OctoNus brilliance beauty research: test with real diamonds


Official proposal to accomplish testing of influence of different types of variations of angles measured by Sarin (OGI) on diamond beauty (or just observability of difference in perceptions of eminently qualified appraisers. To Rockdoc, Rhino and other interested parties.

Draft Procedure of testing

    1. Eight H&A with similar characteristics and equally good looking are taken. This has to be confirmed by seconds(supervisers) #1 #2. Let's assume about these diamonds that Pav=40.5. Ñr=34.5
    2. Four diamonds are selected in accidental way and then table is additionally polished with slope 0.3(0.2-0.4) deg. In this case according to Sarin (OGI) measurements maximum pavilion angle will be 40.8 and crown will be 34.8. Minimum will be Pav=40.2 Cr=34.2 ( Let's call these diamonds "Type1")
    3. Let's find most symmetric four diamonds having Pav 40.8 and Crown 34.8 along with some direction and Pav=40.2 Cr=34.2 along with perpendicular. These diamonds will be called "Type2" ( Of course they will have girdle ovallity about 2% or girdle thickness fluctuation)
    4. Let's try to find symmetric diamonds of the third type Type3.* :

      4.1. Type 3.1 40.8 Cr=34.8
      4.2. Type 3.2 Pav=40.2 Cr=34.2
      4.3. Type 3.3 Pav=40.8 Cr=34.2
      4.4. Type 3.2 Pav=40.2 Cr=34.8

    5. Compose two approximately similar sets of diamonds SET1 & SET2. Every set will contain two H&A, two diamonds of Type 2, and a couple of Type 3 diamonds.
    6. Invite Rockdoc & Rhino into one building.

6.1. accidentally raffle two sets among them and ask them to estimate diamond beauty (cut quality) without use of any devices measuring proportions (including Sarin & OGI) with the 3-5 points scale(system). The diamonds are given to an expert one by one (expert has not more than one diamond simultaneously) , but the order of the diamonds is recorded.

6.2. Exchange the sets between them and ask them to estimate the diamonds with usual way (using the Sarin-OGI) giving diamonds one by one in the same order that the other expert has seen them in previous experiment.

  1. Bring the sets to seconds and ask them to estimate diamonds of every set without use of any tools. Just only with eyes but under different lightning conditions. The diamonds are given them in the same order that with experts.
  2. Collate and publish the resulting 8 appraisals in open informational resources with comments of all parties and the testing procedure.

Main articles of expenditure (I think)

    1. Selection, buying (with sale after test) diamonds for testing
1.1. Tilting table by 0.3 deg. with posterior correction of table to right orientation will lead to loss of 1% of weight and increase of table by 1.5%
    1. Remuneration of labour of experts Rockdoc and Rhino

2.1. If other experts wants to participate in the experiment then they can do it without

  1. Remuneration of labour and time of seconds. Application for seconds can be submitted by anyone but the final choice of seconds will be carried by the project investors. Additional seconds are welcome on a voluntary basis.
  2. Payments of price of credit for diamond purchase, insurance, transportation and storing.

Once Rockdoc and Rhino give their consent to this testing and will report their conditions then I am willing to transfer $1000 USA to the second's account on irrevocable base. If there will be insufficient amount on this account to accomplish testing then I am willing to increase my fee up to $5000 USA/

Sergey Sivovolenko CEO "OctoNus", Moscow, Russia



    1. In the point 5 of our proposal:

> 5. Compose two approximately similar sets of diamonds SET1 & SET2.
> Every set will contain two H&A, two diamonds of Type 2,
> and a couple of Type 3 diamonds.

We've missed the "Type1" diamonds. Of course, two "Type1" diamonds will be included in every set.

      Re: I am confused as to why we get only one stone at a time.


  1. An expert should appraise only one diamond at a time because we want one to appraise every diamond independently as it's done in the real life. This wouldn't allow an expert to recognize diamonds by type (comparing them side by side) and then mark them from political considerations. Giving one diamond at a time we welcome maximum objectivity and frankness.

    RE:Also consider, the costs of insurance and shipping back and forth for eight diamonds, (depending on the size and value) would probably eat through the fee you offered real quickly. So you may have to consider adjusting it upwards.

  2. I hope there will be more investors and we will begin to spend the money when the sufficient amount is accumulated. re: Are you going to arrange for the stones to be sent here.
  3. I suggest to perform the final testing at the JCK show as most people go there anyway.

