Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[risingsun]

Thank you for your explanation, ccl. This makes sense to me. I am used to reading ASETs for RB H&A diamonds and needed some information about the type of stones under discussion. As Garry mentioned, in his post above, the ASET could be very helpful in assessing a fancy stone, but the evaluator must understand what they are seeing in the ASET. Would anyone like to write a journal article on this topic?...or we could sticky this thread!

I am working on something for Cushions but I want to use embedded videos and I'm not sure what is supported yet on pricescope so it is a long term work in progress.

For now I think this tutorial sums up what I was saying about the ASET. ASET reference chart

Thanks for the referral to the reference chart. I will wait, with interest, for your journal article

 

[Doc_1]

There seems to be a consistent omitting to the fact that some people are looking for NO PATTERN and that what RD has mentioned many times. crushed ice with no pattern is something in demand for those PARTICULAR sector. Those will benefit from more green on the ASET than more red!

 

[Doc_1]

a reminder to the viewers to the video RD posted:

[]http://www.youtube.com/user/diamondsbylauren#p/u/0/0zcR4kIBkCw[]

 

[Doc_1]

And a reminder to the ASET he posted.

 

[Doc_1]

I wish if there is a way RD to post a video on the last diamond you posted as well.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Let's see, what is more important- accurate info, or making sure we don't upset Garry.
I'm going with the former- I find a lot of what he wrote to be misleading.
When I get to work I'll quote Garry's post and answer the relevant points
Suffice it to say the aset reference page is chock full of subjective info presented as fact. This makes it even more confusing for consumers
I just got off the phone with a consumer who found a look he liked at Harry Winston
I described chunky and crushed ice to him
There was no doubt in his mind - he had seen crushed ice. Which was what he wanted
Should we "educate " him- let him know that such stones are not bright- or have ( the baddie) leakage?

Eta- hi Doc- I already have the video

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for the post, RD Can someone compare the ASETs for the cushion and the radiant? What are we seeing and what should we be seeing on a well cut crushed ice cushion

I'm just going to throw this out there:
The past few days using the aset and light, have strengthened my conviction that the information provided by this tool can just as easily mislead consumers as help them- possibly more likely to mislead than help. I don't belive this is intentional on anyone's part. It's a scientifically designed tool which provides objective informaiton. Context is the problem- it's just like asking people to read xrays- you need to be trained to do so- and having the patient at hand for physical examination is crucial to the analysis.
Regardless, I too am interested in the answer to Marian's question.
Here's an actual photo, next to the aset


eta- I can see a reasonable correlation between the aset, and areas of slight darkness in the real diamond. Still does not change my opinion on aset

For starters you can see the photo's need to be switched vertically. Get it RD - have a close look

RD regarding why you would not want earrings to draw from the green on ASET - others have already answered on AGBF - Deb's thread. It is too simple to be called science.

Now to the nice crushed ice eg - see the image below:


My answers in red below

1. Watch my youtube again and turn on the little light bulb for tungsten - it makes the light balance better for the ideal light tray.
That was one area I meant to ask you about Garry- my camera does not have a "tungsten" setting. Might there be another name for this?
2. I flipped the ASET image Thank you
3. from the top black line - this is higher up the red region near the border with blue - in your photo the camera or something is blocking light - we do not want these dark zones or blue in crushed ice. Agreed? We call them Dark Zones - in real life DZ's can come from leakage or obstruction.
Here's a biggie, in terms of disagreement. It is my position that ALL well cut diamonds will have some dark zones. Then, if we're analyzing aset images, how can the camera block light? The device and light are designed to have the light coming from the bottom. If either a camera, or eye is looking in the aset scope, it will block whatever small amount of light would get in through the hole- meaning the thing was designed not to allow light from above
4. second top line shows red - but there is no light source in that direction in your photo - if there was - you would have a lovely sparkle there. Careful Garry- that might be taken as a compliment
5. The little dark spot is from the blue - it is probably the camera lens - too small to wory about, but see how it tells us stuff? See my point above. The aset device is meant to have that little hole blocked by an eye- or a camera
6. same as point 4.
7. this is the baddy - the bottom pointers mark out a leakage zone which is showing up bright. This spot would not sparkle like that when the stone was set in most types of setting.
Yes this is a HUGE "baddy"- by that I mean you are identifying "negative" leakage, which is 1) totally subjective ( you're calling it bad, others might see it as pleasant contrast) 2) even if we take what you are saying, the area you're pointing to is a tiny percentage of the diamond as a whole. How bad can that be?

