Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos, etc

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I can most definitely see a difference in optics between a GIA VG and an AGS0. The main questions I have revolve around if there is as much gain to be seen stepping up from AGS0 performance to AGS0 with superideal optical symmetry. The other is that just because I can comprehend visual differences, it doesn't neccessarily make one 'better' or more 'beautiful' than another. It simply makes them different.

That is really the question at hand when does it become a quality difference vs a personality difference?

One thing about high precision cutting both angular and 3d symmetry with tight tolerances is that similar sized diamonds will have similar personalities and in different sizes a family resemblance.
Another is the craftsmanship aspect, I have always been drawn to craftsmanship and I admire things where very skilled people go the extra mile to produce something.

But as too the answer to when it becomes a quality difference we have a lot of opinions but but few facts once you get to the point of being well cut vs "super ideal cut" vs ultimate craftsmanship cut.
As you move up the ladder the differences become smaller and the human element harder to predict and model.

For low colours can be visible difference in colour from table.( better symmetry, better table colour)

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

CBI and Mr. Pollard does not want to present information that highlights the possibility that the CBI premium over WF ACA, GOG H&A, BGD is not justified. Further that a strong likelihod exists for a large set of customers all of those lines don't have a justified premium or substantial difference over most generic AGS 000 or even a fair part of the GIA XXX range. After all they sell CBI diamonds first and formost and are not an educational non profit entity.

Rockdiamond sells anything but Tolkowsky "Ideal" diamonds and does not want to present information that highlights the possibility that these "Ideals" have superiority in many areas over the "Chaotic" diamonds he may prefer and sell.

Rhino sells diamonds that perform well in the GIA diamond dock(where most of his videos are shot) and may not want to present information that highlights the weaknesses of how he chooses to do comparisons(sell) diamonds.

Bryan from Whiteflash promotes the way in which they choose to sell "in house" diamonds and does not want to draw attention to the likelihood that these diamonds may be indistinguishable from some of his competitors here on this board and may even be sourced from the same cutters in Atwerp. If that "theory" was given more weight price competition would further increase on pricescope and the regulars could quickly recommend the best price as the overiding criteria and "value" or "premium" for a WF ACA might erode.

Garry Holloway and Serg sell Vibox, Dibox(I really can't keep track of what they are calling the latest iteration),Diamcalc and other diamond evaluation tools and post to promote their research together. The answers, posts, and studies you get from them will often attempt to tear down the constructs and tools currently used to evaluate the round brilliant(and fancy) diamonds (GIA and AGSL cut grading) which is what is needed if they want to sell the next "black box" system or some "new" comparison equipment for comparing diamonds.

Dear tmorrow:

It's a compelling script, but I suggest you don’t know the characters very well. While I may argue with the others you named, they are solid contributors who I feel have consumers' best interests in mind. Their histories of honest contributions speak to that.

Also, when you referenced "The CBI premium over ACA, GOG, BGD..." you completely forgot HOF, Tiffany, Cartier and others. There are many choices out there and the limited brands you named are by no means the high-end of diamond-spend.

More to the point, and your specific comment: If your premise was true, why on earth would any showroom elect to carry CBI?

1. Typical walk-in customers have no clue about Pricescope
2. They’re also clueless about minimum checks like HCA & ASET and certainly don't know AGSL
3. Far easier to sell your 3EX product to such clients, even verified “best” by the world’s foremost authority
4. Especially easier when your 3EX or AGS0 is cheaper than CBI
5. Double especially easier if you never ever put CBI next to it for a comparison...

So: If generic GIA EX and AGS 000 were indeed both “same” and “cheaper” why on earth would any showroom dealer ever stock CBI? Furthermore, why would they *ever* devalue the easier-to-sell EX and AGS0 by ever daring to propose CBI? - I suppose our showroom dealers must be crazy?

And don't forget Wink. This guy has lost his mind. He sells via internet where paper is all you see, yet he *only* carries CBI... Holy smokes. Is he a loony? The man could carry anything he wants but chooses the hardest to sell on paper. Then he does this SITBI program where clients can take the diamond around and compare them locally - against all the stuff you say is all comparable and cheaper... Man, what a nut. Take Wink to the asylum and put him out of his misery!

Unless...

Some people do see the value and it makes them happy. Perhaps they keep the CBI and refer friends to the store. Maybe some even feel strongly enough to spend personal time here on a silly diamond forum testifying that this is the case... Hmm. That might, just might, explain why these showroom dealers go to the trouble of hosting the brand successfully? Possible?

A bit of tongue-in-cheek. But eyes wide open

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I had Sarine Light here and tested numerous diamonds on it whose results I have saved. It is what was formerly the Isee2 technology which I had used for roughly a decade but wanted to test the new algorithms. As an advocate of online technologies and one who was eager to re-employ the technology ... after seeing the results I had to pass. To rely upon it as any form of "grading system" no less ... not a good idea.

I didn't realize this was former Isee2... Connecting the dots now. The Sarine guys pushed us hard at last year's JCK, as did the OGI Firetrace people, but without peer-review it seems like more GIGO. They both dropped your name as a tester by the way Jonathan. In general I am curious if Randy and Kurt from GE feel like there's infringement going on? If you need to answer privately that's fine. I'm just seeing a lot as it relates to pixel-counting which seems to have sprung from their well. You are the long-standing device ninja, so I'm interested in your take.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

When it comes to consumers comparing precision cut 57 facet round brilliant H&A's (#3 above) to GIA Ex's of whatever variety I can tell you this. There are consumers who do and don't see the differences immediately. There is so much that goes into account as to the "why's". Ie. There are GIA Ex round brilliants that have AGS Ideal optics where consumers see the difference because of the precise Optical Symmetry of the H&A's and some who don't. Then as John mentioned there are those who develop their palate and do appreciate moreso as time goes on. There are also individuals who prefer chaotic optical symmetry and are fine with that.

