ADAMAS GEMOLOGICAL LABORATORY publishes gemologically oriented software for the jewelry appraiser, jeweler, or student in gemology or mineralogy. The laboratory also provides technical consulting and jewelry appraisal services to the trade and the public and expert witness services to the legal profession.

The Greedy Institute Of Arrogance.Com

Questions, Comments, Any Contributions To This Web Page Are WelcomedAD

Author's Note: This web page will probably be a continuing saga, both as a historical prospective and a real time critique of a not for profit's stranglehold on a industry. We will supply facts to the trade, with a little editorial humor thrown in for good measure. I will not mince any words either. G-D (aka you know who) does not take well to criticism, whether or not it is deserved or justified, as I have personally found out, but as they say, if they don't like it, well, you know what they can do.

It is indeed unfortunate for the hard working people at this industry asset that a few misguided members of management have created an organization, which, in my opinion, has lost the goals and ideals of its founder, Robert M. Shipley.  This page will detail their arrogance, in both recent events, and also historically.

Contributions to this page are welcomed.


Think of me as the puppy!!!!

(Of course we all know who the QB is, or was)



2006 GIA Patent Application 20060267975 **

Intellectual Property Theft ????

(** This particular pdf file requires Adobe 6.0 or higher to read)

Since 1994, in the Adamas Advantage AccuplotTM software that I published, my users, as well as all subsequent SAS2000 Spectrophotometer Analysis System users, have had, as part of the software packages, for use in their laboratories, report generation which generated a three dimension crown, pavilion and profile view of the PARTICULAR diamond or gemstone being reported on, based on manual input of the averaged table, crown angle, star facet length, girdle thickness, pavilion angle, pavilion depth, pavilion break facet length and culet size. In other words, a profile view of the diamond to the actual proportions of the stone.

When the first SARIN scanner came out, I added the capabilities to read the appropriate information from the SARIN RSL files containing this information, as well as add that information like star facet and pavilion facet lengths which were not initially provided. SARIN, Helium and OGI, the major manufacturers of profile scanners added their own report generation as they developed their hardware and software.

In 1994 Jeweler Circular Keystone published an article on my innovative software, available in pdf form here. This software, as well as subsequent versions, allowed the user to accurately plot inclusions in there dimensions. At that time, in the mid 1990's, and prior to GIA's rollout of there internal Horizon data base, I lent a copy of the software to GIA's Tom Yonnalunas, in the hope that they would consider it. After a 6-month period, the software was returned to me personally, with the statement that they were already implementing something similar.

My users worldwide, have had the SAME capability as stated in the GIA Patent application**, with the exception of the diagram callouts showing what dimension the table, for example, referred to.

Now their patent application is clearly based on my prior art in terms of drawing the profile to actual proportions, and their callouts are nothing more than a duplication of what I know the American Gem Society Laboratories have been doing for years on their reports.

Many US and worldwide laboratories have, since 2000 or so, included on their reports, profile views of the gemstone, some stock and some accurately drawn to averaged proportions, happily without the half-assed rounding scheme that GIA came up with for their new cut grade reports, 10 years behind the times. Only problem was that they said the diagram was to the actual proportions of the diamond, when it wasn't. It was drawn to their half-assed rounded proportions (for example, they gave crown angles to one decimal point and rounded the averaged crown angle to the nearest 0.5-degree. See below) I think they have changed their advertisement and eliminated wording on the report implies "actual" proportions.

Now, I leave it to the public and the courts, if need be, to decide the case, but to me it is clear and convincing evidence of arrogance, if not outright intellectual property theft, not inconsistent with how this non profit organization operates. 

When I first read this patent, I got somewhat p***ed off, as starting from the first independent claim 1, it is largely prior art, including the methodology and consistency checks, etc.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED AS A DESIGN PATENT, PERIOD, and not a UTILITY patent, but then of course it would be much simpler, and the attorneys wouldn't make as much money. 

WHAT IS NOVEL, and probably patentable, is the SPECIFIC TYPE OF GRAPHIC shown above in figures 4 and 5, and covered in claims 7, 8, 13, 24, and NOT the general profile presentation with EXTERNAL callouts or descriptors/dimensions.

What GIA has done, to their credit, is construct a PARTICULAR graphic presentation(s) (fig 4 and 5 of the patent) where all the facets in the profile are not shown, and INTERNAL to the profile are the callouts/ descriptors/dimensions, as opposed to the typical way of presentation where the dimensions/descriptors are EXTERNAL to the profile. All the rest of the application is pure dangerous BS.