Now the leakage thing is normal in crushed ice - the ray paths bounce around a lot more which is why these stones are not so bright Here again you're taking data garnered with regard to "potential" brightness- I've already shown photographically how crushed ice can be a lot brighter than Hearts and arrows, depending on lighting and obstruction
(along with the fact they get light from lower angles and tend to 'miss' the directly overhead ceiling lights. And I have no problem with people liking crushed ice. It is the cut of choice for fancy color. Also subjective- many people prefer step cut in fancy color, although they are harder to find
And armed with your ASET and this tutorial - you can better select crushed ice and fancy colors with your ASET. The rules are almost totally opposite those for rounds etc.
Sorry Garry- my eye is infinitely better selecting without the aset. Period. Many other buyers will also share this sentiment. It certainly is fun to use- and sometimes the aset corresponds to what the eye sees in normal lighting- other times it does not.
It's not consistent in that regard

Now please print this post and read it again, because I have spent as long as I can on this explanation and if you do not get it now I will be very very cross David.

Garry- on the page ccl linked to you made definitive statements about four types of princess cuts- with no photos, only asets. Maybe folks might find what you're calling fair or poor nicer than what you're calling excellent.

Here's a point I found very interesting- not that I use any sort of lighting behind the diamond, but light certainly can come in through the pavilion with an overhead light source, and the diamond in tweezers

Back lighting makes it easier to discern good from poor stones:

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks for the post, RD Can someone compare the ASETs for the cushion and the radiant? What are we seeing and what should we be seeing on a well cut crushed ice cushion

I'm just going to throw this out there:
The past few days using the aset and light, have strengthened my conviction that the information provided by this tool can just as easily mislead consumers as help them- possibly more likely to mislead than help. I don't belive this is intentional on anyone's part. It's a scientifically designed tool which provides objective informaiton. Context is the problem- it's just like asking people to read xrays- you need to be trained to do so- and having the patient at hand for physical examination is crucial to the analysis.
Regardless, I too am interested in the answer to Marian's question.
Here's an actual photo, next to the aset


eta- I can see a reasonable correlation between the aset, and areas of slight darkness in the real diamond. Still does not change my opinion on aset

For starters you can see the photo's need to be switched vertically. Get it RD - have a close look

RD regarding why you would not want earrings to draw from the green on ASET - others have already answered on AGBF - Deb's thread. It is too simple to be called science.

Now to the nice crushed ice eg - see the image below:


My answers in red below

1. Watch my youtube again and turn on the little light bulb for tungsten - it makes the light balance better for the ideal light tray.
That was one area I meant to ask you about Garry- my camera does not have a "tungsten" setting. Might there be another name for this?
2. I flipped the ASET image Thank you
3. from the top black line - this is higher up the red region near the border with blue - in your photo the camera or something is blocking light - we do not want these dark zones or blue in crushed ice. Agreed? We call them Dark Zones - in real life DZ's can come from leakage or obstruction.
Here's a biggie, in terms of disagreement. It is my position that ALL well cut diamonds will have some dark zones. Then, if we're analyzing aset images, how can the camera block light? The device and light are designed to have the light coming from the bottom. If either a camera, or eye is looking in the aset scope, it will block whatever small amount of light would get in through the hole- meaning the thing was designed not to allow light from above
4. second top line shows red - but there is no light source in that direction in your photo - if there was - you would have a lovely sparkle there. Careful Garry- that might be taken as a compliment
5. The little dark spot is from the blue - it is probably the camera lens - too small to wory about, but see how it tells us stuff? See my point above. The aset device is meant to have that little hole blocked by an eye- or a camera
6. same as point 4.
7. this is the baddy - the bottom pointers mark out a leakage zone which is showing up bright. This spot would not sparkle like that when the stone was set in most types of setting.
Yes this is a HUGE "baddy"- by that I mean you are identifying "negative" leakage, which is 1) totally subjective ( you're calling it bad, others might see it as pleasant contrast) 2) even if we take what you are saying, the area you're pointing to is a tiny percentage of the diamond as a whole. How bad can that be?