As each one of us has our differences that make up our particular personalities. There are individuals and couples who want it even if they can't see it immediately or ever see it and there are those who don't.

I personally take the approach I have since I've been selling online. I err on the side of caution, make sure I'm getting the value I'm paying for and if Optical Symmetry ever begins getting graded with any major lab we are already one step ahead of the game when it comes to value. Many pros here realize the inherent value in the labor that goes into producing such rare products. It would be nice to see a major lab recognize these efforts in a grading system although it is really unlikely as most diamonds would not receive the top grade.

Bottom line and what I recommend to the consumer ... Educate yourself. Determine what it is that is important to you. Is it simply a GIA Ex? Is it simply an AGS Ideal? Is it one that has optics which fall in the zenith of both? How about taking that to a level of precision which represents less than 1% of diamonds in the world ... more rare than Tiffany, Cartier etc for a small fraction more? Garner as much information as you can about what it is you want and get it.

Either you're in my head, or we’ve both arrived at the same place after abundant consumer-experiences garnered over many years.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John,

Say we take a round diamond in packaging A, out to a test subject and say it’s really expensive and the best cut available. Then go in the back and bring out the exact same diamond again in packaging B. Say it’s very well-priced and an excellent value. Have the customer comment on both of them.

I believe that would be a scientific method to run this experiment, as well as determining if psychology has any impact. I do often read here the importance of diamonds being mind clean, I think this is a good way to see if "mind cleanliness" has anything to do with this.

I'd be uncomfortable saying anything dishonest to a client. Side-by-side viewing in multiple lighting conditions facilitates an honest and decisive experience for the viewer. They're empowered to see differences, or not, without trying to trick them.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Thanks for the great responses, Karl, Garry, Serg, and Rockdiamond!

Karl- that makes a lot of sense that there's not much funding for this kind of research- I never really thought about that, thanks for bringing it up! I suppose it would be counterproductive for the majority of (non PS super ideal) cutters out there to carry out this work as the more research done the more their current inventory could end up looking subpar. Also, whoever did the studies and developed the technology would need to invest in educating consumers on the difference on top of putting in the research to turn more profit, so it could be a real net negative for the average dealers out there.

It seems like the market has been moving towards a paradigm shift though in the last couple decades, so I think the PS dealers here are ahead of the curve and will do quite well as the market continues to shift towards data driven consuming in all categories- and the ability to adapt with the data and continually think critically about it will allow them to stay ahead of the market and continue to thrive.

Garry/Serg- That article was very informative- thanks! It is amazing how visual/cognitive processing can cause such drastic changes in how two distinct static images are transposed into one single image- I was aware summation doesn't do it justice but was not aware of the extent of difference suggested. I am curious about how certain data points such as the square experiments were collected- such as when the squares were displayed to subjects, how was what they were seeing determined- and how many people were studied? Also, have you noticed any variation between people in how two different images are synthesized? I haven't read through the literature, but I'm curious if you know whether each person tends to interpret the two images combined in the same way, or if there is some variation between people for this.

To the poster above- I don't think I've ever said anything negative about CBI or any other super ideal dealer. It's my personal opinion (non-scientific and untested) that I also see a difference and I plan on obtaining a super ideal myself at some point- and I'm very grateful to pricescope for how much I've learned and the ability to decide that I am after such a diamond. My questions are purely for lack of ability to control my curiosity, and tangentiality of this field to my personal areas of interest- not really much else. I'm not sure if I'm the poster who joined in the same time frame as pfunk, but I can assure you I do not know him and it is pure coincidence.

Finally, just want to give a big kudos to the PS dealers and researchers on this thread for engaging in these discussions, it's this kind of dedication to the craft and willingness to talk about all aspects of diamond creation that has locked up my lifelong business- I enjoy supporting the companies that are dedicated scientifically and willing to both educate and continually learn. Thanks!!

Medical,
1)test with squares is very old( more than 10 years old at least). we showed this test to more than 100 observers in 2014, but in group tests.( In previous 10 years we tested around 100 individual observers totally. it was more hobby for me than science research )
2) we published all data and instructions. If you have Stereo Monitor you can repeat it.
3) I did not see significant variations in tests results, but most observers have problems to describe how do they see Black/White squares on grey background( white and black backgrounds show just difference in brightness and it is easy to describe )
4) repeatability with more complex objects ( like static diamond images) was much worse:
4a) results strongly depends from 3D monitor quality and observation conditions( illumination in room, distance from screen, angle to screen )
4b) around 5-10% men have not "binocular stereo" vision. Them brain emulate stereo vision.( this phenomena is well known long time)

Medical here is the link to do the tests for yourself http://www.Cutvision.com/stereo If you have a 3D TV that you can connect a lap top to you may be able to do it.
Otherwise you can print so images are eye width apart and if you are good at 3D magazine dot puzzles you can see for yourself.

 

[proto]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John

I respect you greatly and the other trade members who voluntarily take time to educate board.

However I am a born cynic and must question everything. I may have purchased CBI if I had more liquid funds at the time of my purchase so I am not a CBI hater and more of a fanboy.

CBI does hold a price premium, even over competitor superideals. I hope this is not disputed. The fact there exist even more expensive brands, is neither here nor there, unless you are intending to say people are paying for the CBI branding instead of the best cut diamonds in the world bar none.

I take your point that a market for CBI does exist at the time. I disagree thay using wink as an example is illustrative. My understanding is that Wink does not need to do anything (work wise) and since he only wants to sell the best diamonds (in his view CBI) these are the only diamonds he stocks. His business model is not in my mind the exception rather than the norm.

