Princess Search Cont.

[mr.g]

Hi all,

I''ve narrowed down my search to the following stones. I would appreciate any advice you may have.

http://www.whiteflash.com/princess/Princess-cut-diamond-2265075.htm
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/1773/
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/1585/

I would really like to go with the larger stone, but have been warned about the thin girdle. I also think the 1.718 is beautiful. How much more sparkle will I be getting with an AGS0 versus AGS1 stone? Also, will the color of the stone affect its brilliance? Some good princess cuts I''ve seen appear to be darker (with less sparkle) than an average round brilliant.

Thanks!

 

[jones47]

I think I like the second one best. The idealscope image looks the best in my opinion, as do the numbers.

But don''t take my word for it, I''m a rough rock, just like you who also happens to be searching for the perfect princess.

 

[squarediamondlove]

I also agree that the second one looks the best (1.747ct) !

I am not too crazy with the idealscope image of the WF stone. Ofcourse it is a 2ct which is a plus, but the spread is ok, not too great - could definately be better for a 2ct. The second GOG stone however has a nice spread for its size (better than the 3rd stone for similar weight) and it has the least amount of light leakage out of the three stones.

The only drawback i see in the second stone, and this is only MY personal preference, is that I prefer the slightly larger tables around 70 and also, more importantly, for the table to look square rather than round (this one looks to be slightly more roundish than I prefer; its still square but rounded off a bit). But again this is just a personal preference and you may not have any problem with this feature, especially b/c it is so minimal here. I know Superbcert only has round tables for their princesses. I just wanted to raise it to your attention so you can decide if this will bother you or not.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/3/2006 9:12:55 PM
Author:mr.g

How much more sparkle will I be getting with an AGS0 versus AGS1 stone?

Funny Q! I wonder if AGS can answer that precisely

Besides, which is the AGS1? I see two AGS0s (the two at GoodOldGold) and an AGS 'Diamond Quality Report' without cut grade for the WF diamond.

I wouldn't know to chose between these based on objective 'cut quality' concerns - all seem so beautiful and rank tops on whatever tests the sellers have thrown at them.

The grades seem safe too - G and H are quite high and would not expect a substantial difference in favor of G.

Sure enough, these three guys are not carbon copies of each other - there are subtle differences of faceting and proportions... I hope those are enough to make one your favorite.

My 2c

 

[valeria101]

Hopefully these are down to scale now in the picture below: weight, size, grades and cost included.

I hope Jonathan from Good Old Gold may see this. If not and you get in touch with them... I would ask if there is such a distinct difference between these two princess cuts as the pictures imply! IMO, the Ideal Scope pictures don''t show quite as much - despite the improved contrast of the version these tools used at GOG. And one snapshot may not be the best ''character'' portrait of a diamond - even the nice pictures from
GOG.

 

[squarediamondlove]

Wow Valeria that makes it so much more easier and helpful!

The only problem is that you confused two GOG stone: the one in the center is actually the 1.78ct and the one one all the way on the righ is the 1.74ct. Just want to clear it up!

Mr. g, another point to make is that GOG's light scope and the idealscope that WF uses are not the same thing - so the differnece is not in how they take the picture. GOG's light scope is much more critical at detecting light leakage/hot spots/etc, while the idealscop is much more forgiving. For example if you look at the WF stone on the left side, not the white areas, but the dark greyish areas that are not as saturated with bright red or pink, these areas would probably be regarded as light leakage on the Light Scope - they would probably appear like the circle of light leakage being formed in the center stone - not blatantly white but so pale pale tinted that it would be clear that there is serious leakage going on. So don't naively compare the idealscop images of the WF's princesses with the light scope images of GOG's princesses as if they were the same thing.

The stone that I favor, the one all the way on the right, would probably look perfect on the idealscope, witout any light leakage whatsoever! Once you get the hang of it, you start to understand how to detect light leakage in certain lighting condiions with your own eyes - at least for me that is the case with princesses. I know I would be able to detect the leakage that the center stone exibits and the one on the left exibits, with the right lighting of course, but I would probably not detect any light leakage at all with the stone on the right. So my preference lies with that stone.

