Using the scientific method you can't prove that the sun came up
this morning - it's not repeatable.
But it is predictable based on theory of planetary motion. Scientific
principals do work. Back to gemology. Here is another example of how
present grading standards differ from scientific fact. Color grading
based on nitrogen distribution of so called Cape series. However,
other sources of diamonds, have different characteristics. They are
so called “cool magma resident” or “short time magma resident”. That
been the case, the nitrogen is abundant but poorly aggregated, which
result in preponderance of colorless diamonds. Following Cape series
logic (pricing based on frequency of occurrence), the colorless or
near colorless should be priced less than diamonds having yellow
tinge. We know it is not the case, nor do I know of any rush to
publicize this fact. Which confirms your original statement that
grading is not a science but the art, which makes me repeat my
question " The art of what?"
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.
Subject of scientific proof is well beyond the scope of this
conversation, but since mentioned: A scientific theory is different
from scientific hypothesis. Hypothesis is, speaking plainly a guess,
a
tentative assumption made in order to follow the flow of logic. A
scientific theory is general explanation of known facts. Theories are
subject to change, but threshold is higher than changing a
hypothesis.
When we use words like “proof” and “fully proven” we must be
careful, because it is ambiguous concepts. It is better to use terms
like “rigorous proof”. In scientific lingo rigor means an adherence
to
procedures which have been accepted as leading to correct
conclusions.
However, it does not mean that correct result will be obtained in
every case. Standards of rigor for hypothesis and theory are
different. It can be said that hypothesis can be made based on
observation of a single fact, but to formulate a theory would require
several observable phenomena.
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.
I think in actuality you’ll find the market affixes value, not GIA.
Rarity in nature is not the deciding factor in value. Rarity in the
market vs demand sets the price. One may argue that supply can be
manipulated to support higher prices but that is the unfortunate
action of human nature, not the grading system.
I don’t believe the GIA grading system is designed to hoodwink the
public. On the contrary it is designed to bolster faith on the part
of the buying public and predictability on the part of the trade.
Rarity in nature is not the deciding factor in value. Rarity in
the market vs demand sets the price.
You confusing value and price. Market is a price discovering
mechanism. Market cannot influence value because value is not
affected by supply/demand equation. A good example of it is works of
Faberge. They were always valuable, but price did not reflected the
inherent value in the beginning, and it is a good question if even
current price is fully reflect the value of the work.
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!
Not just frequently but usually, Jane ;<} Also speaking to something
Neil posted this morning… GIA’s diamond grading system is perfect
but for one mistake - the use of the word “flawless”. It should be
NI for “no inclusions”. And Leonid, the world doesn’t care if a stone
is yellow from nitrogen or paint, it’s just yellow. Arcane lab work
is about that, but not day-to-day diamond buying and selling, which
is what the system is for. Getting a GG is not on the same planet as
having a Phd in geology or gemology - it’s just gem testing and
grading.
The GIA system does NOT say that D color is “better”, or that M is
“worse”. It just has a scale of color, and a scale of clarity - and
a scale of make, too. It is humans who assign emotions to that
system, and want what they think is “Best”. Not only is that not
GIA’s intent, it’s stated outright in the mission statements in the
courses - D color is D color, it’s not “the best color”. It is simply
and merely a way of putting like stones into the same parcels,
speaking a common language in the industry, and nothing more. It’s
the marketplace that assigns the relative value.
I fear that one who doesn’t see the art of nature is indeed
blind…