I am all fine with this so far. CBI diamonds cost more, but they market as the best. To the point where idealscope and aset can no longer assist in determing the quality of a diamonds cut as it is too innaccurate a tool. im okay with this assertion depending on what facts are provided in support.

Then an internal survey is shared where 9 out of 12 of CBI dealers report that customers in the showroom prefer CBI because xyz. Paraphrasing a bit. The way the questions were phrased and the questions asked look more aimed at producing external marketing than internal surveys but ok, that is just my opinion so I am skeptic but accept that as well.

So I ask if people would be happy to submit some diamonds and stand behind their product with a demo by Rhino from GOG. I suggested GOG purely because he has made and I have seen a number of his videos and form a nice baseline for comparison. I dont consider his videos biased tbh, but thats off topic slightly.

Then people say they dont want to compete etc. Ok thats fair enough.

The bit that really got my attention is -
9 out of 12 CBI dealers say all or most of their showroom customers think CBI diamonds show better light performance
but you say a snap customer survey or video cant prove anything because you need a 2+ week viewing time.

How does this reconcile to everyone else? I am just in disbelief.

Either the people will see the difference and reflect the internal CBI survey or they wont. If they dont, you accept that this indicates the CBI survey were the result of the various biases discussed in the previous threads.

Again, i am a cbi fanboy but the way the survey results were released and the seemingly subsequent backtracking as to why no survey or comparison could ever be agreed upon make me view the CBI brand less favourably than when I read this thread.

Yes I am nobody and this is just my opinion, but this is what I think when I read this thread.

Again much respect to you and the other trade members who continue to give their free time to educate this board.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

This is another quote from CBI.

"Infinity Diamonds exceed every performance metric on earth, achieving levels yet unmeasured and ungraded by any diamond laboratory. In short, no laboratory matches our own standards." I'm not sure I even get what this means. Acheiving levels yet unmeasured and ungraded... Perhaps you can let us know what is meant by this John? What "levels" are being acheived and how are you measuring them? Which things are being measured that the labs aren't measuring?

Per this entire dialogue: Scintillation is yet unmeasured and ungraded by any diamond lab. CBI enforces an internal standard for that quality among others, but the labs don't.

I think that if optical symmetry has such a large impact on visual perception ,an effort should be made to try to quantify that difference. If that means additional grading metrics, great. If it means having a lot of consumers look at diamonds to see how many are drawn to those with superior optical symmetry, that's great too. I just think it would be nice if consumers who are buying sight unseen had more concrete evidence to go by as opposed to marketing.

John (and any others who wish to voice an opinion): do you think it would be helpful for consumers to have a blinded study to see how many consumers are detecting differences due to optical symmetry, EVEN IF it can't account for differences in eyesight between viewers and is done in a single observation throughout different types of lighting? Or do you think such a study is of limited use to consumers and should not be pursued? If you think it is of limited use, how would you propose improving it to make such a study more useful for consumers?

Those studies are happening every day, in our showrooms and others where optimum-cut proposition is sold. See my tongue-in-cheek post atop this page. You acknowledged that you're a novice on page 2 and offered that I can learn from your opinion. To that end, it's an illuminating discussion. Meanwhile, I've lived the reality for some years. So I’m cool with whatever studies you or others want to entertain. Meanwhile I am drawing from years of experience, beginning with my own consumer-experience.

I have been answering your questions as thoroughly as I can. Up-to and past the line where there’s a feeling that I’m giving away intellectual property. I love the dialogue and hope it leads to conclusions for you down the road. Meanwhile, I'd point back to my first post on the first page of this thread. That overview is unchanged after these many pages. And I'm living it every day.

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

John,

Say we take a round diamond in packaging A, out to a test subject and say it’s really expensive and the best cut available. Then go in the back and bring out the exact same diamond again in packaging B. Say it’s very well-priced and an excellent value. Have the customer comment on both of them.

I believe that would be a scientific method to run this experiment, as well as determining if psychology has any impact. I do often read here the importance of diamonds being mind clean, I think this is a good way to see if "mind cleanliness" has anything to do with this.

I'd be uncomfortable saying anything dishonest to a client. Side-by-side viewing in multiple lighting conditions facilitates an honest and decisive experience for the viewer. They're empowered to see differences, or not, without trying to trick them.

Right this is for experimental purposes only (test subjects), I too would never recommend doing this with clients.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

This is another quote from CBI.

"Infinity Diamonds exceed every performance metric on earth, achieving levels yet unmeasured and ungraded by any diamond laboratory. In short, no laboratory matches our own standards." I'm not sure I even get what this means. Acheiving levels yet unmeasured and ungraded... Perhaps you can let us know what is meant by this John? What "levels" are being acheived and how are you measuring them? Which things are being measured that the labs aren't measuring?

Per this entire dialogue: Scintillation is yet unmeasured and ungraded by any diamond lab. CBI enforces an internal standard for that quality among others, but the labs don't.

I think that if optical symmetry has such a large impact on visual perception ,an effort should be made to try to quantify that difference. If that means additional grading metrics, great. If it means having a lot of consumers look at diamonds to see how many are drawn to those with superior optical symmetry, that's great too. I just think it would be nice if consumers who are buying sight unseen had more concrete evidence to go by as opposed to marketing.

John (and any others who wish to voice an opinion): do you think it would be helpful for consumers to have a blinded study to see how many consumers are detecting differences due to optical symmetry, EVEN IF it can't account for differences in eyesight between viewers and is done in a single observation throughout different types of lighting? Or do you think such a study is of limited use to consumers and should not be pursued? If you think it is of limited use, how would you propose improving it to make such a study more useful for consumers?