Besides, from what I have seen of GOG's stones, they all have a beautiful form!

 

[mr.g]

Thanks for your feedback everyone! You've been so helpful!

I spoke to Jonathan who confirmed little performance difference between the two stones. He mentioned to me that the color on the stone is right in the middle of the H range. The 1.718ct stone is on the very low-end of the G range, so I don't think the $1.3k price difference is worth it. I'm very excited about Kaleidescope's comment about the zero light leakage for the 1.747ct on an IdealScope!

I'm interested to hear about what others think!!

Thanks again!

 

[belle]

Date: 4/4/2006 1:09:54 PM
Author: Kaleidoscopic

Mr. g, another point to make is that GOG''s light scope and the idealscope that WF uses are not the same thing - so the differnece is not in how they take the picture. GOG''s light scope is much more critical at detecting light leakage/hot spots/etc, while the idealscop is much more forgiving. For example if you look at the WF stone on the left side, not the white areas, but the dark greyish areas that are not as saturated with bright red or pink, these areas would probably be regarded as light leakage on the Light Scope - they would probably appear like the circle of light leakage being formed in the center stone - not blatantly white but so pale pale tinted that it would be clear that there is serious leakage going on. So don''t naively compare the idealscop images of the WF''s princesses with the light scope images of GOG''s princesses as if they were the same thing.

rrrrrrrrreally?

you use very definitive statements here. did you examine both systems before coming to this conclusion?

 

[stermag]

Ana, I think you have the 1.74 and the 1.78ct stones switched, no?

I was reading the comments on the 1.74 being the best, but from the pictures and the labels, it didn''t make sense... so I followed the links and... voila! All is clear now.

Yes, I like the 1.74ct, too.

 

[Rhino]

Thanks for linking me here Mr. G.

In answer to the following ...

Date: 4/4/2006 2:41:05 PM
Author: belle

Date: 4/4/2006 1:09:54 PM
Author: Kaleidoscopic

Mr. g, another point to make is that GOG's light scope and the idealscope that WF uses are not the same thing - so the differnece is not in how they take the picture. GOG's light scope is much more critical at detecting light leakage/hot spots/etc, while the idealscop is much more forgiving. For example if you look at the WF stone on the left side, not the white areas, but the dark greyish areas that are not as saturated with bright red or pink, these areas would probably be regarded as light leakage on the Light Scope - they would probably appear like the circle of light leakage being formed in the center stone - not blatantly white but so pale pale tinted that it would be clear that there is serious leakage going on. So don't naively compare the idealscop images of the WF's princesses with the light scope images of GOG's princesses as if they were the same thing.

rrrrrrrrreally?

you use very definitive statements here. did you examine both systems before coming to this conclusion?

We've showed this comparison for years now on our website regarding the photography and views seen through both of these devices. I snapped off these pictures earlier taken under both the IdealScope and our DiamXray (formerly LightScope) which also demonstrates Kaleidoscopic's statement. While we like the photography taken through IdealScope and FireScope/SymmetryScope (if done accurately), we feel our invention best explains the corellations we see in other technologies which are more sensitive to light return. We also see amazing corellation and intricate details as seen in 3d models scanned via Sarin but even better and more detailed with Helium and our photography through DiamXray. Hope this helps.

Kind regards,

 

[belle]

Date: 4/4/2006 6:38:48 PM
Author: Rhino

We''ve showed this comparison for years now on our website regarding the photography and views seen through both of these devices. I snapped off these pictures earlier taken under both the IdealScope and our DiamXray (formerly LightScope) which also demonstrates Kaleidoscopic''s statement.

demonstates which statement?