Garry, Rockdoc,

The testing implies 3 types of appraisal:

  1. Using any tools and systems.
  2. Parameter measurement systems like Sarin/OGI are prohibited.
  3. All tools are prohibited. Only naked eye observation.

The testing procedure is not final and should be elaborated. At this time I've just published draft. The most important at this moment is to receive agreement of experts to accomplish this work. Organizational points can be arranged along the way.

Rhino, Rockdoc,

What tools do you need for appraisal of 1st and 2nd types? (There is no need to estimate color, characteristics etc. We talk just about a beauty)

Rhino, do you agree to consider conditions of participation in this experiment ?



Hi Paul,

Nice to see you in this thread.

I think I didn't make the following statements:

  1. To take the pavilion angle, it should be measured compared to the straight girdle plane
  2. Cutters make final polish of table after polishing pavilion.

What I state in fact:

  1. Sarin measurements often show variances of the crown and pavilion angles. With the same value of these variances the real influence of the variances on the diamond beauty can differ a lot.
  2. I suggest to classify these variances and for the first to distinguish variances caused by virtual(imaginary) and real incline of pavilion axis* relative to table normal (I didn't consider a girdle at all by this time) from other type variances.
  3. The virtual incline arises due to incorrect measurements. For instance in case of poorly fixed diamond when scanning. (The table is inclined relative to the holder plane)
  4. The real incline of the pavilion relative to table (or table incline relative to pavilion) can arise either due to evident actions of cutter (culet displacement is also pavilion axis incline relative to table) or due to equipment inaccuracy during the cutting process (for example poor adjustment of collet. Good adjustment has nonzero error as well) or due to poor work of cutter (poor fixation of diamond in the collet) or ...

Paul, I am willing to continue explanation of the purpose of testing if the stated above is not enough and if you are agree that " that basically never happens" does not apply to what I've stated here in this post. If it does [apply] then please point the exact statement.

*Here I put a couple of pavilion axis definitions as to anyone choose more convenient for himself.

The line of symmetry of the elliptical cone approximating pavilion in the best way. See post Jamesd Post 66 - #197400 09-21-02 10:03 PM

Average of pavilion facet normals weighted with facet area.

The line of symmetry of the ideal pavilion affected by a number of transformations for achieving the best match with the real pavilion. Transformations are restricted to shift, rotation and centrosymmetric deformations around axis symmetry.


Participants and investments

Richard Sherwood

DT Level : Opal
Member since : May 2002
Biography : Independent GG Appraiser with 23 years experience in the gem & jewelry business.
Interests : Diamonds, colored stones & the beach
Location : Sarasota FL 34232
Occupation : 941-377-4509
Company: : Sarasota Gem Lab

09-26-02 12:57 AM

In going over Sergey's offer several times, I've come to the conclusion that it is a very fair and impartial offer. I also believe that it could have far reaching implications for the industry.

I think this "meeting of the experts" could generate worldwide industry publicity. JCK, National Jeweler, Modern Jeweler would all eat this up. A practical test to see how well the human eye can detect lesser and larger variances in diamond cutting. A kind of "rubber meets the road" test. I think it would be good press for all involved, if it were handled professionally and in the spirit of contributing advanced knowledge to the industry as a whole.

Along those lines I would be willing to volunteer as one of the facilitators of this "test". I could offer my new lab office as a meeting place, and my services in handling logistics. In addition, I've got a condo which is vacant a large portion of the year which I would offer to house some of the participants. You'd have a hard time beating Sarasota, Florida as a meeting place. Our beaches beat out Hawaii in a contest for the most beautiful beaches in the world.

My new lab office is located within a high security "vault", with tightly controlled access, etc. A very classy enviroment, with paintings and works of art everywhere. Would look great in the promos.

I would take care of contacting the magazines, receiving fedex's, facilitating memos/purchases, storing diamonds, choreographing things, photographing the event, etc. I think this could be a real publicity gold mine guys. The "Russian aspect" with Sergey involved would further serve to throw a dramatic flair into the event.

I also like 43's idea of having consumers involved. It's actually a stroke of genius. Envision this- a representative group of consumers "seconding" the experts. Perhaps (3) experts, and (3) consumers. That would give the event even more "punch".

If Doc isn't interested in being one of the experts, then perhaps we could entice some well known appraisers to participate. Donald Palmieri comes to mind, along with Richard Drucker, Joseph Tenhagen, Dave Atlas, Tom Tashey, Elly Rosen, etc, etc, etc. High profile names which would generate publicity.