Those studies are happening every day, in our showrooms and others where optimum-cut proposition is sold. See my tongue-in-cheek post atop this page. You acknowledged that you're a novice on page 2 and offered that I can learn from your opinion. To that end, it's an illuminating discussion. Meanwhile, I've lived the reality for some years. So I’m cool with whatever studies you or others want to entertain. Meanwhile I am drawing from years of experience, beginning with my own consumer-experience.

I have been answering your questions as thoroughly as I can. Up-to and past the line where there’s a feeling that I’m giving away intellectual property. I love the dialogue and hope it leads to conclusions for you down the road. Meanwhile, I'd point back to my first post on the first page of this thread. That overview is unchanged after these many pages. And I'm living it every day.

John, How does Infinity define Scintillation?
Is it marketing statement about CBI round cut or CBI princess cut?
From first point of view it looks strange that extra symmetry round diamonds have highest scintillation for round diamonds.

 

[John P]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Proto,

Thank you for the comments as it relates to respect. You've earned mine too. I love that you're a "fanboy." (and a cynic).

An immediate question: Where did you get the idea that Wink doesn't need to work? He may be surprised to hear that. Can you elaborate?

As for the rest: I said before I'm 100% certain this is the most detail I’ve ever been asked to disclose about CBI. It’s rare that I even talk about it on Pricescope. However CBI questions were specifically asked, thus I specifically answered. In my enthusiasm to share it's been communicated that I need to be mindful about intellectual property, and potential for abuse.

I did want to address this.

The bit that really got my attention is -
9 out of 12 CBI dealers say all or most of their showroom customers think CBI diamonds show better light performance
but you say a snap customer survey or video cant prove anything because you need a 2+ week viewing time.

I remember asking Garry how he planned to overcome individual palates and exposure lengths in a study, but no further dialogue? I don't recall commenting on videos. In the interest of further discussing this, I wrote a rather long post detailing our process pretty thoroughly, since we do what we can to address both challenges I raised in a short time. Still, for reasons Medical and others raised, it's not scientific nor intended to be.

Either the people will see the difference and reflect the internal CBI survey or they wont. If they dont, you accept that this indicates the CBI survey were the result of the various biases discussed in the previous threads.

In the context you offered I get where you're coming from.

The impetus of sharing the PDSA summary came when Pfunk asked questions and said "obviously you probably don't know the answers." I was excited to have asked showroom pros similar Qs, and thought sharing their feedback would be useful. I never intended it to stand as a consumer-study. It was jeweler feedback, in rhythm with the questions he posed to me.

I had also said before: "Many decisively see and want our specific look. Others see it but have a different priority. Others may say “meh,” or don’t see it at all." Rather than saying that again, it seemed useful to share what the front-line pros had observed.

Again, i am a cbi fanboy but the way the survey results were released and the seemingly subsequent backtracking as to why no survey or comparison could ever be agreed upon make me view the CBI brand less favourably than when I read this thread.

Grateful for the opportunity to address that impression. Hope it makes sense.

I looked back and see where you said:

Not meaning to attack the results of the survey, but the results were from jewellers who sell and stock CBI diamonds. The results would be meaningful and persuasive (for me) if these were a double blind study against average consumers. Not even educated consumers, but the average person on the street.

I can't argue that. Especially since it was not consumers replying, but a jewelry-pro summary.

Yes I am nobody and this is just my opinion, but this is what I think when I read this thread. Again much respect to you and the other trade members who continue to give their free time to educate this board.

You're definitely a somebody. For a long time you've contributed generously and, per the above, I respect your approach to consumer education. I'm grateful you spoke up and I could clarify. As I have always said, Nobody is wrong. The perceptions we are talking about all coexist. Quantifying them is the challenge, and it's a complex issue. I certainly don't have all the answers.

 

[KobiD]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I can most definitely see a difference in optics between a GIA VG and an AGS0. The main questions I have revolve around if there is as much gain to be seen stepping up from AGS0 performance to AGS0 with superideal optical symmetry. The other is that just because I can comprehend visual differences, it doesn't neccessarily make one 'better' or more 'beautiful' than another. It simply makes them different.

That is really the question at hand when does it become a quality difference vs a personality difference?

One thing about high precision cutting both angular and 3d symmetry with tight tolerances is that similar sized diamonds will have similar personalities and in different sizes a family resemblance.
Another is the craftsmanship aspect, I have always been drawn to craftsmanship and I admire things where very skilled people go the extra mile to produce something.

But as too the answer to when it becomes a quality difference we have a lot of opinions but but few facts once you get to the point of being well cut vs "super ideal cut" vs ultimate craftsmanship cut.
As you move up the ladder the differences become smaller and the human element harder to predict and model.

Precisely Karl.

I too am drawn towards the engineering and craftmanship involved in producing a precision cut diamond, for no other reason than someone has taken the time to produce the best they possible can (from a geometrical design point). I would call that a respect for the build quality.

However, in defining value and doing cost to performance things become much grayer. Its been stated that at this stage the optical performance cannot be measured, so it really does come down to what an individual can see/perceive.

With carat weight, in most cases the value is below the mark. Ie a .95-.99ct will present better value than a 1.00ct (cut for cut) while having very little influence on visual difference. The difference is however measurable, and in most cases very subtle. Is it all that different?

In many cases, I feel that the precision only provides value if one is going to take the time to appreciate it. With my particular AGS0, in certain scenarios under very close scrutiny I can highlight points where it lacks symmetry (which is also visible in photographs etc). If you then step back and look at the stone on the finger, its purely sparkly and throws off the most beautiful shows of colour in just about every lighting environment. In saying that, I haven't been fortunate to place a super ideal in its position to see how much I have given up. I suspect I would indeed be able to pick out variance when seeking to do so, but from a distance, set in a ring, on a finger I feel it would be near impossible (based from what I have seen in Jons GOG videos, and in local stores).

