AGS ASET Info and Photos from JCK

[Michael_E]

Date: 6/8/2005 10:58:44 AM
Author: Wink

Date: 6/8/2005 9:37:27 AM

Author: strmrdr

Is the red vs green center a quality/performance issue or a personality issue?

How is it considered when assigning the cut grade?

Paul often cuts his diamonds with a 40.5 pavilion angle are they going to be downgraded under the AGS system?

No, it is an informational issue. 40.5 is lower than what Paul usually cuts I believe, but within the parameters of the AGS ideal if I remember correctly. Pauls stones are still receiving the coveted AGS 0 cut grade. I do not think that the green/red table reflection will be anything other than an interesting bit of information that can be instantly perceived from looking at the image. I just thought it a fascinating bit of trivia that was presented to us at the AGS lecture at their laboratory and was sharing it with you. Later I will try to show you part of the charts that were given to us at AGS, it will be much more relevant when seen with other images than when taken out of context.


While light from the 0 - 45 degree angles will not be as bright as the light from 45 to 75 degrees it is still an important part of what needs to happen in the stone for it to proform well. The green light should be minimal when possible but is certainly better than no light or ''leakage'' as it is often called. Like light from the blue area of 75 to 90 degrees it plays a part in the contrast that makes a stone dynamic and lively. The contrast obviously will not be as dramatic as that from the obscuration area, but will add to the look of the stone in a positive manner.


Wink

Wink,
This view is what my concern with this system is all about. I think that the problem stems from the fact that the green in this device goes all the way from 45 degrees to 90 degrees. If you do a ray trace on the green areas in that stone, you will see that the green areas in most of the stone, except for the very outermost areas near the girdle, are generated at angles that are between 47 degrees and 55 degrees. That center spot of green that is what the GIA used to call a "table reflection" is actually light entering the table at about 47.2 degrees with a pavilion main angle of 40.5 degrees. My problem is that I doubt very much that light entering the table at 47+ degrees is dramatically different than light entering at just under 45 degrees, which is the cutoff for the green area. The other, minor problem, that I have with this is that they have not made you aware that the most "fire" that the stone can generate comes at those low entry and exit angles. This device concentrates on brightness at the expense of "fire". I think that this device needs some intermediate color so that the sharp cutoff between green and red is not so blatant. This thing is kind of the opposite of a traffic light and could be used that way by jewelers who don''t really understand it. The good part is that the AGS does have all their ducks lined up and if you use this device ALONG with their grading on a stone, then you will be O.K. If you are looking at an ungraded stone with this device, then you need to be looking at the stone with a more analytical eye to it''s angles, etc. since this device could lead you to the wrong conclusions about a stone. You still have to LOOK at a stone and only use these devices to back up what your eyes are telling you.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/8/2005 9:37:27 AM
Author: strmrdr
Is the red vs green center a quality/performance issue or a personality issue?
How is it considered when assigning the cut grade?
Paul often cuts his diamonds with a 40.5 pavilion angle are they going to be downgraded under the AGS system?

From what I've garnered the answer is yes but quite frankly I'm still not that versed in the AGS system to make an educated call. It *is* less desireable than red but will it affect the cut grade to go from Ideal to non Ideal ... I can't answer at this time. Strm... remember my conclusions about the shallow/shallow combo's? Everything I've heard and read thus far have confirmed my findings on this in both the new GIA and AGS systems. Last year I noted and pointed out the differences once the angles of 40.6 were hit. AGS further refined this by stating less than 40.768 degrees. Since I was not in Vegas during the time of that presentation I am not sure of what crown angle they were coupling with that 40.768 paviloin angle conclusion. If anyone from that presentation knows please fill me in. A supplier of ours who has been servicing us asked me specifically ... if we were to change anything about our cutting style what would it be? My answer: AVOID PAVILION ANGLES OF 40.6 AND LOWER *if* you're going to be cutting 34.x crown angles to go with them. After sharing that he then told me its funny you say that cause AGS said if the angle was lower than 40.768 you'd start to get the undesireable effects.

The most complimentary crown angles are 35.x degrees when using pavilion angles in the low to mid 40.x zone. From what I was told from the AGS presentation once you start hitting these shallow/shallow combo's, more green becomes present under the table which is less desireable than red as green represents the most ineffective angles to reflect back light. I don't know this yet because I just got home late last night and have not had a chance to actually examine these angle combinations. Once I do and once we setup the proper photographic environment you can bet we'll be posting images to show and demonstrate.