Date: 4/4/2006 6:38:48 PM
Author: Rhino

While we like the photography taken through IdealScope and FireScope/SymmetryScope (if done accurately), we feel our invention best explains the corellations we see in other technologies which are more sensitive to light return.

i''m sure you do feel your ''invention'' best explains the corellations with other technologies.

that is your mission! correlation of the technology de jour and trying to convince people that you have the better better because of it.
the reality is, there can''t be complete compatibility with every technology and you know that. trying to match up these correlations at such a microscopic level is deceptive to people who just want to know the actual visible impact. with the stone you posted, the images may look slightly different in saturation, but the relevent information is plainly there. pertinent light leakage is easy to see and other than how they would score on these technologies ''that are more sensitive to light return'', there are no detectable differences.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Jonathon / Rhiino, I have not read every word here, but since we have had this debate many times over, it is probably a waste of time.

Attached is a ray trace that shows that the leakage area in the center of this 1.74ct HVS1 stone from your website. Note the leakage is 15% - about the same as the "hot spot" stars on most H&A's.
(btw 15% from 100%-17% reflected = 15 / 83 = 18% actual leakage)

Of course we do not know which ideal-scope you used, and if the lighting was the same etc etc.
But surely the ideal-scope image in your photo better represents 15% leakage?

From your images I would be expecting such strong leakage to contribue to contrast - something most princess need some more of.

Sergey removed Leakage as a calulation from DiamCalc because it was not being used correctly. Have you ever wondered why?

Also rather interestingly you have obvioulsy created a great environment to highlight contrast in your real photo's - the darkness in that central region is certainly not leakage as 64%/83= 77% of the light (well darkness actually) from that direction has come from above the stone. It seems too that there is a bit of light entering the pavilion in some other places? (tip - stop the back light and you will get more contrast from genuine leakage areas).

Finally - the slightly steep deep diamond you used in your consumer GIA Diamond Dock study leaked like a seive - you want it both ways Jonathon ?

 

[squarediamondlove]

Date: 4/4/2006 8:39:51 PM
Author: belle

Date: 4/4/2006 6:38:48 PM

Author: Rhino


We've showed this comparison for years now on our website regarding the photography and views seen through both of these devices. I snapped off these pictures earlier taken under both the IdealScope and our DiamXray (formerly LightScope) which also demonstrates Kaleidoscopic's statement.

demonstates which statement?

Date: 4/4/2006 6:38:48 PM

Author: Rhino


While we like the photography taken through IdealScope and FireScope/SymmetryScope (if done accurately), we feel our invention best explains the corellations we see in other technologies which are more sensitive to light return.

i'm sure you do feel your 'invention' best explains the corellations with other technologies.

that is your mission! correlation of the technology de jour and trying to convince people that you have the better better because of it.

the reality is, there can't be complete compatibility with every technology and you know that. trying to match up these correlations at such a microscopic level is deceptive to people who just want to know the actual visible impact. with the stone you posted, the images may look slightly different in saturation, but the relevent information is plainly there. pertinent light leakage is easy to see and other than how they would score on these technologies 'that are more sensitive to light return', there are no detectable differences.

I actually had the opportunity to examine both devices for myself. I currently own an idealscope and have also visited GOG and used their Light Scope and have compared the two devices. In my opinion the Light Scope can be interpreted to either be more accurate or, at the least, reveal an image that can be more easily analyzed.

My center stone (a princess) is not an ideal cut but under the idealscope reveals little light leakage - if I had to compare, I would say it is similar to the stone on the left in terms of leakage spots because it has one white slit on each side. I've attached a picture of my stone through an idealscope below. However, under the Light Scope I was dissapointed in how much light leakage it really showed. The light leakage is also confirmed by my own eyes (once I got the hang of analyzing princess cuts) and what I actually see best reflects the image provided with the light scope rather than the idealscope. If you look below, the areas that are not as saturated with reds and pinks (like the corners of the table) showed up as pale pale pale pink (similar to that of a circle forming in the the center stone) when viewed under the Light Scope. Thus, to make the story short and sweet, I though I had a better stone when I looked at the idealscope image of it than when I looked at the Light Scope image of it.

