a
pronounced, elegant jardin, and takes your breath away because of
it’s beauty, isn’t that “perfect”? It’s nature, not a machine shop.
Often, in gemology, you get people who are so buried under the
microscope they forget to stand back and just enjoy a stone.

91

When there is fraud perpetrated insofar as a gem, the immediate harm
is to the buyer, and hopefully to the reputation of the seller.

When there is fraud insofar as Scientific Research, and yes greed
exists in that highly competitive arena, the potential for harm is
far greater.

The analogy of Gems and Gemology, and Scientific Research does not
make the point, IMHO.

Hugs,
Terrie

92 
I could put Peter's very erudite post in much simpler terms -
gemstone grading is not so much science as it is art. As he pretty
much says, there is no D, E, F color, nor is there an SI1 and SI2.

This is a good observation that grading is an art, but an art of
what? I do not have time today to give justice to the subject. I will
post in a few days. Meanwhile, anybody willing to offer their
opinions?

Leonid Surpin

93 
There is no specific set of regulations about what any scientific
publication can, or cannot, either publish or establish as it's
editorial policy. 

Au contraire! There are rules which scientific publications must
follow

General conventions and expectations from the community, yes. But
rules? Published and defined by whom? Regulated and enforced by whom?
And the conventions and expectations change over time. Accepted
standards of how a paper should be written, how data should be
reported and supported, all change over time, enforced not by any
written set of rules over the publishers, but simply by the
scientific community that either considers a given publication
respectable in it’s field, or not.

There are indeed general practices in scientific method that will
determine whether or not a publication gets respect and is considered
worthy of note. But there are no formal, enforced rules. Just
conventions, and these too are subject to change.

and scientific publication cannot have an editorial policy.

Don’t be silly. Of course there is editorial policy. Editors
determine, upon review of papers submitted for publication, which
ones seem to have significant enough merit to warrant publication.
They may not be trying to insert a “message” or tone into the
publication, but they certainly do have an editorial viewpoint. If
you submit a paper to Nature that tries hard to argue for the
validity of something the general scientific community regards as
ridiculous garbage, it won’t matter how well your paper is written,
there’s a good chance it won’t make it to publication. And on the
other end, if a highly respected scientist submits what seems to be a
fine paper for publication, it likely will be published. Sometimes
those papers turn out to include falsified data, or as was recently
reported in the news, altered data, either intentionally or not. In
the lastest case I saw, photos had been enhanced for clarity and
contrast, a practice not now accepted, but the grad student who’d
done that didn’t realize that at the time. The whole paper, who’s
results are not in question, is now possibly subject to being
redacted. This of course does illustrate the stringency of what is
considered valid for publication. But note that the publication
itself, took no steps to validate the facts beyond reading the paper
and deciding it sounded good. That, my friend, is an editorial
opinion and policy. A subtle one, indeed. But there nevertheless.

That is the difference between scientific publication and the
rest. In scientific publication nothing gets printed, unless it can
be rigorously proved.

Usually, it’s more “alleged to be proovable”. There have been any
number of published papers that have later turned out not to be
valid, have been falsified, or just been wrong. Remember cold fusion?
And there was a bright young star hired by Bell labs who was
publishing stuff at a rate that left other scientists in awe, who
later was shown to be simply making up his data out of thin air.
Until people started trying to repeat his work, or looked closely at
multiple papers of his, where he’d often used essentially the same
results for different experiments, that people realized his work was
worthless. All that crap did indeed get published. Nobody checked.
Readers and other scientists, not the publications, found the errors.
That case was egregious enough there was even a Discovery channel
program on it not long ago. And this was recent, too. within the last
five years or so.

As a general rule, Leonid, you are correct in saying that scientific
publications hold to different standards than popular ones. “Nature”
is not Vogue or even the New York Times. That is certainly true. But
don’t put those publications on too high a pedestile. They DO have
editors or editorial/advisory boards, they ARE subject to errors as
well as market forces that will determine whether the publications
are making enough money to stay in business. While the attempt to
meet high standards of scientific principals, they’re as fallable as
anyone. And the degree to which a given publication is considered
trustworthy and worthy of note is determined by it’s consumers, the
scientific community, not by any strict set of imposed rules or
regulations.

And within the community of geologists and gemologists and those
concerned with the science of gems as well as the economic and
commercial aspects of gemmology, “Gems and Gemology” is considered
one of the most reliable sources, both for scientifically oriented
articles, as well as others of a less scientific nature.