Peace,

 

[WinkHPD]

Hey Michael E,

Thanks for your comments. I think the advantage that you and I have is that we ALWAYS look at the stones when we can and then at the paper to see what it says and whether or not it agrees with our eyes. Occassionally I will find a stone that should look like horse manure according to the paper but that looks pretty darn good with the eye and I have a few clients that I call when this happens as those stones can always be bought cheaply from the paper dealers.

I wont pretend to be able to talk intelligently about ray tracing as I have not yet invested in the software, but I think I will when I get caught up in a couple of months I shall have to buy it and learn to use it, then I can discuss these things with you more intelligently.

I think this ASET tool is going to be revolutionary in its affect on the diamond trade, especially for stones that are not yet cut graded as it can tell us many things about what is right and what is wrong about a stone.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/8/2005 10:58:44 AM
Author: Wink

Date: 6/8/2005 9:37:27 AM

Author: strmrdr

Is the red vs green center a quality/performance issue or a personality issue?

How is it considered when assigning the cut grade?

Paul often cuts his diamonds with a 40.5 pavilion angle are they going to be downgraded under the AGS system?

No, it is an informational issue. 40.5 is lower than what Paul usually cuts I believe, but within the parameters of the AGS ideal if I remember correctly. Pauls stones are still receiving the coveted AGS 0 cut grade. I do not think that the green/red table reflection will be anything other than an interesting bit of information that can be instantly perceived from looking at the image. I just thought it a fascinating bit of trivia that was presented to us at the AGS lecture at their laboratory and was sharing it with you. Later I will try to show you part of the charts that were given to us at AGS, it will be much more relevant when seen with other images than when taken out of context.


While light from the 0 - 45 degree angles will not be as bright as the light from 45 to 75 degrees it is still an important part of what needs to happen in the stone for it to proform well. The green light should be minimal when possible but is certainly better than no light or ''leakage'' as it is often called. Like light from the blue area of 75 to 90 degrees it plays a part in the contrast that makes a stone dynamic and lively. The contrast obviously will not be as dramatic as that from the obscuration area, but will add to the look of the stone in a positive manner.


Wink

Interesting.
Im going to be watching closly to see how it plays out, would be nice if AGS cared enough to come and explain it to us consumers.

re Pauls diamonds:
For a long while a lot of Pauls diamonds hit 34.5/40.5 that made it easy to see which were his when they got posted about here and why I remember it.
Looking over the current stock on your website and diamondexpert there are a bunch hitting 40.6.
Hence my question is still valid :}

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/8/2005 2:02:43 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 6/8/2005 9:37:27 AM

Author: strmrdr

Is the red vs green center a quality/performance issue or a personality issue?

How is it considered when assigning the cut grade?

Paul often cuts his diamonds with a 40.5 pavilion angle are they going to be downgraded under the AGS system?

From what I''ve garnered the answer is yes but quite frankly I''m still not that versed in the AGS system to make an educated call. It *is* less desireable than red but will it affect the cut grade to go from Ideal to non Ideal ... I can''t answer at this time. Strm... remember my conclusions about the shallow/shallow combo''s? Everything I''ve heard and read thus far have confirmed my findings on this in both the new GIA and AGS systems. Last year I noted and pointed out the differences once the angles of 40.6 were hit. AGS further refined this by stating less than 40.768 degrees. Since I was not in Vegas during the time of that presentation I am not sure of what crown angle they were coupling with that 40.768 paviloin angle conclusion. If anyone from that presentation knows please fill me in. A supplier of ours who has been servicing us asked me specifically ... if we were to change anything about our cutting style what would it be? My answer: AVOID PAVILION ANGLES OF 40.6 AND LOWER *if* you''re going to be cutting 34.x crown angles to go with them. After sharing that he then told me its funny you say that cause AGS said if the angle was lower than 40.768 you''d start to get the undesireable effects.

The most complimentary crown angles are 35.x degrees when using pavilion angles in the low to mid 40.x zone. From what I was told from the AGS presentation once you start hitting these shallow/shallow combo''s, more green becomes present under the table which is less desireable than red as green represents the most ineffective angles to reflect back light. I don''t know this yet because I just got home late last night and have not had a chance to actually examine these angle combinations. Once I do and once we setup the proper photographic environment you can bet we''ll be posting images to show and demonstrate.


