From The Gemology Project
Jump to: navigation, search

this is a nice write-up you two. will be fun when all the stones get a full treatment. Gemma 05:55, 23 December 2006 (PST)

  • I expanded the list of diamond simulants. There is a lot to be written on simulation alone! Tom Goodwin, G.G. 12:14, 14 January 2007 (PST)
  • Then go bananas Tom... all help is more than welcome. --Africanuck 12:46, 14 January 2007 (PST)
  • I also expanded the section on Durability. Maybe I am "jumping" the gun here by mentioning girdles, pavillions, and culets where they haven't been previously defined in the article under the category of "fashioning or polishing," but I figure that we can link everything together in a logical manner as information is added. Just working on this one section shows me the tremendous amount of effort and time the founders of this project have put into it. Incidentally, I think this project deserves some good press. I am going to contact my good friend and colleague, Gary Roskin (Senior Editor of JCK Magazine) and see if he would like to do a feature article on it. He knows Ms. Voltaire as he spoke at one of her GIA alumni chapter meetings in San Francisco. You guys deserve deserve an interview! Tom Goodwin, G.G. 16:13, 14 January 2007 (PST)
  • Let's see. The American gemologists describe everything in terms of hue, tone ("shades" to our F.G.A. colleagues?) and saturation. I can see that we are going to have nomenclature difficulties, but that is perfectly all right as long as the readers know what we are trying to describe! Tom Goodwin, G.G. 14:08, 18 January 2007 (PST)
My motivation was not very clear I must admit. But "hue" relates to a specific opaque "color" (blue, green, yellow etc.) while "shade" takes tone and saturation in consideration (aswell as transparency). Therefore hue is not appropiate in my view. But it is a marginal dispute. --Doos 14:41, 18 January 2007 (PST)
This illustrates to me how difficult it is to discuss "color" even amongst trained experts. In my opinion, definitions need to be extremely precise and undisputed otherwise confusion ensues. Pity the poor layperson! Thank You for your attention to this matter. Tom Goodwin, G.G. 15:00, 18 January 2007 (PST)
  • It seems to me that we need a visual scale for clarity like the scale for grading diamond color that precedes the clarity grading section. Also, are we going to go from IF--->I3 or FL---->I3? Tom Goodwin, G.G. 13:18, 19 January 2007 (PST)
Yes a nice clarity scale should be created. On the IF/FL - I3; as we strive to be independent, all views should be presented. There is even room for the SI3 in my opinion. We are not making policy, we are reporting (but controversial ideas should be presented as such). --Doos 13:34, 19 January 2007 (PST)
I concur that the EGL clarity grade of SI3 should be noted even though it is controversial. I think everyone can agree on well described explanations. Tom Goodwin, G.G. 15:08, 19 January 2007 (PST)

Diamond Cutting or Fashioning

I propose that a separate article be established to address the rough cutting process which I think should include how rough diamonds are sorted and classified by the DTC prior to the sights in London. This article seems to address polished diamonds and their characteristics for the most part. Let's hear it for the rough! Tom Goodwin, G.G. 19:29, 9 February 2007 (PST)

clarity enhancement

On the clarity enhanced section: I'd prefer to prefix: "To the trained eye," to the statement: "Clarity enhanced diamonds are usually easily detected with magnification." To the untrained eye it is not. I've tested this with Diamond Dealers who've been in the business for decades. They had no idea it was clarity enhanced. Also, it's a little contradictory and unclear when you look at this statement later on: "The new generation of clarity enhancement does not produce the obvious flashes of color when viewed with magnification."

Lastly, I'd prefer to say "The following companies specialize in clarity enhancement" rather than "For further information". CE Diamonds are controversial for a reason, and when you expand on this topic on this site, you may get a more balanced picture and "further information" than you would by visiting the vendors' sites. Sorry if that sounds nitpicky... --GilbertZ 12:40, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

Hi Gilbert, it should indeed state "to the trained eye". That is something very obvious to us so we tend to forget about that. Expanding on the subject on the page itself would give a more unbiased view than letting the people with commercial interests do the talking. Please go ahead and edit all that.
I'm not following you on the "The new generation of clarity enhancement does not produce the obvious flashes of color when viewed with magnification." quote, could you please expand a little on that for me? To me that reads as a form of disclaimer that the lack of the signs is by no means prove of not enhanced (older vs. newer techniques). --Doos 13:29, 21 April 2007 (PDT)

I just meant that at the beginning it sounded like it was easy to detect, then later it sounded like it was harder to detect. I haven't looked at a CE stone in person for awhile, so I'm not sure myself, but I will edit it as safely as I can. GilbertZ 16:41, 23 April 2007 (PDT)