ASET of a Daussi???

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Brand consistency and Daussi.
In this case, the brand has a lot to do with the jewelry they make.
I'd say more-so than loose diamonds.
They rarely offer thier Cushions loose.

They have a particular look and feel, for sure, but at the same time a wide variety of offerings.
In terms of shallow stones: There are many stones which are considered well cut, that have depth percentages which could be considered shallow.
There are definitely Daussi stones that fit this category.
Charmy, were the stones you saw loose or mounted?
I'm sure you have a lot of great experience and could probably work in the trade, if you so desired.

In terms of how light bounces, color dispersion, etc- if you could always repeat the conditions, than you could repeat the results.
That's a great argument for things like ASET and IS.
However, an argument could be made that since diamonds never are looked at that way in real life, the results might not be applicable in the way one might expect.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Date: 5/23/2010 6:18:53 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Charmy, were the stones you saw loose or mounted?
I''m sure you have a lot of great experience and could probably work in the trade, if you so desired.

I highly doubt I can work in trade - there is too much I don''t know and don''t want to know - I will leave it to the experts.

One of them was mounted in a halo split shank setting - I was actually considering that setting for myself. The other one was being sold second hand - I was suppose to see the ring and diamond together but the person decided to keep the setting and sell the stone. As such, they only showed me the stone unmounted.

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 5/23/2010 4:02:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

When we use terms like 'leakage' it's an insult. no it is not, it is a cold hard fact

And the term 'leakage' is so often used when people have not even seen the stone, it's really a shame. I disagree there are many ways to tell if a diamond will have leakage

Can someone determine that a stone has 'leakage' simply by it's crown and pavilion angle? in some cases yes, having the LGF% can be needed in some RB combos. IS/ASET white Images are definitive for diagnosing leakage.

If a consumer does not understand what leakage is, and they are warned , by someone who has not seen the diamond, that 'it might have leakage under the table', what would you expect their response to be? to find out what it means

From where I sit, a big problem is that consumers reading this don't necessarily understand who's who. then it is their job to learn who they want to listen to and why. It is real easy to find out who is worth listening to and who isn't. Many consumers here have a ton more credibility than some trade people.

By using pseudo scientific terminology like 'leakage' and 'better optics' as they are commonly used, the natural assumption of a typical consumer is that the people using these terms are experts. some are, if you don't like consumers helping consumers you are on the wrong board

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/23/2010 12:51:52 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/23/2010 6:07:43 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Yssie, that is not blasphemy - at least not in my book - it is exactly what I have been saying on this board for a decade.



Many very knowledgeable people who cut very fine, even exceptional diamonds, would prefer it was not said. But no one has ever been able to prove that what you are saying is wrong.


i.e. no one from that camp has ever lined up for a pepsi taste test because, in my opinion, they know they will not be able to prove their case for symmetry which is above and beyond what the human eye can ''see''.


And that is the basis of all good science.


Prove or disprove.

Garry- I thought of a good analogy for this.
Let''s compare diamonds to headlight lenses, and how it relates to science.
If we are studying the science of optics, and it''s effect, a headlight is perfect. It needs to be designed to meet certain goals, based on certain givens.
1) the light source is fixed- always from the same spot behind the lens.
2) the desired effect is also fixed ( to a degree) We have high beams for times extra light is needed. But basically, the better it lights the road, while not blinding oncoming traffic, the better it is.
If you''ve ever compared the headlights in a high end luxury brand to an economy car, the difference can be marked. The high end brads have invested more in the technology.

Neither of those conditions applies to a diamond.
The source of lighting is never stable , especially when a diamond is worn.
And neither is the desired effect.
It''s probably true that over 50% of the people looking for a diamond today are seeking a traditional round brilliant. Maybe even 60%.
Within that 60% there are different groups. Some prefer Heart and Arrows, others don;t like the pattern.
But let''s not forget the other group.
Is someone ''wrong'' if they want a marquise?
If someone likes H&A stones, which can be more easily bought consistently, does that make them necessarily better? Only if one loves that look- and not everyone does.

Bringing science into it, in such a way that leads people to believe that a certain type of diamond is ''subpar'' is just wrong IMO.
In this very thread, someone used ''science'' to try and say one diamond was surely ''better'' than another- ''better optics'' was the phrase used.
That is a misuse of science, and scientific terminology.
cliniquelove83- if there''s one point I can make here- it would be to you- you probably have a gorgeous stone. Who cares if it does not score well on tests that don''t matter to you anyway?
Was there ever a time you needed your diamond to cast light on something and it failed you?