And again, I’d point out that just because GIA publishes G&G, as
well as it’s educational courses, and the several gem stone grading
systems it’s devised (originally all as educational tools for it’s
courses), does not mean that scientific principals that may be
expected for a scientific artical in G&G are in any way either
compromised, or expected of, an unrelated grading system also
originated by GIA. Nor is there any reason to expect a grading
system from GIA to be somehow capable of describing every known
gemstone in perfect and extreme detail, if that degree of perfection
does not serve the intended purpose of that grading system. These
various programs of GIA are aimed at seperate purposes and users.
Even within the magazine, some articles will be of a scientific
nature, adhereing to the accepted norms for such articles, while
others will not be. There isn’t a conflict there.

By the way, back to the mainstream science publications. If
everything in those magazines had to adhere to the most stringent
principals of science publications, you’d not be seeing the various
advertisements, letters to the editor, or other stuff that isn’t
strictly an article. It’s all relative. Even occasional articles are
not held to the same standards, if they don’t present themselves as
being such, yet they may still be published, if editors think
they’ll be of interest or use to the readers.

Peter

94 
The only logic behind GIA grading system is marketing convenience.
Upon close examination, using scientific principals, it falls
apart.

No, It doesn’t. Which principals does it violate?

Mostly, it, or any grading system, is a standardized nomenclature. A
means of describing, in terms that everyone understands, a given
grade. Before this, we end up with things like AAA grade, AA grade,
top grade, etc, as used by sellers. But each such term would mean
different things used by different people. So it’s meaningless.

All the GIA, or any other, grading system does it to give us a
uniform set of words to use, which can be hoped to have a similar
meaning no matter who uses it. It’s reasonably logical, follows the
expected sorts of terms already in use in gemology, and describes the
characteristics of cut, color, clarity, etc, that are already the
accepted determinants of gemstone quality. To do this with a range of
gemstones where the range of expected qualities varies greatly, is a
daunting challenge, since it not only has to meet the needs of a
decently consistent nomenclature, but it also must meet the needs of
the marketplace in which it must be of use.

The GIA system, Leonid, is not intended for use in some rarified
scientific environment. It’s intended for use by the public, by GIA
students, by appraisers, by gem dealers and buyers.

It is based on scientific principals of optics and color science,
gemological principals, and marketing realities. That’s as it should
be if it is to meet it’s intended purposes.

Yes, indeed, it is a marketing convenience. But it’s more, too. It’s
a useful tool that exceeds the capabilities of any prior system. Is
it all encompassing or perfect? No, of course not. If it tried to be,
it would become uselessly complex.

You’re so adament that it falls apart. I’d love to know in just what
ways you feel it fails to conform to decent scientific principals. Or
more, have you got any other system available that you’d prefer, or
consider better and more useful?

Peter

95 
General conventions and expectations from the community, yes. But
rules? Published and defined by whom? Regulated and enforced by
whom?

Conventions versus rules is the distinction without a difference.
Violation of these rules ( or conventions if you will ) is not going
to land one up in jail, but it will make one a pariah in academic
community. As an example of what they are here is the link to the
document defining these rules for the members of Max Planck Society.
Other organizations have similar codes of conduct.

Rules of good scientific practice
http://www.mpg.de/pdf/rulesScientificPract.pdf

Leonid Surpin

96 
You're so adament that it falls apart. I'd love to know in just
what ways you feel it fails to conform to decent scientific
principals. Or more, have you got any other system available that
you'd prefer, or consider better and more useful?

This thread definitely went of the course and we are getting into
the areas which are not likely to be resolved, but to answer you
question:

To answer the second part of your question: I do not have a
substitute to the present grading system, but it does not mean that I
have to accept it. In my business, I tell clients what GIA says, and
I
tell them what I think. The choice is theirs.

To the first part of your question: the grading system, as it exist
now, places the highest value on flawless, or better say, internally
flawless specimens. However, we have no evidence that internally
flawless is more rare than a specimens with a particular inclusions.
Collectors are keenly aware of that, and pay premium for such
specimens. To be scientific, any system must be based on a scientific
theory. I am not aware of any theory which can be used as a
foundation of gemstone grading.

Another fact is that diamond origin is swept under the rug in
commercial classification, but from scientific point of view is an
exceptionally important characteristic.

Fancy diamonds is an area of absolute disgrace. If one needs any
conclusive proof that GIA is in a pocket of diamond industry, one
only only needs to look at grading standards for fancy diamonds. One
of most egregious examples are fancy yellows. Right now, any yellow
diamond with intense yellow color is considered fancy, which is an
absolute rip off and it is going on with tacit GIA and FTC approvals.