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

This is another quote from CBI.

"Infinity Diamonds exceed every performance metric on earth, achieving levels yet unmeasured and ungraded by any diamond laboratory. In short, no laboratory matches our own standards." I'm not sure I even get what this means. Acheiving levels yet unmeasured and ungraded... Perhaps you can let us know what is meant by this John? What "levels" are being acheived and how are you measuring them? Which things are being measured that the labs aren't measuring?

Per this entire dialogue: Scintillation is yet unmeasured and ungraded by any diamond lab. CBI enforces an internal standard for that quality among others, but the labs don't.

I think that if optical symmetry has such a large impact on visual perception ,an effort should be made to try to quantify that difference. If that means additional grading metrics, great. If it means having a lot of consumers look at diamonds to see how many are drawn to those with superior optical symmetry, that's great too. I just think it would be nice if consumers who are buying sight unseen had more concrete evidence to go by as opposed to marketing.

John (and any others who wish to voice an opinion): do you think it would be helpful for consumers to have a blinded study to see how many consumers are detecting differences due to optical symmetry, EVEN IF it can't account for differences in eyesight between viewers and is done in a single observation throughout different types of lighting? Or do you think such a study is of limited use to consumers and should not be pursued? If you think it is of limited use, how would you propose improving it to make such a study more useful for consumers?

Those studies are happening every day, in our showrooms and others where optimum-cut proposition is sold. See my tongue-in-cheek post atop this page. You acknowledged that you're a novice on page 2 and offered that I can learn from your opinion. To that end, it's an illuminating discussion. Meanwhile, I've lived the reality for some years. So I’m cool with whatever studies you or others want to entertain. Meanwhile I am drawing from years of experience, beginning with my own consumer-experience.

I have been answering your questions as thoroughly as I can. Up-to and past the line where there’s a feeling that I’m giving away intellectual property. I love the dialogue and hope it leads to conclusions for you down the road. Meanwhile, I'd point back to my first post on the first page of this thread. That overview is unchanged after these many pages. And I'm living it every day.

Thanks for clarifying John. I wasn't sure if this was again speaking about scintillation or if there were other levels being measured.

So while the labs don't measure scintillation, CBI has it's own method for measuring it? Or do you mean there is a visual check with expert eyes for a scintillation standard that each stone must pass? Or is it just known that by cutting stones with the level of precision that you do, the scintillation will be achieving the level you demand at CBI?

 

[proto]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

An immediate question: Where did you get the idea that Wink doesn't need to work? He may be surprised to hear that. Can you elaborate?

John may thanks for your response.

In relation to the quoted bit, I recall watching an interview of Wink on Youtube where he used to be a Buddhist monk before getting into the jewellery business, and in it he stated that he only stocks the diamonds he thinks look the best or something like that, and that he only wants to sell items he is passionate about and is lucky enough to be in a position where he doesnt need to sell anything that he doesnt want to sell. The conclusion I drew from that was that Mr Wink was fortunate enough to not have to work, and that this was a passionate hobby which also happens to make financial sense to pursue.

Looking for this interview video again, I was unable to find it and it now seems he was in the armed forces of some sort prior to getting into the jewellery business, so I wonder if this was some elaborate (and very random dream) I had last year when I was frantically geeking up as much as possible about all things diamond related.

Reading my post, this now seems kind of "out there", and may draw a further chuckle from Mr Wink beyond my "oh my god - wholesalers buy into EGL reports" post.

As for your response to my post, thank you for addressing those points and clarifying your position.

 

[proto]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

On a slight tangent but related to performance nuances beyond ASET H&A photos etc...

Perhaps also linking into recent comments on scintillation (I may be way off base)

Is this related to yaw and azimuth shift in some way? These factors (in my understanding) are completely ignored by grading reports on physical point symmetry, but can have significant impact on optical symmetry. While it can be seen in HA images, they can appear quite hard to see (to my eyes), and measuring very small amounts of yaw from HA images seems impossible.

Have CBI somehow found some way to polish that means east-west polishing never needs to occur, leading to the highest levels of optical symmetry, and conclude that scintillation is/should be maximised?

This would make sense to me, because the number of unintended virtual facets would then be minimized, and some virtual facets may be too small to be recognised by the human eye, or multiple flashes may only register as one. All that remains are the actually intended reflections, which can all be discernible from each other due to their size. I imagine there is some size threshold where virtual facets may not necessarily be bad thing in relation to the eye's ability to distinguish

All the above is purely curiosity and may/likely be based on incorrect assumptions, but this thread seems to have attracted many of the super technical posters so seems quite likely that I may continue in receiving a free diamond education.

 

[WinkHPD]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

<SNIP>

John may thanks for your response.

In relation to the quoted bit, I recall watching an interview of Wink on Youtube where he used to be a Buddhist monk before getting into the jewellery business, and in it he stated that he only stocks the diamonds he thinks look the best or something like that, and that he only wants to sell items he is passionate about and is lucky enough to be in a position where he doesnt need to sell anything that he doesnt want to sell. The conclusion I drew from that was that Mr Wink was fortunate enough to not have to work, and that this was a passionate hobby which also happens to make financial sense to pursue.

Looking for this interview video again, I was unable to find it and it now seems he was in the armed forces of some sort prior to getting into the jewellery business, so I wonder if this was some elaborate (and very random dream) I had last year when I was frantically geeking up as much as possible about all things diamond related.

Reading my post, this now seems kind of "out there", and may draw a further chuckle from Mr Wink beyond my "oh my god - wholesalers buy into EGL reports" post.

As for your response to my post, thank you for addressing those points and clarifying your position.