Lets play RD

1. the light''s mirror is aged and lost some reflectivity = leakage
2. the reflector is a pure spot light like ones used for hunting - so the observer see''s his own head from face up, and hardly anything else from a side view = a nail head (you know what a nail head is?)
3. the refelector is a flood version, so like many princess cuts, it throws (and collects) light from all over and never has the face up brightness of a well cut round
4. a well cut stone gathers a lot of light and sends more of it back in a Cosine way - more to the center and much less to the horizons

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/23/2010 7:11:33 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 5/23/2010 4:02:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

When we use terms like ''leakage'' it''s an insult. no it is not, it is a cold hard fact

And the term ''leakage'' is so often used when people have not even seen the stone, it''s really a shame. I disagree there are many ways to tell if a diamond will have leakage

Can someone determine that a stone has ''leakage'' simply by it''s crown and pavilion angle? in some cases yes, having the LGF% can be needed in some RB combos. IS/ASET white Images are definitive for diagnosing leakage.

If a consumer does not understand what leakage is, and they are warned , by someone who has not seen the diamond, that ''it might have leakage under the table'', what would you expect their response to be? to find out what it means

From where I sit, a big problem is that consumers reading this don''t necessarily understand who''s who. then it is their job to learn who they want to listen to and why. It is real easy to find out who is worth listening to and who isn''t. Many consumers here have a ton more credibility than some trade people.

By using pseudo scientific terminology like ''leakage'' and ''better optics'' as they are commonly used, the natural assumption of a typical consumer is that the people using these terms are experts. some are, if you don''t like consumers helping consumers you are on the wrong board

I just wanted to reply to this, well said Karl.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/23/2010 8:31:18 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/23/2010 12:51:52 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/23/2010 6:07:43 AM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Yssie, that is not blasphemy - at least not in my book - it is exactly what I have been saying on this board for a decade.




Many very knowledgeable people who cut very fine, even exceptional diamonds, would prefer it was not said. But no one has ever been able to prove that what you are saying is wrong.



i.e. no one from that camp has ever lined up for a pepsi taste test because, in my opinion, they know they will not be able to prove their case for symmetry which is above and beyond what the human eye can ''see''.



And that is the basis of all good science.



Prove or disprove.

Garry- I thought of a good analogy for this.

Let''s compare diamonds to headlight lenses, and how it relates to science.

If we are studying the science of optics, and it''s effect, a headlight is perfect. It needs to be designed to meet certain goals, based on certain givens.

1) the light source is fixed- always from the same spot behind the lens.

2) the desired effect is also fixed ( to a degree) We have high beams for times extra light is needed. But basically, the better it lights the road, while not blinding oncoming traffic, the better it is.

If you''ve ever compared the headlights in a high end luxury brand to an economy car, the difference can be marked. The high end brads have invested more in the technology.


Neither of those conditions applies to a diamond.

The source of lighting is never stable , especially when a diamond is worn.

And neither is the desired effect.

It''s probably true that over 50% of the people looking for a diamond today are seeking a traditional round brilliant. Maybe even 60%.

Within that 60% there are different groups. Some prefer Heart and Arrows, others don;t like the pattern.

But let''s not forget the other group.

Is someone ''wrong'' if they want a marquise?

If someone likes H&A stones, which can be more easily bought consistently, does that make them necessarily better? Only if one loves that look- and not everyone does.


Bringing science into it, in such a way that leads people to believe that a certain type of diamond is ''subpar'' is just wrong IMO.

In this very thread, someone used ''science'' to try and say one diamond was surely ''better'' than another- ''better optics'' was the phrase used.

That is a misuse of science, and scientific terminology.

cliniquelove83- if there''s one point I can make here- it would be to you- you probably have a gorgeous stone. Who cares if it does not score well on tests that don''t matter to you anyway?

Was there ever a time you needed your diamond to cast light on something and it failed you?

Lets play RD


1. the light''s mirror is aged and lost some reflectivity = leakage

2. the reflector is a pure spot light like ones used for hunting - so the observer see''s his own head from face up, and hardly anything else from a side view = a nail head (you know what a nail head is?)

3. the refelector is a flood version, so like many princess cuts, it throws (and collects) light from all over and never has the face up brightness of a well cut round

4. a well cut stone gathers a lot of light and sends more of it back in a Cosine way - more to the center and much less to the horizons

Hi Garry,
I totally get your point.
But you never really responded to the points I raised.
In real life there''s never a fixed source of light.
Nor is there a fixed goal as to the desired dispersion of light.
We could easily make the argument, based on science, that a marquise ( for example) is simply a bad design in terms of light return, especially if we compare it to a round. Does that mean people who love marquise need to be "re-educated"?

Charmy- I honestly believe what I wrote.
Compared to many salespeople behind the counter, a lot of posters ( pro-sumers) here would have a lot more accurate info for customers. Much of the info here on PS is spot on, and not all that easy to learn if a jewelry store was the only source of info.
There would also be a leaning process as the real world of diamonds and jewelry presents some aspects that simply can''t be dealt with on the internet- but having a good base of knowledge is a great start. Which I believe many people here do.