Peace,

Kewl cant wait for the demo.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/8/2005 2:02:43 PM
Author: Rhino

After sharing that he then told me its funny you say that cause AGS said if the angle was lower than 40.768 you''d start to get the undesireable effects.

The most complimentary crown angles are 35.x degrees when using pavilion angles in the low to mid 40.x zone. From what I was told from the AGS presentation once you start hitting these shallow/shallow combo''s, more green becomes present under the table which is less desireable than red as green represents the most ineffective angles to reflect back light. I don''t know this yet because I just got home late last night and have not had a chance to actually examine these angle combinations. Once I do and once we setup the proper photographic environment you can bet we''ll be posting images to show and demonstrate.

Peace,

Rhino,

While it is true that the green represents a less desirable light angle for acquiring light I don''t remember anything being said about the lower angle for pavilion angles being 40.768, rather it was stated that this was an interesting bit of information that could be garnered from whether or not the table reflection was green or red.

The shallow shallow does come into effect but not at 40.768.

Wink

P.S. This is from my memory of a whirlwind weekend and I reserve the right to be wrong, but I think I am right about this at least...

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

I am suffering from jetlag, so maybe this reply will not be extremely clear. Forgive me for that.

First major remark: it is incorrect to state that most or even a lot of our stones are cut to a 40.5/34.5 combination. Our goal-combination is basically different, and during the process, we often have to adapt the crown angle, because the desired pavilion angle was not met exactly.

It is true however, that we tend to go for a slightly shallower pavilion angle than many of our colleagues. I am not going into detail here, but I have to agree with Michael here, that the exact cut-off-point of 45° might lead people to incorrect conclusions about the performance of these stones.

Anyway, we have no problem in receiving AGS-0-grades according to the new system. Over the past six months, we have received results on all our stones according to the new system, and we have a 99%-success rate in obtaining 0 on light performance. The exception was one 30-point stone.

Second remark: With the ASET showing very little green in well-cut rounds, the difference between greens and reds is not extremely important there. The main importance of the difference between greens and reds is in the grading of fancy shapes. Even though we know so much more about cut-grading rounds, it is important not to test the ASET-scope''s strenght on rounds only. You will see that the ASET-scope makes a hell of a difference in fancy shapes, things that remained unobserved by other scopes.

Live long,

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/8/2005 3:26:29 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Second remark: With the ASET showing very little green in well-cut rounds, the difference between greens and reds is not extremely important there. The main importance of the difference between greens and reds is in the grading of fancy shapes. Even though we know so much more about cut-grading rounds, it is important not to test the ASET-scope''s strenght on rounds only. You will see that the ASET-scope makes a hell of a difference in fancy shapes, things that remained unobserved by other scopes.

Live long,

With rounds this is the same point I''m trying to stress with regard to high cut quality. It seems like people are trying to assess green as if it was undesirable in a blanket sense and that is not the case.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 6/8/2005 3:45:34 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

With rounds this is the same point I''m trying to stress with regard to high cut quality. It seems like people are trying to assess green as if it was undesirable in a blanket sense and that is not the case.

John,

It''s not so much that I''m calling green to be bad as the observation that the amount of green in the image is substantially different depending on the method used to take the picture. In particular, the presence of the glass considerablly reduces the green and exchanges it for pinks. Is this an irrelevant detail or an important consideration when viewing an image? If the relative amounts and placement of the various colors is an important attribute for estimating the qualities of the stone then this would be important. Since this color variation is the primary difference between these images and ones taken through an ideal-scope (which is a subject that people here have a great deal of experience with), it seems like an entirely reasonable area of discussion. My gut feeling is that this isn''t as important as the observation of the symmetry and general light return but I''m just guessing at this. I haven''t seen many stones with it and unfortunately, I missed Peter''s presentation at AGS. The CD that they distributed doesn''t really give much detail. I''m sure we''ll learn how to interperet them and can then make a reasonable decision about when it will be useful. This sort of thing grows fairly quickly.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[DiamondExpert]

Here are two stones - left hand has 40.8deg AVE. pav angle and while it's mostly green you can see some red creeping in...If the theory is correct then most of those measurements should be under 40.768 and perhaps one or more greater. Sorry, don't have those #'s but here is a link to the 3D model...http://www.elmyrservices.com/stone.asp?id=6D025873729088D1D22B8C0CC37CABB7

Unfortunately, I can't access the 3D model with my computer, so I can't tell you what the answer is...anyone?