Now the leakage thing is normal in crushed ice - the ray paths bounce around a lot more which is why these stones are not so bright Here again you're taking data garnered with regard to "potential" brightness- I've already shown photographically how crushed ice can be a lot brighter than Hearts and arrows, depending on lighting and obstruction
(along with the fact they get light from lower angles and tend to 'miss' the directly overhead ceiling lights. And I have no problem with people liking crushed ice. It is the cut of choice for fancy color. Also subjective- many people prefer step cut in fancy color, although they are harder to find
And armed with your ASET and this tutorial - you can better select crushed ice and fancy colors with your ASET. The rules are almost totally opposite those for rounds etc.
Sorry Garry- my eye is infinitely better selecting without the aset. Period. Many other buyers will also share this sentiment. It certainly is fun to use- and sometimes the aset corresponds to what the eye sees in normal lighting- other times it does not.
It's not consistent in that regard

Now please print this post and read it again, because I have spent as long as I can on this explanation and if you do not get it now I will be very very cross David.

Garry- on the page ccl linked to you made definitive statements about four types of princess cuts- with no photos, only asets. Maybe folks might find what you're calling fair or poor nicer than what you're calling excellent.

Here's a point I found very interesting- not that I use any sort of lighting behind the diamond, but light certainly can come in through the pavilion with an overhead light source, and the diamond in tweezers

Back lighting makes it easier to discern good from poor stones:

OK RD, point #3 - we are back to obstruction - the blue part makes it very clear you have not "got it" and probably never will. You clearly do not have the capacity to understand a simple little plastic tool. I tried hard but your desire to argue has gotten in your way of comprehension. Perhaps Doc can try and explain it. But I have hit the wall and now give up again.
End of discussion from me.

 

[diagem]

You know RD, the funny thing is you are not even willing to take the time to explore Aset...
Its proven science (as a matter of fact) but still in its diaper stage, and you are not even showing signs of interest.

Large majority of my business is antithesis to Aset technology but am happy a portion is these days , I decided a few years back to explore and found it fascinating!
It really should give you benefits, especially since you are pretty knowledgeable in the field..., learning further should be a priority.

Here on PS you have the luxury to learn..., dont mock it utilize it!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yoram, all due respect, I don't feel your statement is fair.
I bought, and have been using aset- and posting photos here on this very thread. I have taken time to learn about it.
I agree that learning is good. That's not going to make the aset part of my diamond buying routine. It really does get in the way of efficient buying. Analysis afterward? Maybe. But not for selection of fancy shapes.

Part of what I see going on here is not about learning- it's about a group of people that like a certain type of cutting style better than another- and using aset to "prove" one is better. Then calling it "education"
Even the box the aset comes in is prejudicial. It clearly shows an aset of a princess cut ( that may be a crushed ice stone) and states : "Too much Green. Not enough red light"

Garry- I would really appreciate it if you would answer the points I raised about your comment regarding leakage, etc- however the lack of response to the points I bring up may be answer enough. Also there's no part in blue in your response

The photo below, taken under a diamond lamp, in a normally lit room shows the crushed ice looking a lot whiter than a round brilliant- which we all agree is the "brightest" of the shapes. Why is that?

When I posted it, Stone wrote this:

For the round, the main light source, red zone in the ASET is clearly block due to obstruction issue with the camera being too close to the stones in question. This makes the RB look dark as most of the light gathered by the RB is from the red zone while the radiant is green zone making it look lively.