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/24/2010 10:07:40 AM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/23/2010 8:31:18 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 5/23/2010 12:51:52 PM


Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/23/2010 6:07:43 AM


Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


Yssie, that is not blasphemy - at least not in my book - it is exactly what I have been saying on this board for a decade.





Many very knowledgeable people who cut very fine, even exceptional diamonds, would prefer it was not said. But no one has ever been able to prove that what you are saying is wrong.




i.e. no one from that camp has ever lined up for a pepsi taste test because, in my opinion, they know they will not be able to prove their case for symmetry which is above and beyond what the human eye can ''see''.




And that is the basis of all good science.




Prove or disprove.

Garry- I thought of a good analogy for this.


Let''s compare diamonds to headlight lenses, and how it relates to science.


If we are studying the science of optics, and it''s effect, a headlight is perfect. It needs to be designed to meet certain goals, based on certain givens.


1) the light source is fixed- always from the same spot behind the lens.


2) the desired effect is also fixed ( to a degree) We have high beams for times extra light is needed. But basically, the better it lights the road, while not blinding oncoming traffic, the better it is.


If you''ve ever compared the headlights in a high end luxury brand to an economy car, the difference can be marked. The high end brads have invested more in the technology.



Neither of those conditions applies to a diamond.


The source of lighting is never stable , especially when a diamond is worn.


And neither is the desired effect.


It''s probably true that over 50% of the people looking for a diamond today are seeking a traditional round brilliant. Maybe even 60%.


Within that 60% there are different groups. Some prefer Heart and Arrows, others don;t like the pattern.


But let''s not forget the other group.


Is someone ''wrong'' if they want a marquise?


If someone likes H&A stones, which can be more easily bought consistently, does that make them necessarily better? Only if one loves that look- and not everyone does.



Bringing science into it, in such a way that leads people to believe that a certain type of diamond is ''subpar'' is just wrong IMO.


In this very thread, someone used ''science'' to try and say one diamond was surely ''better'' than another- ''better optics'' was the phrase used.


That is a misuse of science, and scientific terminology.


cliniquelove83- if there''s one point I can make here- it would be to you- you probably have a gorgeous stone. Who cares if it does not score well on tests that don''t matter to you anyway?


Was there ever a time you needed your diamond to cast light on something and it failed you?

Lets play RD



1. the light''s mirror is aged and lost some reflectivity = leakage


2. the reflector is a pure spot light like ones used for hunting - so the observer see''s his own head from face up, and hardly anything else from a side view = a nail head (you know what a nail head is?)


3. the refelector is a flood version, so like many princess cuts, it throws (and collects) light from all over and never has the face up brightness of a well cut round


4. a well cut stone gathers a lot of light and sends more of it back in a Cosine way - more to the center and much less to the horizons

Hi Garry,

I totally get your point.

But you never really responded to the points I raised.

In real life there''s never a fixed source of light.

Nor is there a fixed goal as to the desired dispersion of light.

We could easily make the argument, based on science, that a marquise ( for example) is simply a bad design in terms of light return, especially if we compare it to a round. Does that mean people who love marquise need to be ''re-educated''?


Charmy- I honestly believe what I wrote.

Compared to many salespeople behind the counter, a lot of posters ( pro-sumers) here would have a lot more accurate info for customers. Much of the info here on PS is spot on, and not all that easy to learn if a jewelry store was the only source of info.

There would also be a leaning process as the real world of diamonds and jewelry presents some aspects that simply can''t be dealt with on the internet- but having a good base of knowledge is a great start. Which I believe many people here do.

re:We could easily make the argument, based on science, that a marquise ( for example) is simply a bad design in terms of light return, especially if we compare it to a round. Does that mean people who love marquise need to be "re-educated"?

No. But Current marquise design should be and could be Re-Designed.

 

[kenny]

Date: 5/24/2010 11:47:19 AM
Author: Serg
re:We could easily make the argument, based on science, that a marquise ( for example) is simply a bad design in terms of light return, especially if we compare it to a round. Does that mean people who love marquise need to be 're-educated'?

No. But Current marquise design should be and could be Re-Designed.

Serg you just acknowledge the cut of the marquise can be improved.
If there can be a well-cut and a poorly-cut marquise, then it follows there can be a well and a poorly-cut cushion.
The two cuts in this thread (AVC and Daussi) are both cushions.
Try to ignore that they are both brand names (and who sells them) and just think of them as two cushions side by side.

Even a design with leakage and obstruction issues can be well marketed and have admirers who do not know what light performance is possible from the same shape.
It is not hard to discern the motivation of the cutters and vendors when they embrace the Daussi, if it is shallow and faces up large for its weight.
Preserving weight is why we have so many steep deeps.

Daussi sounds to me like a solution for rough that is of a problem shape.
Optimum light return requires optimum angles and depth.
Cut that is too shallow or deep to perform well can be the result of cutting to retain weight in rough of various shapes.