The idealscope however is a great tool when looking at diamonds and I do definately use it, I am just more aware of how to analyze the image I see and realize what I may not be as apparent.

BTW, the image below is upsidedown

 

[squarediamondlove]

I was able to lower the quality of the photo so that I can attach a larger shot of it.

 

[squarediamondlove]

Ok now its a little too big and blurry, but you get the idea.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/5/2006 1:43:00 AM
Author: Kaleidoscopic


I actually had the opportunity to examine both devices for myself. I currently own an idealscope and have also visited GOG and used their Light Scope and have compared the two devices. In my opinion the Light Scope can be interpreted to either be more accurate or, at the least, reveal an image that can be more easily analyzed.

My center stone (a princess) is not an ideal cut but under the idealscope reveals little light leakage - if I had to compare, I would say it is similar to the stone on the left in terms of leakage spots because it has one white slit on each side. I''ve attached a picture of my stone through an idealscope below. However, under the Light Scope I was dissapointed in how much light leakage it really showed. The light leakage is also confirmed by my own eyes, once I got the hang of analyzing princess cuts and best reflects the image provided with the light scope rather than the idealscope. If you look below, the areas that are not as saturated with reds and pinks (like the corners of the table) showed up as pale pale pale pink (similar to that of a circle forming in the the center stone). So to make the story short and sweet, I though I had a better stone when I looked at the idealscope image of it than when I looked at the Light Scope image of it.

Kaleidoscopic - you could re-read my post above.
Just because a device can exaggerate the amount of leakage does not make it a better discrimantory device. Quite the contrary - the leakage we percieve with the ideal-scope when we see what looks like a 50% shade of pink is typically returning 75% of the light from above.

If Jonathons tool shows an apparent 70% of leakage for 75% light return then that is bad.

4 or 5 years ago I thought as Jonathon does now - but Sergey has changed my opinion with some very complex charts and examples.

Also - the Xray dodad images on GOG website for this 1.74 HVS1 stone are also different to those in this example - so consistency might be just as big an issue. It does not show the leakage as much http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond.php?d=350&shape=2&ctMin=1.73&ctMax=1.75&clarity=16&color=16&inHouse=1&resultsColumns=268451855&singleResult=1#script

 

[squarediamondlove]

Date: 4/5/2006 2:11:26 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/5/2006 1:43:00 AM

Author: Kaleidoscopic



I actually had the opportunity to examine both devices for myself. I currently own an idealscope and have also visited GOG and used their Light Scope and have compared the two devices. In my opinion the Light Scope can be interpreted to either be more accurate or, at the least, reveal an image that can be more easily analyzed.


My center stone (a princess) is not an ideal cut but under the idealscope reveals little light leakage - if I had to compare, I would say it is similar to the stone on the left in terms of leakage spots because it has one white slit on each side. I've attached a picture of my stone through an idealscope below. However, under the Light Scope I was dissapointed in how much light leakage it really showed. The light leakage is also confirmed by my own eyes, once I got the hang of analyzing princess cuts and best reflects the image provided with the light scope rather than the idealscope. If you look below, the areas that are not as saturated with reds and pinks (like the corners of the table) showed up as pale pale pale pink (similar to that of a circle forming in the the center stone). So to make the story short and sweet, I though I had a better stone when I looked at the idealscope image of it than when I looked at the Light Scope image of it.

Kaleidoscopic - you could re-read my post above.

Just because a device can exaggerate the amount of leakage does not make it a better discrimantory device. Quite the contrary - the leakage we percieve with the ideal-scope when we see what looks like a 50% shade of pink is typically returning 75% of the light from above.


If Jonathons tool shows an apparent 70% of leakage for 75% light return then that is bad.


4 or 5 years ago I thought as Jonathon does now - but Sergey has changed my opinion with some very complex charts and examples.

