ASET photos and discussion

[WinkHPD]

Thanks! I figured out from John Quixote''s pic that to post two pics at one time, just combine them into one. After all this time on PS, you would think I had figured that out by now...

Wink

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 1/9/2006 6:21:01 PM
Author: valeria101

My post wasn't too clear... I picked an idea from way up the thread without mention: that that choices based on taste among goods of similar quality are difficult via ASET (or reflector tools in general).

There were two convos happening in this thread.

(1) I do think we ALL agree that identification of top quality goods as opposed to excremental woofers is very doable...

(2) I understood what Ana was saying - pursuant to the mini-discuss with Oldminer, myself & Paul - and I think she hits on an important point:

Ana said: "From my side of the screen, the reflector images do not help much communicating personal preferences aside levels of quality. How many times did a buyer come to you asking for a certain IS look (not level of performance) ?... ...It seems to take allot of technical insight, imagination and experience to describe personal preferences in ASET (or IS) terms."

More and more we are experiencing buyers who come asking for - or about - a certain IS 'look.' It is a great challenge trying to describe the (often subtle) aesthetic differences without prejudice and without exaggeration. Consumer demand for this info, spurred by education here, has recently caused us to write an article in our site's knowledge base to serve those who ask 'Are there differences?' in our product lines and 'Which is better?' The short answers: Yes there are differences, but like color and clarity some people perceive more than others... And only you can decide which is better.

The verbal descriptions in aesthetic differences exist because PS has created a culture where they are discussed. However, to this day, when viewing several 'looks' side by side we find that buyers do not rely on net education to choose the diamond that sings to them - they rely on their eyes.

ASET may very well show us which diamonds sing which part (tenor, alto, soprano...), but all of the verbal descriptions in the world pale when you view the actual diamonds in front of you in all their dynamic glory. With your 'net education you may have thought the blonde soprano was going to sing to you the most... But then the brunette alto turns out to be the one that steals your heart.

 

[WinkHPD]

Well said my friend, but then,


YOU ARE SINGING TO THE CHOIR!


Wink

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/9/2006 6:32:02 PM
Author: Wink

... both (AGS0 princess) have some nice red, some great contrast and unlike the rounds, they gather more light from the ambient light than would be acceptable for an AGS 0 round.

(half joke) - green on the side, a bit of red in the middle and a sprinkle of contrast here and there ... wait a minute, that's how the round scare looks like too!

Any chance to decide on brilliance in a consistent way across shapes? Is IS better at this (with one color instead of three?).


... No, I don't really know what I am asking abut.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/9/2006 7:16:33 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 1/9/2006 6:32:02 PM

Author: Wink


... both (AGS0 princess) have some nice red, some great contrast and unlike the rounds, they gather more light from the ambient light than would be acceptable for an AGS 0 round.

(half joke) - green on the side, a bit of red in the middle and a sprinkle of contrast here and there ... wait a minute, that''s how the round scare looks like too!


Any chance to decide on brilliance in a consistent way across shapes? Is IS better at this (with one color instead of three?).



... No, I don''t really know what I am asking abut.

Hmm, The round has its contrast gouped in globs while the princesses have more attractive patterns, and small patterns of both blue and red sprinkled throughout the green, also without the black lumps of leakage seen in the round scare (great name by the way!). (Also remember that with the ASET leakage is shown as black rather than white)

The IS is not showing the same thing as the ASET as it gives us no idea where the light is coming from other than the head shadow, only where the the light does NOT come from. I believe that both the ASET and the IS do show us leakage in the same way where leakage is defined as areas where no light reflects from the diamond at the angle in which it is being observed. I will leave it to one of my more learned associates to tell us whether or not that belief is correct.

So, is there a consistent way accross shapes to evaluate brilliance? Yes, and no. Yes, you will be easily able to detect leakage with either tool, although it is easier with the ASET since you do not have to have the right shaped holder to keep the stone perfectly perpendicular. On the ASET you lay the stone table down and either the table is paralel to the girdle or it is not, and is not will show VERY obviously.

What may be more difficult is assessing what you see. Is there a pattern of blue in the red and green? Is it a pleasing pattern or is it large lumps that will appear as dead spots? Go back and really study the fish eye and nail head pictures on the first page of this thread, that will gradually become quite illuminating.

Each shape will have its own patterns, and it will require study and effort to learn what are the better patterns for each shape, but it will be painfully obvious when one looks at a scare stone. The more you use the tool, the more obvious it will become, and with sufficient practice it will be easily possible to know instantly whether or not the stone deserves any further consideration.

Of course, that is also easily descernable to the eye in most cases. What the ASET has given me is a tool that allows me to show a stone to my clients and have them see more quickly what I see and to explain to them WHY one stone looks better than the other rather than throwing numbers and angles at them. As a vendor, that is a tool well worth having!

Wink

 

[sylvesterii]

Date: 1/9/2006 7:16:33 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 1/9/2006 6:32:02 PM
Author: Wink

... both (AGS0 princess) have some nice red, some great contrast and unlike the rounds, they gather more light from the ambient light than would be acceptable for an AGS 0 round.