Proto,

Please be assured that I did indeed chuckle, and heartily, when I read your post. You are maybe the third or fourth Pricescope person to believe me to be a Buddhist, but as far as I know, the first to believe me to actually be worthy of also being a monk. While I do meditate and pray often, and I am humbled that you think me to be so worthy, I must assure you that I am not. Although I have great respect for The Buddha and have read much of his teachings, I am of a different faith.

I lead the prayers at my local Rotary club and many there have asked why I am not a priest, again the answer is simple, I am not worthy so to be.

What I am mostly, is a loving grandfather and a devoted husband. Oh, and also a former Combat Marine, which is why I meditate and pray often, as more than 48 years after my tour in Vietnam, I am still trying to heal the scars that I will bear to the day that I make my transition.

Also, please know that my life has been greatly blessed with wonder and good friends, including the many that I have here on Pricescope. My work consumes much of my time, ten to twelve hours a day most days, but I also take time off to hunt in the fall and kayak and fish in the Spring and Summer. It seems that the older I get, the harder I work, and the harder I work the more I love and enjoy it.

I ask only that you continue to ask questions and be a valued member of our community here. You are appreciated.

Namaste.

Wink

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Thanks for the great responses, Karl, Garry, Serg, and Rockdiamond!

Karl- that makes a lot of sense that there's not much funding for this kind of research- I never really thought about that, thanks for bringing it up! I suppose it would be counterproductive for the majority of (non PS super ideal) cutters out there to carry out this work as the more research done the more their current inventory could end up looking subpar. Also, whoever did the studies and developed the technology would need to invest in educating consumers on the difference on top of putting in the research to turn more profit, so it could be a real net negative for the average dealers out there.

It seems like the market has been moving towards a paradigm shift though in the last couple decades, so I think the PS dealers here are ahead of the curve and will do quite well as the market continues to shift towards data driven consuming in all categories- and the ability to adapt with the data and continually think critically about it will allow them to stay ahead of the market and continue to thrive.

Garry/Serg- That article was very informative- thanks! It is amazing how visual/cognitive processing can cause such drastic changes in how two distinct static images are transposed into one single image- I was aware summation doesn't do it justice but was not aware of the extent of difference suggested. I am curious about how certain data points such as the square experiments were collected- such as when the squares were displayed to subjects, how was what they were seeing determined- and how many people were studied? Also, have you noticed any variation between people in how two different images are synthesized? I haven't read through the literature, but I'm curious if you know whether each person tends to interpret the two images combined in the same way, or if there is some variation between people for this.

To the poster above- I don't think I've ever said anything negative about CBI or any other super ideal dealer. It's my personal opinion (non-scientific and untested) that I also see a difference and I plan on obtaining a super ideal myself at some point- and I'm very grateful to pricescope for how much I've learned and the ability to decide that I am after such a diamond. My questions are purely for lack of ability to control my curiosity, and tangentiality of this field to my personal areas of interest- not really much else. I'm not sure if I'm the poster who joined in the same time frame as pfunk, but I can assure you I do not know him and it is pure coincidence.

Finally, just want to give a big kudos to the PS dealers and researchers on this thread for engaging in these discussions, it's this kind of dedication to the craft and willingness to talk about all aspects of diamond creation that has locked up my lifelong business- I enjoy supporting the companies that are dedicated scientifically and willing to both educate and continually learn. Thanks!!

Medical,
Thank YOU for your participation here. You have a refreshing blend of intellectual curiosity, experience in the scientific world, and an appreciation for the challenges posed by different perspectives in the search for understandings that are always just over the present horizon.

Some of the trades people who are posting in this thread are longtime contributors to this community. They have helped make this a forum a place where consumers and other tradespeople can learn together. Along with their educational contributions some of these same folks are vendors who have provided quality products and service to a wide range of visitors to the forum who have become enthusiasts. Some have even become involved in the trade and have become influential in our industry.

I don’t frequent other types of forums but I suspect the accessibility and openness of the trades people here is probably much greater than in other industries. (Some may even share more than the folks they work for may be comfortable with!) But this mix of trades, enthusiasts and newbies creates a rich fabric that we all benefit from.

When members such as yourself and others in this thread recognize the contributions of the trades people as well as the limitations that some have to work within, it provides additional motivation for us to stay engaged.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

You should go onto a car forum Bryan.
"Which is better, the Six speed manual or the sequential double clutch" - discussions reach epic animosities. It's so combative as to make the banter here seem so tame.
Plus a lot of other forums allow cuss words....it can get pretty rough
PS is so well moderated- and it's a remarkably tough job

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

You should go onto a car forum Bryan.
"Which is better, the Six speed manual or the sequential double clutch" - discussions reach epic animosities. It's so combative as to make the banter here seem so tame.
Plus a lot of other forums allow cuss words....it can get pretty rough
PS is so well moderated- and it's a remarkably tough job

Ok then. I think I will stay here and not venture out. We may be snooty, and occasionally snippy or snarky, but by in large we are civilized. Some of us anyway.

By the way, I think my constant variable transmission is super ideal.

 

[Rhino]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi Serg,

34.5/40.7 vs 34.5/41.2 ...

I have access to such diamonds but a preliminary question ... would you want them both to have tight optical symmetry or more common chaotic optical symmetry or ... doesn't matter?

Regards,
Rhino

Bryan- every study, survey, exercise has limitations, and those limitations should be clearly laid out prior, during, and after. The limitations dictate the scope and generalizability of the results.

It is preemptive to say "The effort is certain to fail to answer the questions that are being asked of the study in any kind of statistically significant or scientifically valid way". The hypothesis or research question has not even been fully formulated, so it is impossible to even guess what would be statistically significant or scientifically valid.

Please be more specific about your concerns.