I understand your point, however what about the fact that the light leakage that I see with my own eyes in the right lighting condition, when viewed through a Lightscope appears pale pale pale pink. Your argument makes sense if the difference that the Lightscope detected was not actually noticable to the naked eye and thus over-exaggerated the effect unecessarily. However, since the lightscope does reflect the differences one can discriminate with the naked eye, even if what you said is true, does it really matter?

What you are saying is that given how pale the pale pale pink is, you would think that it only has 10% of light return when lets say it actually has 35% - so the color difference apportioned by the light scope is decieving. But isn't it also decieving when I see partial light leakage in my stone with the naked eye, but the idealsope fails to make it clear (b/c it colors those areas dark greyish pinkish) when the Lightscope does make clear (by coloring it pale pale pink). In this case I would probably favor the lightscope inspite of the so called "exaggeration" of the amount of light leakage. I rather know that the light leakage is not as bad as the lightscope reveals, rather than think I got a better stone than I actually got!

If nothing else, at the least Mr. g will know the pros and cons of both devices.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/5/2006 2:46:00 AM
Author: Kaleidoscopic


I understand your point, however what about the fact that the light leakage that I see with my own eyes in the right lighting condition, when viewed through a Lightscope appears pale pale pale pink. Your argument makes sense if the difference that the Lightscope detected was not actually noticable to the naked eye and thus over-exaggerated the effect unecessarily. However, since the lightscope does reflect the differences one can discriminate with the naked eye, even if what you said is true, does it really matter?

What you are saying is that given how pale the pale pale pink is, you would think that it only has 10% of light return when lets say it actually has 35% - so the color difference apportioned by the light scope is decieving. But isn''t it also decieving when I see partial light leakage in my stone with the naked eye, but the idealsope fails to make it clear (b/c it colors those areas dark greyish pinkish) when the Lightscope does make clear (by coloring it pale pale pink). In this case I would probably favor the lightscope inspite of the so called ''exaggeration'' of the amount of light leakage. I rather know that the light leakage is not as bad as the lightscope reveals, rather than think I got a better stone than I actually got!

If nothing else, at the least Mr. g will know the pros and cons of both devices.

Kaleidoscopic you are getting closer to the idea. What you say is quite valid for round stones - and the red reflector leakage principle works pretty well with rounds. But not so with fancy shapes.

But even with rounds - carried to its logical extension - 8* and ACA newline type stones with reduced leakage should be vastly better than diamonds that have leakage near the edges. But there are people who prefer normal no tricked up stones - and the reason why? Because the small amounts of leakage at the girdle adds contrast. Read about that here http://www.ideal-scope.com/newsletters_issue003.asp

What does this all mean?
Very fine levels of leakage that are exaggerated by our color perception do not create a logical basis for human vision analysis. The Ideal-scope picture above (apart from being a poor version Jonathon took to show how good his is) would give you a much beter idea of a stones performance than the image beside it. This chart is very complex - but if you study it it shows how our perception of the pink color does not match the actual light return. Our intuition is wrong wrong wrong.

I tried to find a chart of Sergey''s to explain this - but cant - but please believe me because this is something that I never believed until Sergey changed my mind.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I think the main point to remember that one should not compare both type of pics directly, since there clearly is a difference in how ''anal'' the company behind it is.

Personally, I am happy to see this difference shown here, because we are using a set-up comparable to that of Jonathan, and I always wondered how certain sets of proportions did not show white in the pics of some companies, while I knew them to be present in our set-up.

Live long,

 

[squarediamondlove]

Date: 4/5/2006 8:05:41 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/5/2006 2:46:00 AM

Author: Kaleidoscopic



I understand your point, however what about the fact that the light leakage that I see with my own eyes in the right lighting condition, when viewed through a Lightscope appears pale pale pale pink. Your argument makes sense if the difference that the Lightscope detected was not actually noticable to the naked eye and thus over-exaggerated the effect unecessarily. However, since the lightscope does reflect the differences one can discriminate with the naked eye, even if what you said is true, does it really matter?