The real story is quite different. In a few words, if source of color
is nitrogen, who cares who intense the color is. It is a very common
diamond which has much less value than slightly yellow grades. There
are very rare type II(a) diamonds, which have intense yellow color
due to defects in crystalline structure. Those truly belong to the
fancy grade. Famous Tiffany’s Diamond is a good example of it.

Another super egregious example is Mexican emeralds. Mexican
emeralds are not true emeralds, because they derive their color from
presence of iron. Scientifically, the only green beryl which can be
called emerald is where the source of color is chromium. Originally
GIA rightfully refused to identify these stones as emeralds, but in
time it folded like a cheap camera under pressure from the industry
and now it call those stone emeralds, which is a scientific
obscenity.

I can go on and on. The most important point to understand is that
that Science does not make allowances for logical lapses and present
grading system is full of it. The whole system of color grading is
simply funny.

The color grades are only obvious in very particular light, and
stones observed in a sunlight do not exhibit the same color
characteristics. Is not that difficult to come up with light
composition which would make diamonds appear green or orange and
grade them let’s say from Orange 1 to Orange 99. Gemstone colors are
creatures of light. Change the light and you change the colors.

I do not even want to mention cut grading and other “gems” of
present grading systems. I believe that I made my position quite
clear. There is nothing more that I can add to this topic at this
time. I understand that you have different view. We simply have to
agree to disagree.

Leonid Surpin

97 
In scientific publication nothing gets printed, unless it can be
rigorously proved.

Actually it’s the other way around: in the hard sciences that adhere
to the Western scientific method, there exist only hypotheses that
are never fully proven. They are measurable, quantifiable, and
repeatable, but they are never “proven”. Hypotheses are continually
refined by further studies, measurements, etc. This is the ideology
that permits one to apply for three-year renewable NIH grants. :wink:

And sadly, there are cases of medical journals printing the results
of studies that are (1) poorly designed re endpoint (2) incorrectly
abstracted or containing incorrect conclusions (3) subject to
editoral bias (4) influenced by funding from pharma companies, (5)
statistically dicey — etc. Sad but true.

Lorraine

98 
In scientific publication nothing gets printed, unless it can be
rigorously proved.

Usually, it’s more “alleged to be proovable”.

I’m afraid Peter doesn’t even go far enough on this one. If the first
statement were true, there could be no hypothesis or theory - most of
particle physics, much of chemistry, and almost all of astrophysics
would be stuck in the file cabinet. String theory would be scribbles
on a chalkboard. Scientific journals are places where scientists (and
others) exchange ideas, propose theories, and publish work finished
or not. Not a whole lot different from a bulletin board, they’re just
specialized.

99 
This is a good observation that grading is an art, but an art of
what?

Let’s not be obtuse. “The scientific method” is much abused by
non-scientists, and the discussion has been had many times over.
Using the scientific method you can’t prove that the sun came up this
morning - it’s not repeatable. Gemology is only part science, which
is the nature of the beast. The scientific method applies to
stringent and rigid hard, experimental science, and it doesn’t bear
crossing over to, really, any other disciplines without falling
apart. Geology, and by extension gemology, is more a science of
discovery and cataloging of nature than an experimental science,
where the method applies best. “I found this rock - you can’t find it
again because it’s a unique rock.” Therefore it fails the test, if
the test were applied - it also is not repeatable. The scientific
method is not a flag to be waved in people’s faces, it’s a way of
doing and reporting experimental science, and that’s all it is.

100

Leonid asks for opinions on “grading is an art, but an art of what?”

Here goes.

“Grading is the art of applied, educated observation, using
knowledge and understanding of the subject acquired over years of
study and practice.”

The grading system. D, E, F, SI1 etc meets our extraordinary need to
classify and pigeonhole almost everything. even a sunset.

To a degree, the criteria for classifying stones is measurable,
therefore can be objective; however, we humans find it hard to
eliminate the subjective from our psyche, so I feel there must remain
an element of subjectivity in the act of classifying a stone, so it
is possible for one stone to be given different classifications
depending on who does the job!

This has been a fascinating thread, responded to by people who know
much more than I do.

I know how little I know about the subject; so I follow my father’s
advice - do your research, find someone you trust who does know what
they are doing, and deal with them.

Jane Walker
www.australiannaturalgemjewellery.com.au