(half joke) - green on the side, a bit of red in the middle and a sprinkle of contrast here and there ... wait a minute, that''s how the round scare looks like too!

Any chance to decide on brilliance in a consistent way across shapes? Is IS better at this (with one color instead of three?).


... No, I don''t really know what I am asking abut.

exactly what I was thinking too!. how is it bad for a round when the princess is great, but the explanation provided by wink seems to make sense. Plus, princess cut stones just can''t perform as well. so imagine how BAD a BAD princess stone would perform...

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/10/2006 9:16:23 AM
Author: Wink

So, is there a consistent way accross shapes to evaluate brilliance? Yes, and no. [....]

Each shape will have its own patterns, and it will require study and effort to learn what are the better patterns for each shape, ...


That''s what I was afraid to hear - that it takes experience to read these images, and that they are not a true shortcut to judging cut quality w/o knowing your diamonds first. This may be wrong - but isn''t precisely this what the reflector tools promise (at least the IS - which is meant as a consumer''s aid).

Is this also a potential difference between the IS and ASET - what they are good for and to whom?

PS. about leakage markings ... I thing you are 100% right - at least according to the DC (remember the versions of Gilbertonscope plots - with and w/o white background light? - same can easily be done with the ASET scheme so that the two light maps become directly comparable. Is the hand held ASET supposed to be used differently than the IS?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/10/2006 9:41:54 AM
Author: sylvesterii


exactly what I was thinking too!. how is it bad for a round when the princess is great, but the explanation provided by wink seems to make sense. Plus, princess cut stones just can't perform as well. so imagine how BAD a BAD princess stone would perform...

I wonder if statements like these ('princess are supposed to be worse than rounds' and 'a fancy cut looks great under ASET when it matches a BAD round' etc) are anywhere near what the makers of ASET and other reflector tools had in mind to begin with.

If the images are supposed not just to confirm what you see and know from experience (as in Wink's presenting diamonds under ASET) but actualy inform and teach something on their own, does it even happen?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/10/2006 10:24:38 AM
Author: valeria101


I wonder if statements like these (''princess are supposed to be worse than rounds'' and ''a fancy cut looks great under ASET when it matches a BAD round'' etc) are anywhere near what the makers of ASET and other reflector tools had in mind to begin with.

The thing is that above a certain size, princess-cuts have better overall light performance than rounds.

Live long,

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 1/10/2006 10:27:32 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

The thing is that above a certain size, princess-cuts have better overall light performance than rounds.

Live long,

Paul,

Would you please explain this? What do you mean by overall light performance?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/10/2006 10:24:38 AM
Author: valeria101


I wonder if statements like these (''princess are supposed to be worse than rounds'' and ''a fancy cut looks great under ASET when it matches a BAD round'' etc) are anywhere near what the makers of ASET and other reflector tools had in mind to begin with.

I do not believe that princess are supposed to be worse than rounds, and I do not believe that the bad round comes anywhere close to matching the princess cut. I believe that the princess cut patterns are different in many ways than the round patterns, but that is okay, princess cuts ARE different than rounds. I fear I have not done a good job explaining things if you believe the above statement to be true.

I am going to put up a couple more slides from the AGS presentation and come back later to see what the discussion has been.

 

[WinkHPD]

Here is the same type of comparrison of emerald cuts. Instantly obvious which is better if you have even just a bit of experience with the ASET.

 

[WinkHPD]

And an editorial comment from AGS

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/10/2006 11:36:19 AM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 1/10/2006 10:27:32 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

The thing is that above a certain size, princess-cuts have better overall light performance than rounds.

Live long,

Paul,

Would you please explain this? What do you mean by overall light performance?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Hi Neil,

Did you notice in the past, that sometimes someone comes up with a great idea or new knowledge, and that Garry immediately adds it in his posts.

This time, I have plagiarized him. In fact, he told me about a study by Sergey e.a. which shows that big princess-cuts have more light return than big rounds. Garry can explain better which kind of light return. After all, I only stole the summary, he probably has all the info.

Live long,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/10/2006 1:26:19 PM
Author: Wink
And an editorial comment from AGS

yep I love the ASET for emeralds and asschers.
No other scope allows you to seperate them better.
With rounds I have a slight preference to IS because I have more experence with the images.
But if I could have only peice of information about a RB it would be an ASET image.
There is slightly more information in it in my opinion.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/10/2006 1:18:15 PM
Author: Wink
I am going to put up a couple more slides from the AGS presentation and come back later to see what the discussion has been.

Okay, for the princess cut photos, clearly picture #1 on the left is the better looking diamond. Great pattern of on/off contrast throughout the diamond. The stone on the right has very little contrast and something wierd is going on in the corners. I would love to see these two stones face up, but I am betting the one on the right is NOT very pretty.

For the emerald cuts, clearly the #2 stone on the right, is the better looking diamond. The entire left to right center portion of the diamond on number 1 is a head shadow, or bowtie as we would call it in an oval or marquise cut. Practically no bright brilliance, pretty much like many of the emerald cuts we see on the market today.