What you are saying is that given how pale the pale pale pink is, you would think that it only has 10% of light return when lets say it actually has 35% - so the color difference apportioned by the light scope is decieving. But isn''t it also decieving when I see partial light leakage in my stone with the naked eye, but the idealsope fails to make it clear (b/c it colors those areas dark greyish pinkish) when the Lightscope does make clear (by coloring it pale pale pink). In this case I would probably favor the lightscope inspite of the so called ''exaggeration'' of the amount of light leakage. I rather know that the light leakage is not as bad as the lightscope reveals, rather than think I got a better stone than I actually got!


If nothing else, at the least Mr. g will know the pros and cons of both devices.

Kaleidoscopic you are getting closer to the idea. What you say is quite valid for round stones - and the red reflector leakage principle works pretty well with rounds. But not so with fancy shapes.


But even with rounds - carried to its logical extension - 8* and ACA newline type stones with reduced leakage should be vastly better than diamonds that have leakage near the edges. But there are people who prefer normal no tricked up stones - and the reason why? Because the small amounts of leakage at the girdle adds contrast. Read about that here http://www.ideal-scope.com/newsletters_issue003.asp


What does this all mean?

Very fine levels of leakage that are exaggerated by our color perception do not create a logical basis for human vision analysis. The Ideal-scope picture above (apart from being a poor version Jonathon took to show how good his is) would give you a much beter idea of a stones performance than the image beside it. This chart is very complex - but if you study it it shows how our perception of the pink color does not match the actual light return. Our intuition is wrong wrong wrong.


I tried to find a chart of Sergey''s to explain this - but cant - but please believe me because this is something that I never believed until Sergey changed my mind.

I would much appreciate if you could send me Sergey''s explination when you do find the chart - I am very interested in learning about it. I also have an incentive to believe you since the image of my stone is alot more appealing under the idealscope.

Also, I would be curiouse to see if the ASET image of a princess is more in line with the idealscope or the lightscope - I know that ASET measures light return in a given angle rather than just direct, but it may still be interesting to compare. I only used the ASET briefly and not in the best lighting so I don''t think the conclusion I reached ( which is that I believed at that point in time it was more consistent with the light scope) is conclusive.

Also, since you brought up 8*, when I was looking for my mothers H&A earings at GOG one of the stones of a set that was presented to me actually had steep upper girdles. At first there was something about it I didn''t like than on closer examination I realized that the edges of the stone were a dull looking. When I aksed GOG about this problem, they told me that its actually due to the fact that the upper girdles are a little too steep. Having my idealscope handy that day, I proceeded to examine this effect through both the idealscope and the lightscope; I could not see this problem in the idealscope b/c it just showed up a nice red/pink, but did see it in the lightscope more clearly, it showed up as an off color, b/c it was more ''anal'' tool as you say.

 

[Mara]

Mr G... I don't know much about princesses, but just don't end up with a stone with a big glassy window. Those are definitely not as visually attractive. It's hard to find a great princess but you are in good hands!

oh and after reading the same old same old LS vs IS discussion up above...many times people do not use the idealscope in the proper lighting situation, so they just get a big blob of red, which is not accurate.

 

[Rhino]

My apologies for not being able to answer sooner.

Date: 4/4/2006 8:39:51 PM
Author: belle

Date: 4/4/2006 6:38:48 PM
Author: Rhino

We''ve showed this comparison for years now on our website regarding the photography and views seen through both of these devices. I snapped off these pictures earlier taken under both the IdealScope and our DiamXray (formerly LightScope) which also demonstrates Kaleidoscopic''s statement.

demonstates which statement?

Date: 4/4/2006 6:38:48 PM
Author: Rhino

While we like the photography taken through IdealScope and FireScope/SymmetryScope (if done accurately), we feel our invention best explains the corellations we see in other technologies which are more sensitive to light return.

i''m sure you do feel your ''invention'' best explains the corellations with other technologies.

that is your mission! correlation of the technology de jour and trying to convince people that you have the better better because of it.
the reality is, there can''t be complete compatibility with every technology and you know that. trying to match up these correlations at such a microscopic level is deceptive to people who just want to know the actual visible impact. with the stone you posted, the images may look slightly different in saturation, but the relevent information is plainly there. pertinent light leakage is easy to see and other than how they would score on these technologies ''that are more sensitive to light return'', there are no detectable differences.