However, they and their mouthpieces, claim the world in addition, because of the way the patent is written.

It should not be granted in this form, in my opinion, because it gives them the world..

Typical GIA Arithmetic

Their patent claims to take great care to make things consistent, computer checks etc in their claims..

Do the arithmetic on the numbers in the graphic below from the patent..

Table 57%
Crown Height = 13.5%
Crown Angle 34.5 degrees

SEEMS their rounding scheme makes for strange numbers.. par for the course

CROWN ANGLE = ArcTan(Crown Height%/(50% - 0.5*Table%))
CROWN ANGLE = ArcTan(13.5/21.5) =ArcTan (0.627907) = 32.12 degrees, NOT 34.5 degrees





Girdle Thickness And Changes In The Meaning of Words

In the 1990's wrote in about the classic girdle tables

Recently I wrote in a Pricescope article  regarding FARCEWARE(TM)..

One of the thing I first noticed in what they publicly published regarding their new cut grade was that an extremely thin girdle (i.e. knife edge)
could get a VERY GOOD cut grade, so I did a little searching and came across a page from their internal lab manual of 1998 (which I just happen to have had a copy of).

Now based on what I had previously documented about girdle thickness issues on my web site I came up with (based on GIA published information) the boundaries (Measured at the minimums of the scallops) in the mid 1990's of

Thin:: Less than 0.15 millimeters
Medium:: between 0.15 and 0.20 millimeters
Slightly Thick:: between 0.20 and 0.23 millimeters
Thick:: between 0.23 and 0.33 millimeters
Very Thick:: between 0.33 and 0.40 millimeters
Extremely Thick: greater than 0.40 millimeters

By 1998 they had internally stretched the grading of girdle thickness; for a 1 carat stone,  it appears that:

Very Thin: (New <0.05mm)

Thin or less: Less than 0.15 millimeters (New 0.05mm-0.1mm)
To be called thin or less the stone's girdle is allowed to be much thinner than before

Medium: between 0.15 and 0.20 millimeters (New 0.1mm-0.15mm)
To be called medium, the stone's girdle is allowed to be much thinner than before

Slightly Thick: between 0.20 and 0.23 millimeters (New 0.15mm-0.2mm)
To be called slightly thick, the stone's girdle is allowed to be much thinner than before (Strange)

Thick: between 0.23 and 0.33 millimeters (New 0.2mm-0.3mm)
The thick range is the same width, but can be thinner than before

Very Thick: between 0.33 and 0.40 millimeters (New 0.3mm-0.5mm)
The very thick range has widened and can be much thicker than before

Extremely Thick: greater than 0.40 millimeters (New >0.5mm)
To be called Extremely Thick, the girdle can be 25% thicker than before

GIA's new Diamond Grading Lab manual substitutes ambiguous and subjective language for their old % charts.

Now what they are doing internally at GIA/GTL in 2006, is anyone's guess, but my intuition tells me that a Jeep Wheel might get a medium girdle, just so that
their paper reads right..  BUT THAT IS ONLY MY OPINION

Master Stones A Subject Near And Dear To My Heart

Here is example from a professional acquaintance of mine

Isn't he lucky, his K master is now a J master


Upcoming Articles On Policies

580 Fifth Ave Non Competition Lease

Not For Profit Status Update


The QVC Debacle

Clintonesque Tactics

Upcoming Articles On Technical Issues

The Meaning Of The Word NONE

HPHT "Natural" Paper

The American Brilliant Cut




Synthetic Diamond


I'll try to put these links in chronological order later (List is incomplete: Google "Certifigate" for More)

21 hypertext Links From IDEX

FarceWareTM And The New GIA Cut Grade Fiasco

Let's look at the GIA Loupe and other advertising to the trade on the new cut grade and their new paper ( Too bad it is laminated, it would have a higher and better use)..  Here is a full page propaganda piece. Note the callout stating "actual proportions", PURE unadulterated BULLSHIT, a outright, unadulterated lie.


If you want to see the "New GIA" paradigm for an EX cut grade compared with the American Gem Societies AGS000 along with older cut grade paradigms of a year ago download . It might give you some food for thought as to which laboratory is being more selective as to overall quality of cutting.