Yet the radiant was exposed to exactly the same conditions, yet responded differently. Stone attributed this to "obstruction"

When it comes to learning about diamonds, we can separate the classes into two main segments:
1) actual hands on experience
2) academic, or intellectual reasons behind what it is we're seeing.
Personally, I feel that number one is much more important. Number two an interesting academic subject- but by no means vital to those wanting to become diamond buyers.

I ask again- what difference does it make if we call it obstruction, leakage, or Joe Shmoe? If a diamond looks dark, it looks dark.
If we change the environment, these aspects of darkness may change. In that regard knowing the reasons may be important- although not as important as being able to identify problem areas in diamonds.
aset, particularly in the case of crushed ice, is simply not capable of providing meaningful info.

Furthermore, Garry's answer again shows his personal prejudice against crushed ice, radiant cut and other things that he does not like- which is his right.
But when he says such crushed ice stones are scientifically deficient, and I read it, it needs to be addressed.

 

[diagem]

Yoram, all due respect, I don't feel your statement is fair.
I bought, and have been using aset- and posting photos here on this very thread. I have taken time to learn about it.
I agree that learning is good. That's not going to make the aset part of my diamond buying routine. It really does get in the way of efficient buying. Analysis afterward? Maybe. But not for selection of fancy shapes.

Fair? You just got the Aset a few single days ago...
I got mine a few years ago and just now staring to understand it after cutting several hundred Diamonds in harmony with the technology. Its not the only tool out there..., but an important one once you start understanding what it translates.

I am willing to bet you will notice how Aset will become part of your buying routine..., it would be nice if you used it and learned it for a period prior to jumping the gun on how inefficient it will be in your buying methods.

RD, it has the option to widen your buying method capabilities..., a Win-Win situation which you are dismissing in a split of a second.

I suggest taking a break from attacking and trying to discover how it could add value to your knowledge! I promise it will IF you are willing to invest the time.

It has nothing to do with "Good Diamond --- Bad Diamond"..., just more knowledge which is something this industry needs to move on to the next stage which is happening as I write these words.

I will not further discuss the issue of this thread with you as I feel its useless at this stage.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yoram, First, thank you- I believe you're intentions are good.
Your point is well taken- I've only had it a few days- but I have already looked at over a hundred stones with it, and I can see how it works.
I can see that if I wanted a stone with patterns, it might be a great help.
I'd even go as far as saying if I'm in the market for "patterned" diamonds, I'll use the aset as part of the evaluation process.
After examining a lot of them here, with the aset, I can't see a time I'd use it for crushed ice type of stones.

Yoram, between speaking with you personally, looking at your remarkable cutting work, and reading what you've written here on PS, I have to suggest your personal preferences are coloring your participation in this discussion.
I believe I know the answer to this, but I'll ask you point blank- do you like the look of non patterned diamonds, showing a large amount of tiny virtual facets- what we're calling here "crushed ice"?

 

[stone-cold11]

RD.

Garry's statement meant his point #3 and your rebuttal. The blue of the ASET, not that he highlight anything of your reply.

Do you understand how ASET/IS works?

You understand where the light comes from but fails to understand what is the implication.

The blue part of the scope simulates an average viewer's head at a distance of 10 inches from the stone. The blue on the ASET image of the stone will reflect your head or a proportionately closer camera. That is what is blocking the light. Are you going to tell me your head or camera is brighter reflecting surface or a very strong light emitting source? If so, then there is no blue in the ASET for you.

For my comment on the obstruction of the round. Imaging the camera is now covering the entire red region of the scope. How? By getting closer to the stone. Simple trigonometry put that to about 3 inches from the stone. That is now obstructing the red part of the ASET cone, in effect changing the entire red of the ASET to blue too. So the only light reflecting from the round brilliant is now from the green part of the ASET cone, thus it look dark as a round's ASET image is by design, not dominated by green from the ASET cone.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

$100 for the first person to find a post or comment that I ever made that an even and overall crushed ice look in a diamond cut is bad. Or any example of me ever telling anyone who likes the look not to buy one.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

The photo below, taken under a diamond lamp, in a normally lit room shows the crushed ice looking a lot whiter than a round brilliant- which we all agree is the "brightest" of the shapes. Why is that?

