Same here; cannot go wrong with any of the 3 but my sweet spot is the third as well.emmebee|1430431199|3870301 said:They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)
emmebee|1430431199|3870301 said:They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)
16ocean|1430440584|3870342 said:They all look gorgeous.
Perhaps the first . . . it looks as if the arrows are a touch larger and I tend to like that.
wronghand|1430486374|3870483 said:emmebee|1430431199|3870301 said:They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)
The third one has smallest table @ 56%.
emmebee|1430493878|3870554 said:wronghand|1430486374|3870483 said:emmebee|1430431199|3870301 said:They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)
The third one has smallest table @ 56%.
Not just the table, also the circle in the middle of the table.. culet reflection? Not sure what it's called.
That's the problem, never saw a I in person. Saw H before, very white to me. Plus everyone tell me H is the minimum or threshold of white or safe bet on platinum.telephone89 said:I like the larger arrows of the 1st, but the 3rd also looks lovely. I think I colour in plat would be fine, have you seen any I's in person? I don't really notice a tint unless you compare to a higher colour.
Yssie|1430495315|3870574 said:emmebee|1430493878|3870554 said:wronghand|1430486374|3870483 said:emmebee|1430431199|3870301 said:They all look great! But the third is my favorite "flavor" - I like the center circle/ring to be smaller (not sure what that is called..)
The third one has smallest table @ 56%.
Not just the table, also the circle in the middle of the table.. culet reflection? Not sure what it's called.
Table reflection - it's a function of table size and pavilion depth. Here's an old (but good!) discussion on why the colour of the table reflection changes from green to red in ASET photos: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-aset-40-768-pavilion-on-the-ledge.29977/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-aset-40-768-pavilion-on-the-ledge.29977/[/URL]
diamondseeker2006|1430504999|3870704 said:Are they all ACA's? If so, they all will be great. I would go for an H. They are all going to look very much alike in real life viewing. I guess with limited info such as clarity, I would pick the third one.
Emmebee,emmebee|1430925260|3872974 said:Can't wait to see!
As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.
emmebee said:Can't wait to see!
As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.
wronghand|1431026637|3873560 said:emmebee said:Can't wait to see!
As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.
Well I brought up this question but decided go with the third one before see any response. Personally I like the 56% table over the 57.7%. But second one did looks a little brighter. Hopefully in the end my choice looks lovely. I've spent too much time looking at different stone. It start to hurt my brain[emoji29]
Texas Leaguer|1430952112|3873198 said:Emmebee,emmebee|1430925260|3872974 said:Can't wait to see!
As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.
This is a good question that people often wonder about. AGS light performance grading is very comprehensive involving sophisticated ray tracing of a 3D model of the actual diamond. ASET devices and photo setups aim for an obscuration cone of 30 degrees (the blue area). But the LP grading analysis involves computation of performance at both 30 and 40 degrees of obscuration. Calculations are made on the basis of two parts 30 and one part 40, for an average of 33.5 degrees. The light maps on the report are likewise printed at 33.5 degrees. This leads to a little more blue replacing some red on the printed documents, as compared to ASET devices and most photo setups. The beauty of the computer generated light maps is that they derive mathematically from the exact environment prescribed by the ray tracing construct, with consistent and repeatable results. The results are as good as the scans of the diamonds, which are themselves quite accurate when done carefully on the regularly maintained and calibrated measuring devices in the lab. It is particularly helpful to be able to compare and cross validate real and computer generated images.
Yes, it starts to show as the cone goes past 30, and at 40 would be more pronounced (more blue) than the light map on the cert.emmebee|1431033021|3873604 said:Texas Leaguer|1430952112|3873198 said:Emmebee,emmebee|1430925260|3872974 said:Can't wait to see!
As an aside, it is interesting how the computer-generated photos show the contrast/blue area under the table, whereas the WF ASET photos do not... which is more accurate? I find that I prefer without the darker contrast area under the center arrows like in #2.
This is a good question that people often wonder about. AGS light performance grading is very comprehensive involving sophisticated ray tracing of a 3D model of the actual diamond. ASET devices and photo setups aim for an obscuration cone of 30 degrees (the blue area). But the LP grading analysis involves computation of performance at both 30 and 40 degrees of obscuration. Calculations are made on the basis of two parts 30 and one part 40, for an average of 33.5 degrees. The light maps on the report are likewise printed at 33.5 degrees. This leads to a little more blue replacing some red on the printed documents, as compared to ASET devices and most photo setups. The beauty of the computer generated light maps is that they derive mathematically from the exact environment prescribed by the ray tracing construct, with consistent and repeatable results. The results are as good as the scans of the diamonds, which are themselves quite accurate when done carefully on the regularly maintained and calibrated measuring devices in the lab. It is particularly helpful to be able to compare and cross validate real and computer generated images.
Thank you for this very detailed response - the miracle is that I think I understand what you're saying! That is definitely a credit to you
So to apply that to real life viewing, take stone #3 for example, it sounds like the contrast under the table would NOT be able to be seen from 30 degree viewing, but would be at 40 degrees (and above).