Buyers get a large-looking diamond for their budget, just the opposite of the asscher.
Lovers of the Daussi have every right to love their stones, but that does not mean they meet the criteria for good cut like AVC do.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/24/2010 4:34:35 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 5/23/2010 7:11:33 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 5/23/2010 4:02:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

When we use terms like 'leakage' it's an insult. no it is not, it is a cold hard fact
HI Karl- what, specifically, is the "cold hard fact" you refer to?
Is there a diamond that does not "leak light"
Although GIA does mention the word "leakage", does GIA or AGSL concur with your conclusions? If so, please show us where that might be found.
And the term 'leakage' is so often used when people have not even seen the stone, it's really a shame. I disagree there are many ways to tell if a diamond will have leakage

Can someone determine that a stone has 'leakage' simply by it's crown and pavilion angle? in some cases yes, having the LGF% can be needed in some RB combos. IS/ASET white Images are definitive for diagnosing leakage.

If a consumer does not understand what leakage is, and they are warned , by someone who has not seen the diamond, that 'it might have leakage under the table', what would you expect their response to be? to find out what it means

From where I sit, a big problem is that consumers reading this don't necessarily understand who's who. then it is their job to learn who they want to listen to and why. It is real easy to find out who is worth listening to and who isn't. Many consumers here have a ton more credibility than some trade people.

By using pseudo scientific terminology like 'leakage' and 'better optics' as they are commonly used, the natural assumption of a typical consumer is that the people using these terms are experts. some are, if you don't like consumers helping consumers you are on the wrong board

I just wanted to reply to this, well said Karl.

HI Guys,
I'm of the opinion that clarity is a good thing. It's not my PS, or yours- but I feel that unsuspecting consumers who ask for "expert" advice are oft times given suppositions by other consumers in such a way it sounds like a fact.
IN this very thread there is advice clearly stating one stone was "better"- and the advice was given by someone who might easily be mistaken for an "expert- who has never seen either stone.


Going back to marquise- there's no doubt there are some marquises possessing attributes that will be preferred by some- and rejected by others.
Take a shallow stone, that may show more leakage when tilted compared to a stone of greater depth which might have more life overall.
There are people, when shown both types of stones- and shown how to notice the windowing when viewed at an angle, that will choose the larger looking stone.
This might also apply to comparing older style cushions, such as AVC, versus a low depth Daussi.

I, for one, think it's a mistake to insult either group.

 

[TakingthePlunge]

Well i'm kinda bummed this thread is degenerating into another argument.


There are no standards for cushions. Buying online is a crap shoot and a half. In order to find a good cushion I need to have a way to quickly assess the cut properties prior to spending my money to fly out and see it or get it shipped to me. ASETS are my best tool to do this. Im sure most of you know how an ASET works but I see enough misprints around the forum to sometimes have my doubts. Garry has a great pictorial explaination of how ASETs work here http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_ASET_scope.asp

ASETS are a snapshot in time. Mid page youll notice there's a video and some additional ASETs at diferent angles. If you notice, as the angles change, blues become reds, reds become greens and greens go to blues. It reverses if you tilt the other way. Its not perfect but it happens quite regularly. Also note that areas of color become leakage and leakage areas turn to color. Thats a very important point that gets lost on a lot of PS threads.

A straight up ASET provides in theory, the snapshot in time where my GF will be looking at the stone most of the time. This is why AGS grades that view the most. But I can also use that face up information to infer how the diamond will behave. I look a lot at blue. I am a contrast guy. A diamond should have good balance. and not just overload the looker with a big ball of light. I also theorize that blue areas will provide the greatest light return variability. What I mean by that is I can tilt that diamond an aweful lot before that facet "turns off". Blues should be great for dynamic settings like moving your hand. Red should have the next largest range and green is a gamble.

Leakage is simply when from your view the light is reflected though the diamond in such a way that you see whats on the other side of the diamond. If you change the angle theres a chance that light can be reflected back. It just needs to be investigated in person. Leakage in general is bad. No one wants a window, but leakage at one angle may turn into red at another.

So thats why I asked for an ASET. I wanna know what makes the cut tick. I like the look of the cut and want to know more.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/24/2010 12:40:50 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 5/24/2010 4:34:35 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 5/23/2010 7:11:33 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 5/23/2010 4:02:38 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

When we use terms like 'leakage' it's an insult. no it is not, it is a cold hard fact
HI Karl- what, specifically, is the 'cold hard fact' you refer to?
Is there a diamond that does not 'leak light'
Although GIA does mention the word 'leakage', does GIA or AGSL concur with your conclusions? If so, please show us where that might be found.
And the term 'leakage' is so often used when people have not even seen the stone, it's really a shame. I disagree there are many ways to tell if a diamond will have leakage

Can someone determine that a stone has 'leakage' simply by it's crown and pavilion angle? in some cases yes, having the LGF% can be needed in some RB combos. IS/ASET white Images are definitive for diagnosing leakage.