The stone on the right is a non-ideal (surprise! surprise!), with an AVE. pav. angle of 41.7deg, and as one would predict, a red core. (Interestingly, this is a very bright and lively stone with following shallow/deep combination - crown = 12.1%/30.5deg; pav. = 44.1%/41.7deg.)

 

[belle]

regarding stone on left:

 

[DiamondExpert]

Tx Belle! Looks like that is indeed the situation!...case closed!

 

[Michael_E]

Date: 6/8/2005 4:32:06 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 6/8/2005 3:45:34 PM

In particular, the presence of the glass considerablly reduces the green and exchanges it for pinks. Is this an irrelevant detail or an important consideration when viewing an image? If the relative amounts and placement of the various colors is an important attribute for estimating the qualities of the stone then this would be important.
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA

Independent Appraisals in Denver

Neil,
The effect of the glass is more based on the thickness of the glass and not nearly so much on its material properties. This is another thing that would need to be taken into account with this device. For every line of sight ray that leaves the stone to go to your eye, there is only one place that it can originate from on the colored walls of this device. Move the stone up or down and you have changed the colors that you will see if you are close to a color junction. I suppose that the AGS calibrates these things, height wise so that the color bands fall in just the right spot. If you really want to see something strange, put a drop of refractometer fluid between the stone and the glass.
Looking at the stone on the left of this example set it seems as though this stone is right at the cusp where the center spot is partially red and partially green. If this is an example of a really well cut stone, then it seems like the device should be calibrated to make the center spot either red or green, but not a mix. I have no idea how the hand held unit could work effectively without a glass reference plate or some other way to index the table of the stone to the height of the colored bands.
Hey if you want to see a cool, simpified, graphic explanation of refraction, check out this link:

He''s even got a cool little interactive gizmo to play around with.

 

[Michael_E]

That came out weird, heres that refraction simulator:
http://www.ps.missouri.edu/rickspage/refract/refraction.html

 

[strmrdr]

So is it fair to say:
All red and blue with or without green around the edge for contrast = highly directional light return with exellent contrast?

Mostly red and blue with some green other than around the edge = less directional light return with exellent contrast?

Both cases with the blue in the proper places.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/8/2005 3:45:34 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 6/8/2005 3:26:29 PM

Author: Paul-Antwerp


Second remark: With the ASET showing very little green in well-cut rounds, the difference between greens and reds is not extremely important there. The main importance of the difference between greens and reds is in the grading of fancy shapes. Even though we know so much more about cut-grading rounds, it is important not to test the ASET-scope''s strenght on rounds only. You will see that the ASET-scope makes a hell of a difference in fancy shapes, things that remained unobserved by other scopes.


Live long,

With rounds this is the same point I''m trying to stress with regard to high cut quality. It seems like people are trying to assess green as if it was undesirable in a blanket sense and that is not the case.

Some people are just trying to get a handle on this thing and answer some questions.
Is it useful?
What does it show?
How does what it shows translate into what we see?
What do differences in the images mean in what we see when looking at the diamond?
Where is the no-go cut off point that seperates great diamonds from not so great?
Can any usefull information about the personality of the diamond be found in the images?
Is it a worth while addition to the buying puzzle?
Should it be in the must have or in the nice to have catagory or in the not needed catagory?

Its not helping that it seems like everyone has a slightly different take on it that was there.

 

[denverappraiser]

Michael,

I see several issues that relate to the glass plate.
1) Thickness. You’re quite right. This is better with a bigger device and is a definite advantage to the tabletop model. A 1mm change in the location of the table relative to the footprint of the tool will make a considerable difference in the angle leading to the pink/green boundary. Since we’re supposedly measuring things in thousandths now (

), we have just injected a huge margin for error. Making the cone 10 times as big would help.
2) Reflection from the lower surface. As the angle of incidence gets lower, the amount of reflected light will approach 100%. With the blue light, it will be close to zero.
3) Reflected light returning from the stone when it meets the top surface of the glass. I think this is what is causing my halo effect in the last picture.
4) Internal reflections within the glass
5) Centering. Even a symetrical stone will look to be off if it''s not properly centered in the cone. A few mm either way will translate into several degrees of error. This isn''t exactly about the glass as much as the way the cone/glass/stone are assembled.