Anyway, if something's going to come out of this, count me in. I'll help in any of the logistics I can.

Rich, knows an "event" when he sees one...


DT Level : Turquoise
Member since : Dec 2000
Occupation : bit nerd


09-27-02 12:59 AM

If Richard is organizing this little soiree, I think the inside track to getting an invite may via his wine glass, not flattery . In that spirit, I volunteer a bottle of '82 Cheval Blanc and an '89 DRC Richebourg . If Garry decides to come, we'll also see if the '82 Grange is over the hill as he suspects or still a tannic infant.

Paul - the whole point may be moot, but it still sounds like a lot of fun...as a consumer, I can't make it to Tucson or Las Vegas but maybe I can bribe my way into this event!

Garry Holloway

DT Level : Sapphire
Member since : Apr 2000
Homepage : www.ideal-scope.com/


09-28-02 12:08 AM

What size should the diamonds be?

I suggest .70-.75ct G-H SI1 for mnimum size / quality.

More than Roc and Rhino should be involved. Everyone involved should make a $ commitment to cover the costs.

Re 6.1 - no instruments - including loupe?

6.2 - One independant arbitrator / cutter could perform analysis? Why would Roc and Rhino be required? This would mean that they would need to have the stones at their lab = much shipping to and fro, as well as opportunity for unsupervised testing (cheating).

Re 2 and 3. - I think Remuneration is not appropriate - why these 2 and not others?

I am willing to commit $1,000 maximum towards the cost (ie. non refundable liablity) of this project, and fund it (a loan to be repaid) with another $4,000. (I will put $5,000 into the account of the second's fund) if these amended terms are acceptable.

David Atlas

DT Level : Sapphire
Member since : Jan 2001
Interests : Diamonds, estate jewelry, education, advice, GG(GIA), NGJA(NAJA), ASG(AGA)
Location : Phila. PA 19106
Occupation : Appraiser, Gemologist
Company : AGA


09-28-02 08:52 PM

Official proposal to accomplish testing of influence of different types of variations of angles measured by Sarin (OGI) on diamond beauty (or just observability of difference in perceptions of eminently qualified appraisers.

Rockdoc, Rhino, Oldminer are on board and Sergey is looking for other qualified participants. Anyone with trained eyes and a willingness to participate, please post here or contact Sergey at Octonus.

Total income

Date Name Incomings Outgoing Status
09-26-02 Sergey Sivovolenko $ 1000 total è
$ 4000 floating fund.
09-24-02 Yuri Shelementiev Web-pages support.    
09-26-02 Richard Sherwood The new lab office as a meeting place.

The services in handling logistics

09-27-02 Dogbert A bottle of '82 Cheval Blanc and an '89 DRC Richebourg    
09-28-02 Garry Holloway $ 1000 total è
$ 4000 floating fund.
09-28-02 David Atlas Official proposal to accomplish testing of influence of different types of variations of angles measured by Sarin (OGI)


Total bills Floating funds
Declared $ 2000 $ 8000
Done $ 2000  


Other investments
1. Web-pages support.

2. The new lab office as a meeting place.

3. The services in handling logistics

4. A bottle of '82 Cheval Blanc and an '89 DRC Richebourg



DT Level : Opal
Member since : Jul 2002


09-25-02 03:13

RE : A Cut Question

I think you should include consumers. We are, after all, the end user.



DT Level : Network Jeweler
Member since : Oct 1999
Biography : Diamond dealer, retailer since 1984, Jeweler
Interests : Diamonds, World Peace, Beauty,Angels,comedy, ESP
Location : Melboune, Florida
Company : Diamond Broker of Florida
Homepage : www.diamondbrokersoffl.com


09-27-02 01:31 AM

Hey if this is going to be in Sarasota,
Fl, I`ll bring the diamonds you bring the wine.

Fly Serg and Garry in.

Those that cling to the varience theory and think they can see 0.3-0.5 varience with their eyes may be surprised.

Before indulging in any wine of course.

Should be an interesting party afterwards.




DT Level : Opal
Member since: Jun 2001
Interests : Diamond manufacturing
Location : Antwerpen NON-US 2000
Company : Infinity Diamonds BVBA
Homepage : www.infinitydiamonds.be


09-26-02 08:16 PM

I did not have a lot of time to catch up with DT lately, but I took an hour to read this thread thoroughly.