If a consumer does not understand what leakage is, and they are warned , by someone who has not seen the diamond, that 'it might have leakage under the table', what would you expect their response to be? to find out what it means

From where I sit, a big problem is that consumers reading this don't necessarily understand who's who. then it is their job to learn who they want to listen to and why. It is real easy to find out who is worth listening to and who isn't. Many consumers here have a ton more credibility than some trade people.

By using pseudo scientific terminology like 'leakage' and 'better optics' as they are commonly used, the natural assumption of a typical consumer is that the people using these terms are experts. some are, if you don't like consumers helping consumers you are on the wrong board

I just wanted to reply to this, well said Karl.

HI Guys,
I'm of the opinion that clarity is a good thing. It's not my PS, or yours- but I feel that unsuspecting consumers who ask for 'expert' advice are oft times given suppositions by other consumers in such a way it sounds like a fact.
IN this very thread there is advice clearly stating one stone was 'better'- and the advice was given by someone who might easily be mistaken for an 'expert- who has never seen either stone.


Going back to marquise- there's no doubt there are some marquises possessing attributes that will be preferred by some- and rejected by others.
Take a shallow stone, that may show more leakage when tilted compared to a stone of greater depth which might have more life overall.
There are people, when shown both types of stones- and shown how to notice the windowing when viewed at an angle, that will choose the larger looking stone.
This might also apply to comparing older style cushions, such as AVC, versus a low depth Daussi.

I, for one, think it's a mistake to insult either group.

David, I have explained the above in detail earlier in this thread, to no avail obviously, and I don't think you keep bringing this up is serving any good purpose, especially for the original poster of this thread. You obviously have a problem with many of my posts judging by some of your recent responses towards me which I have noticed have either been stated directly or indirectly, either way I have got your message. If you have a problem with the way I work here then I can only now refer you to admin to discuss matters as this situation has now become ongoing.

With the highlighted statement above, I have tried to explain to you my meaning yet it obviously isn't satisfactory, but I will tell you this.

Until admin tell me otherwise, I or anyone else am entitled to have an opinion on diamonds that have not been viewed in person and I am entitled to voice that opinion. As for me being an expert, I do the best I can to make sure consumers know that I for one am NOT an expert and it is also down to a responsible consumer to find out who is who, whom offers good advice and who does not as the case may be and do their own research.

I hope the above finally alleviates the concerns you have. But out of respect for the original poster if you want to continue to discuss various issues David please start a new thread.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Takingtheplunge: I'll be happy to take further ASET photos for you.,
Personally I don't feel that they are the best way to assess the cut- especially in the case of stones like Daussi cushions- and you pointed out the reasons why. Move the diamond, and it looks different.
Sorry if there is open disagreement, but if I can assist, I will.
Given that you asked for ASET, discussing the value of such photos is certainly on point here. It does oft times seem that unless one agrees lock stock and barrel with IS/ASET and other things that are, in the real diamond world, controversial and not widely accepted, a war breaks out.

ETA- Lorelei- I am not trying to pick on you- or anyone- I see a lot of posts that make me cringe, I just pass them on by. IN this case, since we do have personal knowledge I felt a response was needed.
I do not want to argue with anyone- Karl has made statements which you agreed with- after stating you also did not want to insult or argue.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 5/24/2010 1:21:06 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Takingtheplunge: I'll be happy to take further ASET photos for you.,
Personally I don't feel that they are the best way to assess the cut- especially in the case of stones like Daussi cushions- and you pointed out the reasons why. Move the diamond, and it looks different.
Sorry if there is open disagreement, but if I can assist, I will.
Given that you asked for ASET, discussing the value of such photos is certainly on point here. It does oft times seem that unless one agrees lock stock and barrel with IS/ASET and other things that are, in the real diamond world, controversial and not widely accepted, a war breaks out.

ETA- Lorelei- I am not trying to pick on you- or anyone- I see a lot of posts that make me cringe, I just pass them on by. IN this case, since we do have personal knowledge I felt a response was needed.
I do not want to argue with anyone- Karl has made statements which you agreed with- after stating you also did not want to insult or argue.

I really should not keep responding out of courtesy to the OP but David, I have to address this point. I am not insulting or arguing with you - period. I am trying to explain my position and point of view to you as you have continually brought up a particular issue in this thread and have done so with my posts repeatedly in the recent past. As to agreeing with Karl's statements I wanted to respond a while ago but his thoughts matched my own - hence the ditto/ well said.

That is not insulting you or arguing with you, sorry if you feel that way but if you do you misunderstand and I think you have known me long enough here to also know that is not the way I operate.