The emerald cut on the right is very bright, might actually look a little more lively with just a touch more contrast but it is a fireball compared to most emerald cuts.

Speaking of emerald cuts, that is the next stone whose ideal cut standards will be released this year by AGS. In conversation with Pete Yanzer he tells me that this was an extremely complex stone to grade due to all of the multiplicity of variables, including the amount of the cut at the corners.

Having only seen a handful of truly well cut emerald cuts, I can tell you that I am way excited that this is coming to pass so soon!

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Wink they releasing SE''s or EC''s first or both at the same time?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/10/2006 2:13:53 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 1/10/2006 11:36:19 AM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 1/10/2006 10:27:32 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

The thing is that above a certain size, princess-cuts have better overall light performance than rounds.

Live long,

Paul,
Would you please explain this? What do you mean by overall light performanceNeil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Hi Neil,

Did you notice in the past, that sometimes someone comes up with a great idea or new knowledge, and that Garry immediately adds it in his posts.

This time, I have plagiarized him. In fact, he told me about a study by Sergey e.a. which shows that big princess-cuts have more light return than big rounds. Garry can explain better which kind of light return. After all, I only stole the summary, he probably has all the info.

Live long,

Here are ETAS images that show the probability of seeing (or not seeing) light sources for 4 stones in varying sizes.
I have always thought small princess shoulder stiones were a waste of space - but here Sergey has shown that this is in fact true.

But note the ETAS for the very big princess!! (although we know the same diameter princess is 1/2 as heavy again as a round).

Does anyone else have any personal experiance to support or begate this info?

 

[WinkHPD]

This I do not know for sure, but it would make sense that since they had to do the work that they will release them both at the same time. Perhaps Paul knows...

Wink

 

[belle]

Date: 1/10/2006 8:08:12 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

But note the ETAS for the very big princess!! (although we know the same diameter princess is 1/2 as heavy again as a round).

18mm!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Emerald cut is about 100 times harder than square emerald cut.

(can anyone actually work it out? - I think it 8 to the power of 8 for square emerald and then that # to the power of 4 - but what would I know?)

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/10/2006 8:28:35 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Emerald cut is about 100 times harder than square emerald cut.

(can anyone actually work it out? - I think it 8 to the power of 8 for square emerald and then that # to the power of 4 - but what would I know?)

Well, since there must have been some ray trace model involved, those variables are used in a certain way, I would think. Does the amount of computing vary in a traceable way? (my laptop gets just as stuck with either

).

Otherwise, dunno... assuming in the end it is a matter of each angle interacting somehow with every other, that some permutation (n! formula, 60k factor between the two). It doesn''t sound as glamorous as ''100 times harder'' though.

 

[Capitol Bill]

I distinctly recall Peter Yantzer saying the square emerald data would be the next to be released. The rectangular emeralds will follow thereafter. And I believe the reason for this is in keeping with what Garry mentions above.
Bill Scherlag

 

[Regular Guy]

Anyone know the story about the guy who asks his teacher how to get peace and quiet? The teacher put increasing number of farm animals into his house, day by day, for a week, then removes them all, and the guy suddenly finds himself experiencing the quiet he sought.

Regarding the round Garry posts above...does this give some overall perspective in which to see the visual impact, for a round, with respect to crown & pavilion effects, vs crown & pavilion along with minor facets?

Proportionately, it seems the suggestion is that crown & pavilion would relatively have significantly greater overall visual effect for the diamond, in comparison to whatever effect minor facets will additionally have.

I suppose it all comes down to figuring out how much info is enough to making a buying decision.

OK, sorry to gum up this interesting discussion. Carry on.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 1/10/2006 8:09:34 PM
Author: Wink
This I do not know for sure, but it would make sense that since they had to do the work that they will release them both at the same time. Perhaps Paul knows...

Wink

I have no official or unofficial news as which will be the next AGS-shape. We are basically betting on the square emerald, because of multiple reasons:

1. It is highly likely that AGS will launch a new shape this year, preferably towards the Vegas-show.
2. A square-shape is the simplest to model and quantify, compared to rectangulars, and especially round-edged shapes.
3. The square emerald is a relatively popular shape on the market.
4. Personally, I love square emeralds, thus,

it is only logical that we are now preparing ourselves to cut square emeralds with high light performance, so that they can soon get the AGS 0-grade.

Live long,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/11/2006 9:32:11 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 1/10/2006 8:09:34 PM


it is only logical that we are now preparing ourselves to cut square emeralds with high light performance, so that they can soon get the AGS 0-grade.


Live long,

Cant wait!

Its going to be interesting to see how they handle the various types of S.E./asschers and which look they will end up giving the top grade too.
Im expecting that what I call the drop style will not make the cut and it will mostly be the narrow step and wide step that end up on top.

 

[RockDoc]

Latest ASET PHOTO FROM ROCKDOC

(C) 2006 Consumers Gem Lab

 

[RockDoc]

Asscher ASET PHOTO FROM ROCKDOC

(C) 2006 Consumers Gem Lab



Rockdoc

 

[belle]

great photos bill. impressive!

 

[denverappraiser]

Bill,

Care to share your techniques?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver