Radiant Diamond Cut Evaluation Education

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Bryan,
The aset shows red in exactly dark the areas clearly indicated in my picture.
I'll gladly take another shot later as time permits- but this aset and my picture match.
There's no effort to light the pavilion in my photos- and quite frankly, this aset and picture should please put to rest the baseless criticism that my pictures won't show darkness where it exists in diamonds..

There is little to no light coming from the red zone in ASET in your tweezers shots which is what people have been complaining about. Its all green zone and overly bright and hitting the pavilion, show the light box photo like the rest of them.
These pictures rather than putting to rest the complaints about your photos prove them.

Hi Karl,
Anyone, and I mean anyone who was seen our diamonds and posted about it on here has said that they look like the pictures.
In addition to many thousands of people that have bought the diamonds based on these pictures.
Are there ways of photographing any diamond and make it look bad? Of course!
The best lighting set up for photographing a diamond gets light all over the diamond. You want people to be able to see the whole diamond. Lighting is essential. I have never tried to specifically aim a light into the pavilion of a diamond- but I don't think it would look good.
I am still waiting for someone to publish a picture of what they think a picture of a radiant cut should look like.
Karl- if you could point out graphically where the photo and aset are giving contrary info, I'd really appreciate. Looks the same to me.
The bow tie is apparent- but it's not a really bad bow tie. The Aset and picture both show this

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi Bryan,
The aset shows red in exactly dark the areas clearly indicated in my picture.
I'll gladly take another shot later as time permits- but this aset and my picture match.
There's no effort to light the pavilion in my photos- and quite frankly, this aset and picture should please put to rest the baseless criticism that my pictures won't show darkness where it exists in diamonds..

David, my comments are in no way a criticism of your tweezer pictures. They are very nice. I have no objection to you posting them.

But if you want to correlate the ASET signature of the diamond to a picture of the diamond, both images have to be captured with the light entering the diamond from the hemisphere above the girdle plane of the diamond. ASET theory is based on that premise.

While it is true that the bow tie effect in your tweezer shot is similar to the pattern of high angle light (red) and contrast (blue) in ASET, it is likely not a direct correlation. As Karl pointed out there is little light coming from high angles in your tweezer shots.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

I'm genuinely confused at this point about the continuing complaints concerning David's photograph. I thought the concern was that his photos would hide problems - make even ugly diamonds look beautiful like some jewelery store lighting. I did not know who was right so I specifically asked David to photograph a diamond with a bowtie so we could find out if the photo would show it or hide it.

This photo shows the bowtie clear as day. It accurately reflects the diamond I saw in person, cutting defects and all. This is a diamond that I personally would only buy to recut, and it would lose a significant amount of weight addressing the problem. I do not agree with David that the bowtie doesn't look as bad in person - in my opinion the photo shows it like it is.

Are folks saying that they don't believe this is what the diamond looks like because its not how they would have expected it to look based on their understanding of the ASET? If so, then it is not the photo that is being misunderstood.

I can assure you having seen the diamond personally, that this diamond has a significant bowtie precisely where the ASET shows red. The ASET identifies the bowtie quite clearly, as does the photo, which to me validates both as useful tools especially since they reinforce each other.

One thing I don't understand on the ASET is the blue area embedded in the red which on the diamond would be the middle of the bowtie on both sides. This area on the diamond looks indistinguishable to be from the rest of the bowtie area yet shows up differently on the ASET. Can anyone explain why this would be the case?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you Bryan- I appreciate your words.
One thing to keep in mind- in real life the only way to physically block light from entering the pavilion is to encase it so that there the pavilion has NO air touching it. Like pushing it into silly putty.
Even a tiny airline will allow light the bounce back into the diamond. Diamonds set in closed cups are like that. The cup allows a bit of space so that light can pass through the diamond and bounce back into it. Not that I like closed cups- but they prove the point.

This might be an essential aspect to leakage that is constantly overlooked.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Hi Bryan,
The aset shows red in exactly dark the areas clearly indicated in my picture.

So the first thing is it appears your ASET is tilted, the diamond was not sitting flat, centred and with the table completely paralell to the scope lense. This will affect the shape of the bowtie and lead to region and color mismatch.

The red circled regions are dark. How close is your camera lense to the diamond?
The green circled region you have washed out the detail in this region by flooding the pavilion/girdle.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Stan- about the bow tie in stone 6
You referred to it as "significant "
I think it's important to note that the bow tie in this stone, although significant, is not all that much of a problem visually. It does a lot of flashing bright - not a consistently dark area that I would find more problematic.
Basically you and I have both been trying to find really bad examples- and neither of us has found a really bad example

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I'm genuinely confused at this point about the continuing complaints concerning David's photograph. I thought the concern was that his photos would hide problems - make even ugly diamonds look beautiful like some jewelery store lighting. I did not know who was right so I specifically asked David to photograph a diamond with a bowtie so we could find out if the photo would show it or hide it.

This photo shows the bowtie clear as day. It accurately reflects the diamond I saw in person, cutting defects and all. This is a diamond that I personally would only buy to recut, and it would lose a significant amount of weight addressing the problem. I do not agree with David that the bowtie doesn't look as bad in person - in my opinion the photo shows it like it is.

Are folks saying that they don't believe this is what the diamond looks like because its not how they would have expected it to look based on their understanding of the ASET? If so, then it is not the photo that is being misunderstood.

I can assure you having seen the diamond personally, that this diamond has a significant bowtie precisely where the ASET shows red. The ASET identifies the bowtie quite clearly, as does the photo, which to me validates both as useful tools especially since they reinforce each other.

One thing I don't understand on the ASET is the blue area embedded in the red which on the diamond would be the middle of the bowtie on both sides. This area on the diamond looks indistinguishable to be from the rest of the bowtie area yet shows up differently on the ASET. Can anyone explain why this would be the case?

Stan, I don't think there should be any confusion about what I am saying. In fact back on page 2 or 3 I suggested that David could save time by making just two images - ASET and the face up lightbox image. Assuming both images are captured in a way that the tables are perpendicular to the lens and the light is coming from overhead, the images would be comparable in terms of the translation of what ASET is telling us about the way the diamond is handling light and what the photo is telling us about face up appearance.

The blue color in the ASET would represent light that is obscured by the observers head. It would be seen in the photo as a reflection of the camera (black). It is possible that very high angle red can toggle to blue (black in photo) with a slight change of viewing angle. Red in ASET would not create a bowtie - it is bright light return. However, depending on the cutting angles it could be highly sensitive to tilt and you could have a case of those red facets turning off together (toggling to blue/black) creating the areas of darkness (the bowtie) that you see in real life.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

One thing I don't understand on the ASET is the blue area embedded in the red which on the diamond would be the middle of the bowtie on both sides. This area on the diamond looks indistinguishable to be from the rest of the bowtie area yet shows up differently on the ASET. Can anyone explain why this would be the case?

Blue in ASET is from 75 to 90 degrees and generally the region of light blocked by a viewers head (although some experts believe this should be more or less depending on viewing distance and size of head).

Red is from 45 - 75 degrees.

A bowtie region reflects light from high angles, often the bowtie can be reflecting light from 73 - 80 degrees which is why when you tilt the diamond slightly and view under an ASET scope that region can change from red to blue and vice versa.

If an object like a close camera lense is blocking light from 60 - 90 degrees than the whole region will appear dark and no distinction between blue and red areas can be made from a photograph.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Put another way, more visual: the blue obscuration seen in this ASET forms the "core" of the bowtie. On either side are large contiguous areas that are bright in face up mode but with a bit of tilt toggle to the blue range essentially doubling the darkness due to obscuration thus accentuating the bowtie as you are examining the stone with a bit of motion in real life.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Red in ASET would not create a bowtie - it is bright light return

A diamond gathers and reflects light from the hemisphere above it.
ASET red means the diamonds is reflecting light(or gathers light) from somewhere in the region of 45 - 75 degrees, in that area of the crown.