Now lets get this thread back on track for the original poster and if again if you have concerns about me please contact admin, if you have issues about how RT operates in particular, start another thread and we can discuss things there.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/24/2010 10:07:40 AM
Author: Rockdiamond


Hi Garry,
I totally get your point.
But you never really responded to the points I raised.
In real life there''s never a fixed source of light.
Nor is there a fixed goal as to the desired dispersion of light.
You clearly did not get my point David, infact you rarely bother to ''get'' anyones point of view, which is possibly why you come across as the slowest learner anyone ever struck on this board.
We could easily make the argument, based on science, that a marquise ( for example) is simply a bad design in terms of light return, especially if we compare it to a round. Does that mean people who love marquise need to be ''re-educated''?
People who love marquise do deserve to know that the performance of the stones varies, and that there are different styles of cutting with more, or with less bow tie effects. But most importantly they should also understand that the cut after comparison with a well cut round.

 

[Rockdiamond]

So someone walks into your store asking for a marquise, and you show them a round?


I'll still be happy to assist the op, if they want ASET photos of Daussi stones.
Then you can tell them all the reasons they should not want one.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/24/2010 4:41:20 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
So someone walks into your store asking for a marquise, and you show them a round?


I''ll still be happy to assist the op, if they want ASET photos of Daussi stones.
Then you can tell them all the reasons they should not want one.

Nice that you edited out the attack David. But FYI I never promote the sales of Ideal-scope or ASET from my 2 stores.

And yes, I do like my staff to let people know the difference between different cuts. I even tried to convince a client who is a friend of my step son to consider a new cushion that out performs princess cuts, and appears somewhat similar in the type of setting he likes.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 5/21/2010 1:05:04 PM
Author:TakingthePlunge
As the title implies, I am wondering if anyone is in possesion of an ASET image of a Daussi cushion. I have been looking over AVCs for awhile now and they are certainly at the top of my list right now but I recently found the Daussi cushion and that certainly has its own charm.

It looks like a great cut in pictures but I have my doubts about those super huge pavilion facets even those are what drew my in in the first place.

I really don''t understand why this thread has gone where it is.
RD please just take an image where the diamond is lieing flat in a backlit white holder, a better image where light only enters the diamond from the back not the side.

The rest of this is rather the same pointless arguments that have gone round and round for a long time and many threads.
RD''s definition and standards for beauty is far different from most other vendors here that is okay lets move on from this point.
We can get a lot further by focussing on light performance specifically brightness and contrast as measured by the ASET which is what the OP asked for not a debate on whether Daussi cushions are beautiful..

We can really tackle the objective measure of light perfrmance and return (which is what the OP is asking for ) properly in two ways, the best way might be to get a sarin scan for one or several of these daussi cushions and then get someone with Diamcalc to simulate the ASET with tilting from a .gem file. I am sure Garry or Serg would be willing to do this if RD would provide the .srn file.

The other way would be to look at several static tilt positions through the AGS ASET video camera (if RD could borrow one ) or once RD learns how to control the lighting (no side lighting) and pictures by taking shapshots through his handheld ASET at different tilt angles of the diamond.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sarins are no problem whatsoever.
I''d say it will take a few days, but I''ll be very happy to get one or a few scans performed.

We agree CCL- let''s keep the discussion about assisting the OP, and answering the question.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/24/2010 11:14:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Sarins are no problem whatsoever.

I''d say it will take a few days, but I''ll be very happy to get one or a few scans performed.


We agree CCL- let''s keep the discussion about assisting the OP, and answering the question.

Ask them for a .srn David.
I will make .gem files and also put up wider ranged tilting movies on YouTube

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 5/24/2010 1:02:12 PM
Author: TakingthePlunge
Well i'm kinda bummed this thread is degenerating into another argument.


There are no standards for cushions. Buying online is a crap shoot and a half. In order to find a good cushion I need to have a way to quickly assess the cut properties prior to spending my money to fly out and see it or get it shipped to me. ASETS are my best tool to do this. Im sure most of you know how an ASET works but I see enough misprints around the forum to sometimes have my doubts. Garry has a great pictorial explaination of how ASETs work here http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_ASET_scope.asp

ASETS are a snapshot in time. Mid page youll notice there's a video and some additional ASETs at diferent angles. If you notice, as the angles change, blues become reds, reds become greens and greens go to blues. It reverses if you tilt the other way. Its not perfect but it happens quite regularly. Also note that areas of color become leakage and leakage areas turn to color. Thats a very important point that gets lost on a lot of PS threads.

A straight up ASET provides in theory, the snapshot in time where my GF will be looking at the stone most of the time. This is why AGS grades that view the most. But I can also use that face up information to infer how the diamond will behave. I look a lot at blue. I am a contrast guy. A diamond should have good balance. and not just overload the looker with a big ball of light. I also theorize that blue areas will provide the greatest light return variability. What I mean by that is I can tilt that diamond an aweful lot before that facet 'turns off'. Blues should be great for dynamic settings like moving your hand. Red should have the next largest range and green is a gamble.