In beginning We want compare 2 round diamonds ;
P34.5P40.7 and P34.5P41.2. around 1 ct

difference only in proportions.( Symmetry level H&A, same color, clarity, size, no FL, no Milkiness,..are same. Btw it is so difficult to find such pair)
of course better compare nine diamonds P34.5P40.7 with nine diamonds P34.5P41.2 but it is too complex and expensive for us.

latter we want add P34.5P41.2, P33P41.6
questions like( order is important)
1) Do you see difference? if yes, what difference do you see?
2) Which diamonds do you prefer? Why?
3) Do you see difference in Brilliancy? If yes, which diamond has more Brilliancy
4) Do you see difference ? If yes, which diamond has more Fire?
It is draft version. We can change its if receive valid suggestions

I happy to do it Open and transparent. I am agree that I and Garry are biased , but we biased to different round diamonds , so we control each other and have chances to do balanced survey. Everybody welcome to do this survey more valid .

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi Serg,

34.5/40.7 vs 34.5/41.2 ...

I have access to such diamonds but a preliminary question ... would you want them both to have tight optical symmetry or more common chaotic optical symmetry or ... doesn't matter?

Regards,
Rhino

Bryan- every study, survey, exercise has limitations, and those limitations should be clearly laid out prior, during, and after. The limitations dictate the scope and generalizability of the results.

It is preemptive to say "The effort is certain to fail to answer the questions that are being asked of the study in any kind of statistically significant or scientifically valid way". The hypothesis or research question has not even been fully formulated, so it is impossible to even guess what would be statistically significant or scientifically valid.

Please be more specific about your concerns.

In beginning We want compare 2 round diamonds ;
P34.5P40.7 and P34.5P41.2. around 1 ct

difference only in proportions.( Symmetry level H&A, same color, clarity, size, no FL, no Milkiness,..are same. Btw it is so difficult to find such pair)
of course better compare nine diamonds P34.5P40.7 with nine diamonds P34.5P41.2 but it is too complex and expensive for us.

latter we want add P34.5P41.2, P33P41.6
questions like( order is important)
1) Do you see difference? if yes, what difference do you see?
2) Which diamonds do you prefer? Why?
3) Do you see difference in Brilliancy? If yes, which diamond has more Brilliancy
4) Do you see difference ? If yes, which diamond has more Fire?
It is draft version. We can change its if receive valid suggestions

I happy to do it Open and transparent. I am agree that I and Garry are biased , but we biased to different round diamonds , so we control each other and have chances to do balanced survey. Everybody welcome to do this survey more valid .

Hi Rhino,
In first such survey I prefer use samples with only one difference . If symmetry is bad we can not say that samples have difference only in pavilion angle.
I need reasonable H&A level symmetry. ( best symmetry level that give real chances to find diamond with such proportions, same colour, size, etc)
first pair is necessary to develop survey methodic . latter I want compare diamonds with same proportions but different optical symmetry.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi Serg,

34.5/40.7 vs 34.5/41.2 ...

I have access to such diamonds but a preliminary question ... would you want them both to have tight optical symmetry or more common chaotic optical symmetry or ... doesn't matter?

Regards,
Rhino

Bryan- every study, survey, exercise has limitations, and those limitations should be clearly laid out prior, during, and after. The limitations dictate the scope and generalizability of the results.

It is preemptive to say "The effort is certain to fail to answer the questions that are being asked of the study in any kind of statistically significant or scientifically valid way". The hypothesis or research question has not even been fully formulated, so it is impossible to even guess what would be statistically significant or scientifically valid.

Please be more specific about your concerns.

In beginning We want compare 2 round diamonds ;
P34.5P40.7 and P34.5P41.2. around 1 ct

difference only in proportions.( Symmetry level H&A, same color, clarity, size, no FL, no Milkiness,..are same. Btw it is so difficult to find such pair)
of course better compare nine diamonds P34.5P40.7 with nine diamonds P34.5P41.2 but it is too complex and expensive for us.

latter we want add P34.5P41.2, P33P41.6
questions like( order is important)
1) Do you see difference? if yes, what difference do you see?
2) Which diamonds do you prefer? Why?
3) Do you see difference in Brilliancy? If yes, which diamond has more Brilliancy
4) Do you see difference ? If yes, which diamond has more Fire?
It is draft version. We can change its if receive valid suggestions

I happy to do it Open and transparent. I am agree that I and Garry are biased , but we biased to different round diamonds , so we control each other and have chances to do balanced survey. Everybody welcome to do this survey more valid .

Hi Rhino,
In first such survey I prefer use samples with only one difference . If symmetry is bad we can not say that samples have difference only in pavilion angle.
I need reasonable H&A level symmetry. ( best symmetry level that give real chances to find diamond with such proportions, same colour, size, etc)
first pair is necessary to develop survey methodic . latter I want compare diamonds with same proportions but different optical symmetry.

latter we want add P34.5P41.2, P33P41.6

sorry for typo
has to be " latter we want add P34.5P41.4, P33P41.6"

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

<SNIP>

John may thanks for your response.

In relation to the quoted bit, I recall watching an interview of Wink on Youtube where he used to be a Buddhist monk before getting into the jewellery business, and in it he stated that he only stocks the diamonds he thinks look the best or something like that, and that he only wants to sell items he is passionate about and is lucky enough to be in a position where he doesnt need to sell anything that he doesnt want to sell. The conclusion I drew from that was that Mr Wink was fortunate enough to not have to work, and that this was a passionate hobby which also happens to make financial sense to pursue.

Looking for this interview video again, I was unable to find it and it now seems he was in the armed forces of some sort prior to getting into the jewellery business, so I wonder if this was some elaborate (and very random dream) I had last year when I was frantically geeking up as much as possible about all things diamond related.