Your question is a bellicose one but I have some Q&A for you as you won't answer anyone's questions directly.

1) What is the color of your camera lense in the inside? Black
2) How close is your camera to these diamonds? Close and closer than one would view the diamonds normally.
3) Is it correct to mislead consumers into thinking that this is a realistic consumer viewing condition? No
4) Could you replicate these conditions if you were viewing with your own eyes and not the camera lense? Yes with difficulty. Perhaps if you wore a black hood and put the diamond as close to your head as the camera is to these stones at the same viewing angle.
5) Is a bright grading lamp which is showing strong directional light and glare off the crown of both diamonds a representative view of a diamond's brightness in normal viewing conditions? Absolutely not.

 

[AnneinGA]

- sidebar -

CCL, Nice use of the word bellicose. Had to look that one up. In addition to my expanding knowledge of crushed ice cushions, my vocabulary was also broadened today.

- return to debate/discussion/contention/thread.

 

[Doc_1]

RD
they suggested you get the ASET and you did, now you are too close to the diamond so may be next thing on your purchase list is this:

 

[Doc_1]

This debate is getting expensive RD, nothing you do will satisfy them.......LOL

 

[Doc_1]

Or this in case of wearing a dark hood

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you Stone.
I understand what the aset is telling us.
When I question the relvance, the answer seems clear to me.
There's a potential that the information provided by the aset will be mimicked in real life.
If my head, or the camera is between the light source and the diamond, the blue of the aset would simulate that. There are surely situations where that might happen, in real life.
There' are also many other ways the light, diamond, and viewer interact. The implication of this is that there may be times that aset assumptions are completely wrong.
That may be why interpretation is based on the type of stone you're looking at.
Green is bad, or green is good. Both are true.

I really do appreciate the effort you put in Stone- again, there are assumptions here that may not be true- in this case, it's not true.

For my comment on the obstruction of the round. Imaging the camera is now covering the entire red region of the scope. How? By getting closer to the stone. Simple trigonometry put that to about 3 inches from the stone. That is now obstructing the red part of the ASET cone, in effect changing the entire red of the ASET to blue too. So the only light reflecting from the round brilliant is now from the green part of the ASET cone, thus it look dark as a round's ASET image is by design, not dominated by green from the ASET cone.

Here's my hand, under my diamond light.
No need to imagine anything.


Now I'll put a round, and radiant in my hand, with the camera outside the range of the light- in fact, you can see the lamp in the top of the photo. Which one shows more dark areas?


There's no light coming from behind. MY camera can't obscure the light due to it's position.

 

[Doc_1]

This debate is getting expensive RD, nothing you do will satisfy them.......LOL

Or maybe you should be educated enough to understand the limitation of that photograph and what should and should not be concluded from it.

You had a nice quote in an earlier post that tells me why am feeling that i always lose arguments to you
I am not arguing with you sir. you will always WIN!

 

[Rockdiamond]

$100 for the first person to find a post or comment that I ever made that an even and overall crushed ice look in a diamond cut is bad. Or any example of me ever telling anyone who likes the look not to buy one.

Garry- maybe I misunderstood- but i the post where you notated the photo and the aset, you mentioned all these problems with the crushed ice stone.
Leakage!!!- my goodness, look at that!
Sounded like a knock to me- please correct me if I was wrong.
The areas of darkness in the photo are indicative of what I see in real life. We all agree- the best cut diamonds will have both bright and dark zones, isn't that much correct?

 

[stone-cold11]

So the camera is not black? How is the blue in the ASET image form? That is the image of the camera being reflected by the diamond. Same process.

 

[Dancing Fire]

$100 for the first person to find a post or comment that I ever made that an even and overall crushed ice look in a diamond cut is bad. Or any example of me ever telling anyone who likes the look not to buy one.

AUD or USD??

 

[Doc_1]

$100 for the first person to find a post or comment that I ever made that an even and overall crushed ice look in a diamond cut is bad. Or any example of me ever telling anyone who likes the look not to buy one.

AUD or USD??