All of this would be irrelevant if we are all using identical equipment but the $1000 price tag is likely to rule that out as a credible option. I’m sure the AGS people have put some serious thought into this issue and as the body of knowledge grows we will have a solution.

Gary, how did you take your pictures?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/8/2005 3:26:29 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I am suffering from jetlag, so maybe this reply will not be extremely clear. Forgive me for that.


First major remark: it is incorrect to state that most or even a lot of our stones are cut to a 40.5/34.5 combination. Our goal-combination is basically different, and during the process, we often have to adapt the crown angle, because the desired pavilion angle was not met exactly.

Sorry if I incurrectly stated that.
I will stand by seeing some diamonds with poping idealscope images and awesome h&a from you with 40.5 pavilion angles.
Because it is different from what most others are doing it could be that they stick out in my mind more than the rest and my observation is off.
Looking over the current stock at your dealers there are a bunch at 40.6.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 6/8/2005 7:13:59 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 6/8/2005 3:45:34 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 6/8/2005 3:26:29 PM

Author: Paul-Antwerp


Second remark: With the ASET showing very little green in well-cut rounds, the difference between greens and reds is not extremely important there. The main importance of the difference between greens and reds is in the grading of fancy shapes. Even though we know so much more about cut-grading rounds, it is important not to test the ASET-scope''s strenght on rounds only. You will see that the ASET-scope makes a hell of a difference in fancy shapes, things that remained unobserved by other scopes.


Live long,

With rounds this is the same point I''m trying to stress with regard to high cut quality. It seems like people are trying to assess green as if it was undesirable in a blanket sense and that is not the case.

Some people are just trying to get a handle on this thing and answer some questions.
Is it useful?
What does it show?
How does what it shows translate into what we see?
What do differences in the images mean in what we see when looking at the diamond?
Where is the no-go cut off point that seperates great diamonds from not so great?
Can any usefull information about the personality of the diamond be found in the images?
Is it a worth while addition to the buying puzzle?
Should it be in the must have or in the nice to have catagory or in the not needed catagory?

Its not helping that it seems like everyone has a slightly different take on it that was there.

Agreed. Too much speculation at this point. When I get up to work tomorrow I''ll be working on a photographic setup with ASET and will photograph some stones for reference and post them for discussion. When I was examining diamonds at the JCK show with the handheld ASET there were stones that had green under the table that were blatant rejects that I wouldn''t consider purchasing. The particular stones I am referencing were the new 88facet cuts (octogonal shape) and going through their inventory with both ASET and LIghtScope the clear rejects had green under the tables whereas the beauties were red. The hired model was observing me and even without looking through any of the scopes she was able to pick out the dud after pointing out the features I was looking for within the diamonds there.

 

[DiamondExpert]

Neil: I shot them with the hand held ASET, hand held camera, using the flat light with the blacked out countersink hole in the plastic.

 

[Rhino]

Hey Gary!

It was great to finally meet you in person at the show. I always knew you were a great guy but it was excellent to finally meet.

 

[DiamondExpert]

Hi Jon! The feeling is mutual...looking forward to your techi take on the ASET...you''re observations are always informative!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/8/2005 7:05:56 PM
Author: strmrdr
So is it fair to say:
All red and blue with or without green around the edge for contrast = highly directional light return with exellent contrast?

Mostly red and blue with some green other than around the edge = less directional light return with exellent contrast?

Both cases with the blue in the proper places.

Strm,

That seems a good generalization.

One thing we haven''t even begun discussing here is the fact that tilt (for AGS, 14 degrees) also factors into the grading system, and the distribution and sizes of colors have an impact there.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/8/2005 4:32:06 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 6/8/2005 3:45:34 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

With rounds this is the same point I''m trying to stress with regard to high cut quality. It seems like people are trying to assess green as if it was undesirable in a blanket sense and that is not the case.

John,

It''s not so much that I''m calling green to be bad as the observation that the amount of green in the image is substantially different depending on the method used to take the picture.

Neil, good point.

I submit that the handheld really was developed by AGS much like Garry''s handheld ideal-scope was: To serve as a portable means of quick assessment. It will be nice if there is a way to convert it for photography, but there is certainly a lot of variation in an image, depending on where the stone sits relative to the cone.