I think you greatly misunderstand where I am coming from belle.

I am a firm believe in 2 types of analysis.

1. The critical analysis. When examining cut quality in princess cuts or any shape for that matter I want details and I want them as accurately as I can see them. This is the primary reason for developing the scope I use. When I was first introduced to the FireScope back in 2000, and was examining photospectrometer readings through the BrilianceScope it appeared there was a contradiction between the 2. When we made the alterations to the scope we then fully understood why certain stones were scoring as they did. The 2 technologies actually explain each other and I had this published on our site for years showing the corellations.

2. The more important of the 2 ... The practical analysis. How this data corellates to human observation is key to understanding how to interpret the technical data. If a stone does outstanding on certain technologies (like Bscope, IdealScope, HCA, whatever ...) human observation has and always will take precedence. In fact, in each of our tutorials under "The Technologies" we give a balanced perspective on each technology we employ and are just as quick to point out their deficiences as well as their strengths. It is through observation testing and "the practical analysis" wherein we find the limitations of certain cutting features which detract from the appearannce of diaimond even when a technology misses it.

If you haven''t read it yet, and Garry I know you would find it of keen interest, we have published an article entitled "A Comprehensive Guide to Reflector Based Technologies" wherein we show both the strengths and weakness of reflectors as well as a robust section on the History and Development of these including the original manual to the first FireScope made in Japan. There are weakness'' to reflectors images that many consumers here are not aware of. Interestingly some of the original patenters in Japan were aware of this too.

Peace,

 

[Rhino]

Hi Kaleidoscopic!

Argh ... sometimes I have a hard time remembering the real names with the avatar names. I had forgot exactly who you were but now I remember as you bring up the princess cut. Hope this post finds you well. Thank you for sharing your observation.

 

[Rhino]

Hi mate,

Just a thought before I have to head out. I''m not going to sit and argue over whose scope is better. I already know the answer to that. hehe

But did want to comment regarding this statement ...

Date: 4/5/2006 8:05:41 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Kaleidoscopic you are getting closer to the idea. What you say is quite valid for round stones - and the red reflector leakage principle works pretty well with rounds. But not so with fancy shapes.

But even with rounds - carried to its logical extension - 8* and ACA newline type stones with reduced leakage should be vastly better than diamonds that have leakage near the edges. But there are people who prefer normal no tricked up stones - and the reason why? Because the small amounts of leakage at the girdle adds contrast. Read about that here http://www.ideal-scope.com/newsletters_issue003.asp

I don''t think its due to the trace amount of leakage at all actually. That leakage is so minute when you consider how small a diamond is. I don''t think the leakage is detectable at all.

Observation testing by regular folks do not perceive painted girdle diamonds as vastly better. Yes this is what a red reflector image suggests, but visual observation tells a different story. An observation we''ve conducted over the past 5-6 years with hundreds of consumers. The reason, I believe for this preference is perhaps best explained with the ASET tool. When you take 2 stones with similar proportion combinations, one painted, one not ... the painted stone is drawing more of its reflections from the 0-45 degree zone while the unpainted stone is drawing more of its reflections from the 45-75 degree zone.

Depending on a persons focal length this can increase or decrease brightness. My personal focal length is rougly 12-14 inches so I would see not only head obstruction but also more body obstruction. Hence more darkness around the upper half region.

A person whose focal length is shorter (say more around the 6-8 inch range) will not see the effects of painting as dramatically perhaps as there will be less body obstruction. These are my thoughts on this at this time.

Peace out,

 

[Rhino]

Mara you have a great way of summing things up. Now ... does that ice cream come in low carb/no sugar?