Reading my post, this now seems kind of "out there", and may draw a further chuckle from Mr Wink beyond my "oh my god - wholesalers buy into EGL reports" post.

As for your response to my post, thank you for addressing those points and clarifying your position.

Proto,

Please be assured that I did indeed chuckle, and heartily, when I read your post. You are maybe the third or fourth Pricescope person to believe me to be a Buddhist, but as far as I know, the first to believe me to actually be worthy of also being a monk. While I do meditate and pray often, and I am humbled that you think me to be so worthy, I must assure you that I am not. Although I have great respect for The Buddha and have read much of his teachings, I am of a different faith.

I lead the prayers at my local Rotary club and many there have asked why I am not a priest, again the answer is simple, I am not worthy so to be.

What I am mostly, is a loving grandfather and a devoted husband. Oh, and also a former Combat Marine, which is why I meditate and pray often, as more than 48 years after my tour in Vietnam, I am still trying to heal the scars that I will bear to the day that I make my transition.

Also, please know that my life has been greatly blessed with wonder and good friends, including the many that I have here on Pricescope. My work consumes much of my time, ten to twelve hours a day most days, but I also take time off to hunt in the fall and kayak and fish in the Spring and Summer. It seems that the older I get, the harder I work, and the harder I work the more I love and enjoy it.

I ask only that you continue to ask questions and be a valued member of our community here. You are appreciated.

Namaste.

Wink

Oh my, I have to say that the comment about Wink being a Buddhist monk is one of the umm..most surprising things I have ever read here! I was thinking...I have been here almost TEN YEARS and I cannot BELIEVE I have never heard that one!

Thanks for clearing that up, Wink! And thank you sincerely for your sacrifice and service to our country.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I just want to say how much I respect you guys (trade) on this thread from whom I have learned SO much about diamonds over the last 10 years almost! Those of you who work with the best cut diamonds in the world on a daily basis share your knowledge and passion so generously. Like Wink said, I have been so blessed to get to know many of you and am extremely fortunate to have a few of your diamonds.

This particular thread has moments that make me feel like this: , however, you guys have infinite patience and continue to share your knowledge with all of us. Sorry for the interruption....I just wanted to tell you that you are appreciated.

 

[proto]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

So I finally tracked down the video which made me think Wink was a monk.

Sadly on watching it now, this is NOT our beloved Wink

My memory is already going at the ripe age of 31... sad days.

The mystery in my mind has been solved though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l56hHW2SL1g

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

This particular thread has moments that make me feel like this: , however, you guys have infinite patience and continue to share your knowledge with all of us. Sorry for the interruption....I just wanted to tell you that you are appreciated.

ssssssshhhhhhh don't tell anyone but threads like this are a lot of fun for a lot of us in the trade.
The brick marks on the forehead hurt sometimes though! lol

 

[diagem]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Everybody seems stuck at this point but Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos is definitely doable on REAL ETAS.
Its an easy test anyone can have fun doing, take any polished Diamond you want tested (branded or generic) and place it table top on a glass (would probably work with a mounted rings).
Then take a dark colored cardboard and puncture a small hole (allowing the light path of either a flashlight or laser through it) and attach flashlight (similar to white led as in your phone) to the hole allowing the light to pass through.
Keep an approx. 1.20 inches (30mm) distance between cardboard and glass (by laying both between books or similar). Now light the flashlight/laser and aim the light to the center of the Diamond laying face down on the glass (the more centered the better the results.)
Results will reflect actual the “3D light symmetry” of the Diamond being tested.
The higher the symmetry level of the light paths displaying/reflecting on the cardboard the higher the symmetry level of the cut itself.
Easy…
Attached is a drawing displaying the simple setup (forgive my handwriting.)
Attached is also an image of a Real ETAS (photographed at 30mm distance) displaying 3D light symmetry results of a recent Octavia Diamond we cut.



Real ASET Octavia

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Yoram

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Everybody seems stuck at this point but Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos is definitely doable on REAL ETAS.
Its an easy test anyone can have fun doing, take any polished Diamond you want tested (branded or generic) and place it table top on a glass (would probably work with a mounted rings).
Then take a dark colored cardboard and puncture a small hole (allowing the light path of either a flashlight or laser through it) and attach flashlight (similar to white led as in your phone) to the hole allowing the light to pass through.
Keep an approx. 1.20 inches (30mm) distance between cardboard and glass (by laying both between books or similar). Now light the flashlight/laser and aim the light to the center of the Diamond laying face down on the glass (the more centered the better the results.)
Results will reflect actual the “3D light symmetry” of the Diamond being tested.
The higher the symmetry level of the light paths displaying/reflecting on the cardboard the higher the symmetry level of the cut itself.
Easy…
Attached is a drawing displaying the simple setup (forgive my handwriting.)
Attached is also an image of a Real ETAS (photographed at 30mm distance) displaying 3D light symmetry results of a recent Octavia Diamond we cut.

Real ASET Octavia

Thanks for this post Yoram. I have always been intrigued by the projections of sparkles. What the diamond is actually doing with light is actually easier to understand in a projection than in a real time dynamic observation. For instance, it is easier to understand dispersion of light into component colors by looking at the projection of light on a surface after passing through a prism.



In the exercise you have constructed you are able to see patterns and relative sparkle sizes and distribution. It is like a vastly blown up version of what your eye sees. And it brings the concept of virtual facets out of the realm of theoretical ray tracing and into the real world visual realm. Very cool

 

[teobdl]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Yoram,
Thank you for that. This is a very simple setup and seems easily reproducible. Two questions:
1) why isn't it used more widely as an evaluation tool?
2) what are some major things about a diamond's light "performance" that you can't learn from ETAS but which you might learn with ASET?