Honestly, I am amazed, and I do not understand how great professionals and scientists like Bill, Gary and Serg can get into such a crazy argument, without anyone seeing that the whole discussion is pointless.

You have been arguing all this time, about a point made by Sergey, that basically never happens in the process of cutting diamonds.

I will first explain Sergey's point again. To take the pavillion angle, it should be measured compared to the straight girdle plane, but it is measured compared to the table. So, if the table is tilted, a pavillion without variance would be measured as one with enormous variance. Hence, we cannot trust the measurement, and we should only rely on the angles of opposite pavilions.

Now, how are diamonds cut, especially the pavilion? Well, they are put into a dop, based upon the table, and each angle is cut on the basis of that table.

Of course, there is a concept of tilted tables while cutting. It happens at this point in the process: a stone is blocked, and then, it is checked whether the culet will come out, and whether tilting the table is necessary in order to maintain the highest weight with the same cut. After tilting the table, the pavilion is finished, never before. So, the high precision of cutting the pavilion cannot be disturbed by tilting the table afterwards.

Basically, this makes the whole point of Sergey, and his testing-proposal pointless, as you will be testing something that does not happen in the world of cutting.

Guys, can I ask you next time, before you get into such an argument, to come and ask me what I think about a certain theory. I think that a lot of time and distress could be avoided that way.

Live long,


DT Level : Emerald
Member since : Jul 1999
Occupation : Gemologist, Appraisal Lab, Consumer Fraud Expert, GemPrint Center,Switch Case Consultant.
Interests : Gems, Legal Cases, Mediation Services, Author, Diamond Switching
Location : Boca Raton, Florida USA
Homepage : www.consumersgemlab.com

09-28-02 12:45 AM



I've already said I see no purpose to this.

I DO NOT wish to participate.

There is no reason to prove to you that I know how to evaluate stones.

In addition, from what I understand of this, you've chosen to ignore what I have said about what I can see.

I do not know your motivation but I am sure there is one.... it will surface once those who do participate in the picnic figure it out.



DT Level : Opal
Member since : Jun 2001
Interests : Diamond manufacturing
Location : Antwerpen NON-US 2000
Company : Infinity Diamonds BVBA
Homepage : www.infinitydiamonds.be

09-29-02 10:28 AM

Guys, can we put all machoism aside, and go back to the basics. It starts to resemble a bet in a bar after too many drinks, and certainly not a useful discussion.

The basics is this: the table of a brilliant can be compared to the foundation of a house. Like one cannot start building without a foundation, one cannot start cutting without first putting the table facet.

The whole stone is based on that table, so definitely, the preciseness of the pavilion.

Now, it is possible, that in the course of cutting, the table is adapted, and one of the possible adaptations is slightly tilting the table. However, this is done after blocking the stone, and after it is established that one gets a better result (pointed culet, or avoiding an inclusion) by tilting the table. But the final pavilion will then be based upon that new tilted table, so if all work is done well, it will be straight again.

The issue here is, that one can trick the Sarin-measurement, by tilting the table after the whole stone is finished, which will result in a bad looking measurement, while the stone will still look the same.

I agree, that this would happen, but no cutter in his right mind would do that. I suppose that you would agree that most cutters know what they are doing. Likewise, you would agree that they would cut for the highest financial gain.

Now, suppose that this nice H&A is finished, and there is a slight inclusion at the side of the table, that can be cut away by tilting the table. First, the cutter must have made a mistake previously, because he could have foreseen this after he put the original table facet.

Now, he needs to correct his mistake. He can tilt the table, but he knows that he risks his H&A-pattern, and a lower symmetry-rating from the labs. That means that he will only tilt the table, if he has room to re-cut the whole stone. Another option is lowering the table, without changing the inclination, and in that way, he only needs to re-cut the crown.

If he would just stick to tilting the table, without re-cutting other parts of the stone, and if this would result in just a Good-symmetry-rating of GIA (like Gary claims that his stock has 10-20% of these stones), then the current sales value of this stone would be badly affected. This makes no sense for the cutter.

Of course, sometimes, people do things that make no sense. To me, this whole discussion is a perfect example. But if this starts to hurt in your wallet, I think that you will think twice.

Live long,

Page supported by:

Sergey Sivovolenko, OctoNus, Moscow, Russia
Yuri Shelementiev, Gemological Center MSU, Moscow, Russia