If there is no bright light available in the angular range the diamond is tuned to return there will be no bright light return.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Assuming both images are captured in a way that the tables are perpendicular to the lens

Parallel not perpendicular to the lens.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

One thing I don't understand on the ASET is the blue area embedded in the red which on the diamond would be the middle of the bowtie on both sides. This area on the diamond looks indistinguishable to be from the rest of the bowtie area yet shows up differently on the ASET. Can anyone explain why this would be the case?

Blue in ASET is from 75 to 90 degrees and generally the region of light blocked by a viewers head (although some experts believe this should be more or less depending on viewing distance and size of head).

Red is from 45 - 75 degrees.

A bowtie region reflects light from high angles, often the bowtie can be reflecting light from 73 - 80 degrees which is why when you tilt the diamond slightly and view under an ASET scope that region can change from red to blue and vice versa.

If an object like a close camera lense is blocking light from 60 - 90 degrees than the whole region will appear dark and no distinction between blue and red areas can be made from a photograph.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Assuming both images are captured in a way that the tables are perpendicular to the lens

Parallel not perpendicular to the lens.

Yes, parallel. Thank you.

The line of sight is perpendicular but the lens itself must be parallel.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Red in ASET would not create a bowtie - it is bright light return

A diamond gathers and reflects light from the hemisphere above it. [\b]
ASET red means the diamonds is reflecting light(or gathers light) from somewhere in the region of 45 - 75 degrees, in that area of the crown.

If there is no bright light available in the angular range the diamond is tuned to return there will be no bright light return.

What does a diamond do with light coming from the hemisphere below or to the side of it? What if the diamond's table is not perpendicular to the light source?

Bryan- eliminating photos that accurately represent what I am seeing with my eye defeats the purpose of cut evaluation education.
It's not only Stan and I confirming that my photos are representative of how radiant cuts look in person- any other comment from members who have seen the diamonds I photograph indicate they are representative. Therefore they are important.
Actually part of my criticism of aset interpretation has to do with green and white and how facets producing these colors in aset perform in real life.
My photos show why.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

I have to ask this again because I really feel as though I am misunderstanding something. Are folks saying that they don't believe the diamond has a bowtie as shown in the picture because red in the ASET means that area "should" be bright? Or are you saying that that the area actually is bright in some kind of a scientific sense even though it appears as a bowtie both in the picture and in real life.

I can assure you that the diamond has a very real very prominent bowtie and any photo that didn't show it would be materially misleading. To the human eye, which at the end of the day is the technology that matters, the diamonds life is uneven and the bowtie area appears very much not "bright."

And how a characteristic appears to the human eye is the only operative fact that matters to the consumer.

I personally don't care what causes a bowtie as long as I know, from a cutting standpoint, how I can diminish or get rid of it. If a concentration of red in the bowtie area of an ASET scan (perhaps with blue in the center), let's us know that a bowtie exists, then the ASET has done its job in identifying a cutting defect. If a photo, like David's confirms it, then both ASET and photo have "performed" well.

David - can you post a photo of the diamond the way Bryan and Karl have asked. I'd be interested in seeing how the bowtie shows up in that image. Any image that does not show the bowtie clearly would be, in my opinion, extremely misleading to the consumer.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

I have to ask this again because I really feel as though I am misunderstanding something. Are folks saying that they don't believe the diamond has a bowtie as shown in the picture because red in the ASET means that area "should" be bright? Or are you saying that that the area actually is bright in some kind of a scientific sense even though it appears as a bowtie both in the picture and in real life.

I can assure you that the diamond has a very real very prominent bowtie and any photo that didn't show it would be materially misleading. To the human eye, which at the end of the day is the technology that matters, the diamonds life is uneven and the bowtie area appears very much not "bright."

And how a characteristic appears to the human eye is the only operative fact that matters to the consumer.

I personally don't care what causes a bowtie as long as I know, from a cutting standpoint, how I can diminish or get rid of it. If a concentration of red in the bowtie area of an ASET scan (perhaps with blue in the center), let's us know that a bowtie exists, then the ASET has done its job in identifying a cutting defect. If a photo, like David's confirms it, then both ASET and photo have "performed" well.