Leakage is simply when from your view the light is reflected though the diamond in such a way that you see whats on the other side of the diamond. If you change the angle theres a chance that light can be reflected back. It just needs to be investigated in person. Leakage in general is bad. No one wants a window, but leakage at one angle may turn into red at another.

So thats why I asked for an ASET. I wanna know what makes the cut tick. I like the look of the cut and want to know more.

TTP,

1. Many cuts of cushion like the AVC do not change where they gather light from significantly over a tilt of 15 degrees in either direction. If Rhino would allow me I would provide a link where you can download a .gem advisor file and view a video as the diamond is tilted under the ASET lighting.
The areas of obstruction and leakage move slightly and appear or disappear but these changes are minor. What this tells us is that a well cut damond will maintain its brightness over the entire tilt range and our eyes will view it as a very bright diamond.

As Serg said in another thread, if one tilt position has signifiant leakage or obstruction issues (like faceup) the brain will remember this throughout the tilt range. It is rare in the commonly produced brilliant cuts (princess, round, cushion) for a stone to have a poor faceup appearance and be significantly better through the majority of tilted positions, it is also rare for a diamond to have an excellent faceup image and be poor in the tilted positions. In step cuts and some theoretical designs this is certainly possible but not in the vast majority of actual brilliant cut diamonds.

You can view this appearance yourself by viewing .gem simulated video files of some princess cuts on the GOG or HighperformanceDiamond websites and selecting the ASET 30 black lighting. Even the video in the posted llink of a well cut princess the differences in the appearance over the tillt range are minimial. In fancy shapes the goal is not to eliminate leakage, it is a balance of many factors including but not limited to (virtual facet size, brightness, contrast, fire, scintillation, optical symmetry and shape outine) one must not compare the same standard as in rounds to fancy shapes or worry about small areas of leakage or obstruction they are often a positive as they add contrast. However, large ares of obstruction or leakage (as I suspect to see in a Daussi) or widespread distribution of areas where light is not efficiently directed to the viewer are worrysome and can be readily observed as darkness or a lack of life and can be inferred from a single faceup ASET image.

2 It is a frequent mistake made here for posters to think that just because several facets return light to the viewer from the same angular range (ie one solid ASET red area) that all of these facets will function as one and act like a headlight. This is false! and a major weakness of the ASET scope. Facets that return light to the viewer from the same angluar range can still be out of phase with each other and it is often the ASET RED areas that are best for displaying scintillation.

ASET is a tool well suited for comparing Brightness, some forms of Contrast and can give an indication of virtual facet size for pre screening purposes. It can be applied (with some caveats and exceptions) just from the faceup image, but it can only effectively compare some of the damond light performance properties and cannot be a replacement for video or ultimate in person viewing for selection purposes. The big advantage to using an ASET is it allows for a more structured and consistant lighting environment so that stones can be compared from different vendors where normally this would be much more difficult as they each have different lighting setups.

 

[TakingthePlunge]

Date: 5/25/2010 11:21:40 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 5/24/2010 1:02:12 PM
Author: TakingthePlunge
Well i''m kinda bummed this thread is degenerating into another argument.


There are no standards for cushions. Buying online is a crap shoot and a half. In order to find a good cushion I need to have a way to quickly assess the cut properties prior to spending my money to fly out and see it or get it shipped to me. ASETS are my best tool to do this. Im sure most of you know how an ASET works but I see enough misprints around the forum to sometimes have my doubts. Garry has a great pictorial explaination of how ASETs work here http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_ASET_scope.asp

ASETS are a snapshot in time. Mid page youll notice there''s a video and some additional ASETs at diferent angles. If you notice, as the angles change, blues become reds, reds become greens and greens go to blues. It reverses if you tilt the other way. Its not perfect but it happens quite regularly. Also note that areas of color become leakage and leakage areas turn to color. Thats a very important point that gets lost on a lot of PS threads.

A straight up ASET provides in theory, the snapshot in time where my GF will be looking at the stone most of the time. This is why AGS grades that view the most. But I can also use that face up information to infer how the diamond will behave. I look a lot at blue. I am a contrast guy. A diamond should have good balance. and not just overload the looker with a big ball of light. I also theorize that blue areas will provide the greatest light return variability. What I mean by that is I can tilt that diamond an aweful lot before that facet ''turns off''. Blues should be great for dynamic settings like moving your hand. Red should have the next largest range and green is a gamble.

Leakage is simply when from your view the light is reflected though the diamond in such a way that you see whats on the other side of the diamond. If you change the angle theres a chance that light can be reflected back. It just needs to be investigated in person. Leakage in general is bad. No one wants a window, but leakage at one angle may turn into red at another.