I should probably state that my input here has been based on repeatability as a given (what I anticipate from the standardized desktop model).

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/8/2005 3:26:29 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
I am suffering from jetlag, so maybe this reply will not be extremely clear. Forgive me for that.

First major remark: it is incorrect to state that most or even a lot of our stones are cut to a 40.5/34.5 combination. Our goal-combination is basically different, and during the process, we often have to adapt the crown angle, because the desired pavilion angle was not met exactly.

It is true however, that we tend to go for a slightly shallower pavilion angle than many of our colleagues. I am not going into detail here, but I have to agree with Michael here, that the exact cut-off-point of 45° might lead people to incorrect conclusions about the performance of these stones.


Live long,

I have had a long day travelling too Paul - why can''t they let you fly where you want to go instead of wasting all that fuel lifting my 85Kilo and and 30kg of luggage up 40,000 feet twice in a day?

Now about the above 45 degrees / below 45 (44/46) for the central reflection - it is cool to have the contrast between the table reflection (the center bit) and the rest of table region. That they get their light from opposite sides of the room and from different angles - thats good.
The difference between say 40 degree and 41 degree pavilion is the 40 gets its light 34 up from the horizon (56 from zenith) and the 41 gets its light from 48 from horizon (42 from zenith) BUT - But wait - there is more:




the 40 degree pavilion has a tiny little gree spot about 1/2 the area - so still more light is coming from
higher angles once you are ''off'' the mains in the rest of the table.
Actually the lions share of that no star table is going to come from 16 degrees from the zenith with a 40 degree pavilion compared to 35 degrees for the 41 degree pavilion.

For my money there are more better lights 16 dgegrees to 25 degrees from the zenith than there are at 35 from zenith.

interesting

 

[lostdog]

Interesting conversation to follow.

Viewing through glass seems very problematic. So many ways to add confusion even if everything is clean.

It makes me wonder about other ways that might work. That's easier to imagine in a desktop rather than a handheld setting.

You could probably concoct an electronic way to center and orient, via lasers or even mechanical methods (set on glass, clasp in restraint, remove glass. (also interesting because you could simulate different mounting conditions)).

Also interesting to consider is that there might be a purely optical method, where perpendicular postion means a certain reflection in the table is aligned properly. Imagine a combination of crosshairs and dots or something.

As far as the analysis, while different enough stones will identify themselves readily, it would be interesting to have a method that quantifies some factors about the image. A plot of the areas or percentages of each color. Curves representing the distribution of the different shades (you could drop two of those similar images into photoshop right now and see what sort of data shows up.) Or even colors by zones. Best way to present the info is probably in some sort of plot that combines several criteria, so suggests something about the character of the stone, rather than let it become a single number spiking game.

The additional colors, while useful, seem much more potentially confusing when it comes to making a purchase. It's hard enough to compare two decent idealscope, imagine two ASET images that have similar colors in different places. Some intermediate analysis step might be helpful to have alongside the ASET.

 

[WinkHPD]

Ouch, my head is starting to hurt again.

In my opinion, part of the beauty of the ASET is the ability to look at a picture and KNOW many things about the diamond without all the things that you were talking about above. It is meant, I believe, to be a guide to the light proformance of the stone that will give you INSTANT visual knowledge about how the stone is treating light that it receives.

I am not at all sure it is appropriate for what you are suggesting, although time will tell us whether or not these things will be done. It is possible to have many slightly different "pictures" of stones that are well withing the AGS 0 cut range and I greatly fear the confusion that could be generated in the mind of the consumer if we get into nuances of trying to distinguish which of those pictures is minutely better than the other, especially when the eye will not be able to distinguish one incredible stone from the other.

Wink

 

[denverappraiser]

There is a definate tendency to see more in this kind of image than is actually there but used with care I''m starting to think I''m going to like this thing. Here''s a picture of the same stone that is reasonably well centered and resting on a very thin piece of plastic. I think the different tone of green around the edges is caused by uneven lighting and the faint shadow of the cap I used to block off the transmitted light.

 

[denverappraiser]

For those who feel we are splitting hairs on this, I agree with you. Here's an AGS-1 that I have in my color master set. This isn't a bad looking stone but it's certainly not one of the super-ideal that people regularly post here.

 

[denverappraiser]

This one is an AGS-7.