David - can you post a photo of the diamond the way Bryan and Karl have asked. I'd be interested in seeing how the bowtie shows up in that image. Any image that does not show the bowtie clearly would be, in my opinion, extremely misleading to the consumer.

Stan,

Have you seen this diamond in person?
Is this diamond an Original Radiant Cut?

 

[RADIANTMAN]

I have to ask this again because I really feel as though I am misunderstanding something. Are folks saying that they don't believe the diamond has a bowtie as shown in the picture because red in the ASET means that area "should" be bright? Or are you saying that that the area actually is bright in some kind of a scientific sense even though it appears as a bowtie both in the picture and in real life.

I can assure you that the diamond has a very real very prominent bowtie and any photo that didn't show it would be materially misleading. To the human eye, which at the end of the day is the technology that matters, the diamonds life is uneven and the bowtie area appears very much not "bright."

And how a characteristic appears to the human eye is the only operative fact that matters to the consumer.

I personally don't care what causes a bowtie as long as I know, from a cutting standpoint, how I can diminish or get rid of it. If a concentration of red in the bowtie area of an ASET scan (perhaps with blue in the center), let's us know that a bowtie exists, then the ASET has done its job in identifying a cutting defect. If a photo, like David's confirms it, then both ASET and photo have "performed" well.

David - can you post a photo of the diamond the way Bryan and Karl have asked. I'd be interested in seeing how the bowtie shows up in that image. Any image that does not show the bowtie clearly would be, in my opinion, extremely misleading to the consumer.

Stan,

Have you seen this diamond in person?
Is this diamond an Original Radiant Cut?

Yes I've seen it and no it's is not an ORC and it does not belong to me. As I've said, if the diamond were mine I would not sell it as/is. I would recut it to diminish the bow tie. It is unlikely that I could purchase it for a price that would enable me to do that and sell it for a profit nor could anyone else so the diamond will almost certainly be sold as/is.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I have to ask this again because I really feel as though I am misunderstanding something. Are folks saying that they don't believe the diamond has a bowtie as shown in the picture because red in the ASET means that area "should" be bright? Or are you saying that that the area actually is bright in some kind of a scientific sense even though it appears as a bowtie both in the picture and in real life.

I can assure you that the diamond has a very real very prominent bowtie and any photo that didn't show it would be materially misleading. To the human eye, which at the end of the day is the technology that matters, the diamonds life is uneven and the bowtie area appears very much not "bright."

And how a characteristic appears to the human eye is the only operative fact that matters to the consumer.

I personally don't care what causes a bowtie as long as I know, from a cutting standpoint, how I can diminish or get rid of it. If a concentration of red in the bowtie area of an ASET scan (perhaps with blue in the center), let's us know that a bowtie exists, then the ASET has done its job in identifying a cutting defect. If a photo, like David's confirms it, then both ASET and photo have "performed" well.

David - can you post a photo of the diamond the way Bryan and Karl have asked. I'd be interested in seeing how the bowtie shows up in that image. Any image that does not show the bowtie clearly would be, in my opinion, extremely misleading to the consumer.

Stan,

Have you seen this diamond in person?
Is this diamond an Original Radiant Cut?

The thread relates to ANY well cut radiant. One very cool thing about the brand is that the design is available to be used by any cutter. Stan is one of the more amazing cutters- very dedicated to excellence. But there are others that cut truly well cut radiant diamonds. Nothing we are discussing here applies to the Original Radiant Cut exclusively.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I have to ask this again because I really feel as though I am misunderstanding something. Are folks saying that they don't believe the diamond has a bowtie as shown in the picture because red in the ASET means that area "should" be bright? Or are you saying that that the area actually is bright in some kind of a scientific sense even though it appears as a bowtie both in the picture and in real life.

I can assure you that the diamond has a very real very prominent bowtie and any photo that didn't show it would be materially misleading. To the human eye, which at the end of the day is the technology that matters, the diamonds life is uneven and the bowtie area appears very much not "bright."