So thats why I asked for an ASET. I wanna know what makes the cut tick. I like the look of the cut and want to know more.

TTP,

1. Many cuts of cushion like the AVC do not change where they gather light from significantly over a tilt of 15 degrees in either direction. If Rhino would allow me I would provide a link where you can download a .gem advisor file and view a video as the diamond is tilted under the ASET lighting.
The areas of obstruction and leakage move slightly and appear or disappear but these changes are minor. What this tells us is that a well cut damond will maintain its brightness over the entire tilt range and our eyes will view it as a very bright diamond.

As Serg said in another thread, if one tilt position has signifiant leakage or obstruction issues (like faceup) the brain will remember this throughout the tilt range. It is rare in the commonly produced brilliant cuts (princess, round, cushion) for a stone to have a poor faceup appearance and be significantly better through the majority of tilted positions, it is also rare for a diamond to have an excellent faceup image and be poor in the tilted positions. In step cuts and some theoretical designs this is certainly possible but not in the vast majority of actual brilliant cut diamonds.

You can view this appearance yourself by viewing .gem simulated video files of some princess cuts on the GOG or HighperformanceDiamond websites and selecting the ASET 30 black lighting. Even the video in the posted llink of a well cut princess the differences in the appearance over the tillt range are minimial. In fancy shapes the goal is not to eliminate leakage, it is a balance of many factors including but not limited to (virtual facet size, brightness, contrast, fire, scintillation, optical symmetry and shape outine) one must not compare the same standard as in rounds to fancy shapes or worry about small areas of leakage or obstruction they are often a positive as they add contrast. However, large ares of obstruction or leakage (as I suspect to see in a Daussi) or widespread distribution of areas where light is not efficiently directed to the viewer are worrysome and can be readily observed as darkness or a lack of life and can be inferred from a single faceup ASET image.

2 It is a frequent mistake made here for posters to think that just because several facets return light to the viewer from the same angular range (ie one solid ASET red area) that all of these facets will function as one and act like a headlight. This is false! and a major weakness of the ASET scope. Facets that return light to the viewer from the same angluar range can still be out of phase with each other and it is often the ASET RED areas that are best for displaying scintillation.

ASET is a tool well suited for comparing Brightness, some forms of Contrast and can give an indication of virtual facet size for pre screening purposes. It can be applied (with some caveats and exceptions) just from the faceup image, but it can only effectively compare some of the damond light performance properties and cannot be a replacement for video or ultimate in person viewing for selection purposes. The big advantage to using an ASET is it allows for a more structured and consistant lighting environment so that stones can be compared from different vendors where normally this would be much more difficult as they each have different lighting setups.

1) Thats good to know about the AVCs. I have not looked into princess cuts so unfortunately I have yet to see any dynamic ASETs of stones. Ill be sure to look for some for my own education.

2) I agree 100 percent. The AVC is a great example of this. In ASETs the lower pavilions are a big ball of red but the maltese cross is clearly visable in real life as the facets are reflecting from different locations.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

1) Thats good to know about the AVCs. I have not looked into princess cuts so unfortunately I have yet to see any dynamic ASETs of stones. Ill be sure to look for some for my own education.

2) I agree 100 percent. The AVC is a great example of this. In ASETs the lower pavilions are a big ball of red but the maltese cross is clearly visable in real life as the facets are reflecting from different locations.

I can't provide a .gem file for an AVC as the cut information in the file may not be protected. However if you look at this diamond http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6723/ (you will see a case where tilting makes a huge difference and the obstruction seen in faceup changes significantly with tilt), this is a rare case.

1) Download the gemadvisor software here http://www.octonus.com/oct/download/adviser_demo_down.phtml
2) Download the attached .gem files from the GOG website under Gemadvisor or the one I attached in the forum here.
3) Change the lighting in gemadvisor to ASET 30 Black using the lightbulb dropdown and then press the green arrow play button.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

A good majority of cushions cut in a vintage style with shorter lower halves will look similar to the faceup over modest tilt angles, and with shallow crowns or pavillions will show obstruction (a bowtie) which doesn''t go away with tilt.
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5650/

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 5/24/2010 11:14:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Sarins are no problem whatsoever.
I'd say it will take a few days, but I'll be very happy to get one or a few scans performed.

We agree CCL- let's keep the discussion about assisting the OP, and answering the question.

RD,

Still waiting now over a week for the sarin scans of those Daussi Cushions were you able to take them yet?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 5/24/2010 11:14:29 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Sarins are no problem whatsoever.
I'd say it will take a few days, but I'll be very happy to get one or a few scans performed.

We agree CCL- let's keep the discussion about assisting the OP, and answering the question.

RD,

Still waiting now over a week for the sarin scans of those Daussi Cushions were you able to take them yet?

Well you still have not delivered RD its been 3 months.