With helicopter BEN you may want AUD.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Stone whatever is reflecting onto one stone is reflecting into the other.
That means we can suppose that the black areas in the round diamond are reflections of a black lens ( although most of the camera is a light shade of grey.
Why does it not reflect in the radiant the same way?

Here's the crux of the whole issue.
Each diamond uses light in a different way, so it doesn't really make sense to judge them using the same yardstick.
That's why AGS says the aset for different shapes must be read differently.
How differently?

Suppose- just a supposition- that the experts at interpreting aset here on PS are possibly not fans of the crushed ice look- therefore there's not even been a valid method suggested. If one exists.

Doc- you're right- I'm already out over a hunned bucks!!! hehehe

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

RD.

Garry's statement meant his point #3 and your rebuttal. The blue of the ASET, not that he highlight anything of your reply.

Do you understand how ASET/IS works?

You understand where the light comes from but fails to understand what is the implication.

The blue part of the scope simulates an average viewer's head at a distance of 10 inches from the stone. The blue on the ASET image of the stone will reflect your head or a proportionately closer camera. That is what is blocking the light. Are you going to tell me your head or camera is brighter reflecting surface or a very strong light emitting source? If so, then there is no blue in the ASET for you.

For my comment on the obstruction of the round. Imaging the camera is now covering the entire red region of the scope. How? By getting closer to the stone. Simple trigonometry put that to about 3 inches from the stone. That is now obstructing the red part of the ASET cone, in effect changing the entire red of the ASET to blue too. So the only light reflecting from the round brilliant is now from the green part of the ASET cone, thus it look dark as a round's ASET image is by design, not dominated by green from the ASET cone.

Hi stone, I hope this set of images helps you and others who are learning from this thread.
I can not make the image big enough to read - but they are made with 60cm view distance and 30cm, 50cm, 70cm and 80cm equivalent lens head obstruction size which = 29, 49, 71 and 84 degree obstruction in an igloo lighting environment.

Also the first post here has some useful info from an AGS article https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/ which will also help you Deb to understand why a crushed ice diamond may not work well in earrings (much of the potential light will come from you hair, face and the floor, and I know you sprakle and are very bright, but maybe only 20% of the stone at any time will see other lights in the ceiling or windows and return the light to a viewer dead ahead.

 

[stone-cold11]

Stone whatever is reflecting onto one stone is reflecting into the other.
That means we can suppose that the black areas in the round diamond are reflections of a black lens ( although most of the camera is a light shade of grey.
Why does it not reflect in the radiant the same way?

So you still do not understand what I was explaining. Is there much red in the ASET of the radiant? Your lens is not into the region of the red ASET cone, that will reflect as black because now the light reaching it is black of the camera lens. Why can you seem to understand the color on the ASET image is cause by the reflection of the ASET cone plastic but fail to understand that a black camera lens can be reflected onto the stone? Imagine the ASET cone now only have green and black, with the black covering the blue and red part of the cone, what would the image of the ASET for the 2 stones look like now? The red and blue will become black. How much is that for the round and how much is that for the radiant?

Thanks Garry.
Wish I have DiamCalc to play with. Does that function comes with DiamCalc 3.2 or the professional edition?

 

[Cehrabehra]

- sidebar -

CCL, Nice use of the word bellicose. Had to look that one up. In addition to my expanding knowledge of crushed ice cushions, my vocabulary was also broadened today.

- return to debate/discussion/contention/thread.

Harriet, sweet Harriet... hard hearted harbinger of hagis... beautiful, bemused, belicose butcher...

sorry, had to quote my favorite movie

And garry, I implore you not to give up

 

[Cehrabehra]

In that last pic of your srd, isn't the light hitting the pavillion? I don't think rounds are designed to benefit at all from pav light, are they? Other types of stones do benefit from that and the radiant looks like one. I have one of those. (not a radiant, just a "green" stone) and I think it's beautiful. At least when it can get light through the pavilion. I like the way it lights up in ways that well cut rounds don't, but it requires alternate light sources which is a negative for set jewelry but can be worked around.