And how a characteristic appears to the human eye is the only operative fact that matters to the consumer.

I personally don't care what causes a bowtie as long as I know, from a cutting standpoint, how I can diminish or get rid of it. If a concentration of red in the bowtie area of an ASET scan (perhaps with blue in the center), let's us know that a bowtie exists, then the ASET has done its job in identifying a cutting defect. If a photo, like David's confirms it, then both ASET and photo have "performed" well.

David - can you post a photo of the diamond the way Bryan and Karl have asked. I'd be interested in seeing how the bowtie shows up in that image. Any image that does not show the bowtie clearly would be, in my opinion, extremely misleading to the consumer.

Stan, David should post whatever images he wants and you all should give whatever commentary you feel serves your purposes in this thread. I am just repeating myself and do not get the sense it is helping so I will retire. Although the presentation has not been all that coherent, I have learned some things. Thank you both for your efforts.

 

[Karl_K]

Stan, David should post whatever images he wants and you all should give whatever commentary you feel serves your purposes in this thread. I am just repeating myself and do not get the sense it is helping so I will retire. Although the presentation has not been all that coherent, I have learned some things. Thank you both for your efforts.

I feel the same way.
While I have learned a couple things in this thread, I feel like I am banging my head against the brick wall.
After a while the aggravation is not worth it and it is time to let it go.
I feel I have reached that point.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

I personally don't care what causes a bowtie as long as I know, from a cutting standpoint, how I can diminish or get rid of it.

Well I'd be interesting in seeing an ORC with an LW=2-3 to :1 like the one we are discussing learn about how to minimize the bowtie and its appearance.

To avoid all of the interpretation of photographs problem please kindly go to the New York Diamond dealers club or anywhere than has a Sarin HD and get a .srn file of this diamond and any others that you wish to present and I will happily generate the ASET image and other images in any other lighting for this thread to form a consistent and known lighting as a basis for comparison.

I beleive Rockdiamond has done this before so it should not be hard to get a .srn file as he did 4 years ago.

 

[Gypsy]

Stan, David should post whatever images he wants and you all should give whatever commentary you feel serves your purposes in this thread. I am just repeating myself and do not get the sense it is helping so I will retire. Although the presentation has not been all that coherent, I have learned some things. Thank you both for your efforts.

I feel the same way.
While I have learned a couple things in this thread, I feel like I am banging my head against the brick wall.
After a while the aggravation is not worth it and it is time to let it go.
I feel I have reached that point.

I reached that pages back.

 

[kenny]

... as I wrote in this thread 11 days ago about his obfuscation ...

"For 10 years I've watched you play this game and exasperate Pricescope's most-knowledgeable pros and prosumers, who for some reason still give you the time of day."

 

[Serg]

Red in ASET would not create a bowtie - it is bright light return

A diamond gathers and reflects light from the hemisphere above it. [\b]
ASET red means the diamonds is reflecting light(or gathers light) from somewhere in the region of 45 - 75 degrees, in that area of the crown.

If there is no bright light available in the angular range the diamond is tuned to return there will be no bright light return.

What does a diamond do with light coming from the hemisphere below or to the side of it? What if the diamond's table is not perpendicular to the light source?

Bryan- eliminating photos that accurately represent what I am seeing with my eye defeats the purpose of cut evaluation education.
It's not only Stan and I confirming that my photos are representative of how radiant cuts look in person- any other comment from members who have seen the diamonds I photograph indicate they are representative. Therefore they are important.
Actually part of my criticism of aset interpretation has to do with green and white and how facets producing these colors in aset perform in real life.
My photos show why.

re:t's not only Stan and I confirming that my photos are representative of how radiant cuts look in person- any other comment from members who have seen the diamonds I photograph indicate they are representative.

it is key point. there are 2 "contrary " way to See diamonds.
1) One is typical for Diamond Trade members and Grader persons
2) Second is "Consumer way" to see diamonds.

in first case :
Light source is typical Light environment to grade clarity, colour: Short distance between light source and diamond , diamond and observer. Observer uses loupe and one eye. So main light come from Girdle directions and even pavilion side, there are not light from ASET RED zone due huge head obscuration.
In Second case :
there is big distance between light source and diamond. Observer uses stereoscopic vision and do not use loupe.
distance between diamond and observer is much bigger, so there are many lights sources from ASET RED zone.

David photos show diamonds for Trade ( Grading) light environments, diamonds looks as for observer with loupe.

So misunderstanding in all discussions here are coming from different practices to see diamonds.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Excellent point Serg. All my photos represent what I see in the loupe.. I honestly feel that they give a good idea what the diamond looks like at arms length steroescopic. . But any photo of something is only a representation. When I mentioned other people confirming the photos that was both consumers and trade

I have asked repeatedly for those who criticize the photos to post other pictures they feel are more representive. Instead of adding positive input the loudest critics don't seem to even want to let the discussion take place.

What is a crystal clear is that there's no one here advising consumers that understands white and green in an ASET.
Other pros do understand a lot of what we are pointing out but are possibly intimated by the way the people trying to stop this or any discussion critical of the way ASET is analyzed by prosumers.
Melisendre- Stan and I agreed not to specifically identify any diamonds used in the demonstrations.
Stone #1 handles the bow tie issue as well as any diamond I've seen.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

What is a crystal clear is that there's no one here advising consumers that understands white and green in an ASET.

There are many such consumer advisers here, Gypsy is one of them. I have correlated hundreds if not thousands of fancy cut diamonds with diamond in hand viewed through an ASET scope. I also have the benefit of a Diamcalc license which allows me to generate ASET images, or modify proportions in an existing diamond scan and view immediately the effect on an ASET image.

Noone here on pricescope should be making up new interpretation rules for ASET to help you sell pinfire diamonds. It simply is a disingenuous way of using the tool and leads to marketing not education.

As Garry Holloway said to you the last time you started a thread like this:

"David we do not need to develop a new method for pinfire or fancy color type cuts. You only need to read all the old posts. Its well known among many of the frequent posters."


https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ricescope.170446/page-2#post-3106018#p3106018

Melisendre- Stan and I agreed not to specifically identify any diamonds used in the demonstrations.

Without those scans which can be done without identifying the diamonds, in my opinion this thread has little educational value and I am wasting my time participating further.

My company name is Melisende Diamonds Limited, I would appreciate if you could show a little professionalism and spell my name correctly, it can be found at the bottom of all of my posts. You and Radiantman have been corrected already in previous threads yet you continue to spell it incorrectly repeatedly.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Melisende- I will address your points later but I would like to apologize for mid-spelling your name

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Red in ASET would not create a bowtie - it is bright light return

A diamond gathers and reflects light from the hemisphere above it. [\b]
ASET red means the diamonds is reflecting light(or gathers light) from somewhere in the region of 45 - 75 degrees, in that area of the crown.

If there is no bright light available in the angular range the diamond is tuned to return there will be no bright light return.

What does a diamond do with light coming from the hemisphere below or to the side of it? What if the diamond's table is not perpendicular to the light source?

Bryan- eliminating photos that accurately represent what I am seeing with my eye defeats the purpose of cut evaluation education.
It's not only Stan and I confirming that my photos are representative of how radiant cuts look in person- any other comment from members who have seen the diamonds I photograph indicate they are representative. Therefore they are important.
Actually part of my criticism of aset interpretation has to do with green and white and how facets producing these colors in aset perform in real life.
My photos show why.

re:t's not only Stan and I confirming that my photos are representative of how radiant cuts look in person- any other comment from members who have seen the diamonds I photograph indicate they are representative.

it is key point. there are 2 "contrary " way to See diamonds.
1) One is typical for Diamond Trade members and Grader persons
2) Second is "Consumer way" to see diamonds.

in first case :
Light source is typical Light environment to grade clarity, colour: Short distance between light source and diamond , diamond and observer. Observer uses loupe and one eye. So main light come from Girdle directions and even pavilion side, there are not light from ASET RED zone due huge head obscuration.
In Second case :
there is big distance between light source and diamond. Observer uses stereoscopic vision and do not use loupe.
distance between diamond and observer is much bigger, so there are many lights sources from ASET RED zone.

David photos show diamonds for Trade ( Grading) light environments, diamonds looks as for observer with loupe.

So misunderstanding in all discussions here are coming from different practices to see diamonds.

Hi Serge - thanks for weighing in. It definitely seemed as if we were suffering from a failure to communicate and your point is well taken. My only disagreement is in your characterization of (2) as the "consumer way." It is absolutely an alternative way that needs to be considered but consumers (and the trade) look at diamonds in many ways including (1) and (2) as well as other ways. In fact, in my experience, the principle way a woman looks at the diamond on her finger is neither of those 2 ways - it's in a ring, on her finger with e the table about 12 inches in front of her more or less parallel to her face. The most direct light in that position is coming at the side of the diamond that is facing up. Other people see her ring when its on her finger from a very different perspective so an interesting paradox is that a woman's diamond actually looks different to her than it does to others who see her wearing it.

The bowtie is not a problem to the trade (as opposed to consumers) because of the specific way the trade looks at diamonds. In fact, if the trade could easily sell diamonds with big bowties to consumers for high prices the trade would do so. The aversion to bowties is and has always been based on consumer preferences not on the trade's desire to cause problems for itself.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Melisende- thanks for posting the link from two years back- it was another interesting discussion on this subject.
I don't think pulling out a single quote from Garry is fair to this discussion or Garry.
It is possible his point of view on how these aset images are interpreted here may have changed over the past few years.
I don't want to speak for him- but nor should you.

As far as your accusations of self interest: thankfully we get a lot of business from PS members. It's not MY stones getting trashed without sufficient info- nowadays it's generally other sellers that provide ASET either in listings or by request.
We offer them by request. Not a lot of folks ask- but when asked we provide.
About the NY DDC- they do have a sarin machine. It it does not generate the srn file.
Last time I sent stones to David Atlas for scans.

Stans point is essential to the discussion.
I agree that the loupe view informs well in one regard- but it's still neccesary to look at a stone arms length as well.
Of course an arms length photo would not be all that informative due to the actual size of diamonds.
We do post hand shots to include that type of views

 

[ariel144]

I haven't read this entire thread yet but have to comment based on the fact I am a past radiant owner....NOT a crushed ice radiant, NO bowtie, but more like a well performing modern cushion brilliant.

But for the prosumers wanting see something tangable about how to find a quality radiant stone here is some helpful info.

If you go to www.goodoldgold.com and select "radiant" cut and then start clicking on the radiant stones they feature ...crushed ice ones and others many have ASETs and some have Megascopes which shows the measurement of light return. This says it all to me. The crushed ice ones perform pretty poorly on light return in all 3 categories that are measured on the Megascope. Some people like this look in a diamond, but there are "good" crushed ice and bad crushed ice, but sadly mostly bad IMO. But they don't throw them away and someone eventually sells them to some uneducated consumer.

also there are many helpful videos made by Jonathan on comparing radiant cuts....here is one with ASETS:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckygaF4SYbw

there are several other videos on crushed ice modern cut diamonds...seeing is believing and VERY EDUCATIONAL.

It would be helpful if David would provide a video comparing his stones with each other so we can SEE how they perform in different light settings and provide a Megascope reading on the two stones he has been posting. The proof we need to see how well they perform even though the ASETS look less than satisfactory to many educated PSrs. A photograph is useless in seeing the real performance of a stone...of course seeing it in real life with something to compare it to is best for consumers, but when selling online the 2nd best is a video comparing stones in different light settings as well as all the techno data that can be compiled.

So David please provide a video and some technological data showing how well your stones actually return light to the naked eye.

Gypsy...you go girl....and Kenny. Love how you tell it like it is. (Gypsy I read your "novel"...LOL!)

Hope this helps to educate someone out there looking for a great performing radiant.