Are these ASET & Images great for super ideal cut diamond?

[Nguyen N]

Hello -
The seller claim this diamond has super ideal cut but I am not sure about the ASET & Image pictures because they does not look ideal to me. It has premium price due to its cut. Please share your opinion give me your thought. Thank you so much.

It is AGS000
D: 61.8
Table 55.8
CA: 34.7
PA: 40.8
Star%: 52
crown% : 15.3
LG %: 77

 

[DejaWiz]

Certainly looks to be great.
And it's AGS Triple Zero, which usually* means a higher level of cut precision and light return.

*not infallible

 

[Karl_K]

Do you have any real images?
Heart image specifically.

 

[Nguyen N]

Certainly looks to be great.
And it's AGS Triple Zero, which usually* means a higher level of cut precision and light return.

*not infallible

The specs look great but im not sure about the ASET& image.

 

[Nguyen N]

Do you have any real images?
Heart image specifically.

These images are from AGS report. little hearts dont look even and noticeable about size (pls look at pics 2&3) ? I dont know much about ASET and pictures, but if it has premium price I thought the aset and image should be prittier in the report?

Do you have any real images?
Heart image specifically.

 

[Kim N]

These images are from AGS report. little hearts dont look even and noticeable about size (pls look at pics 2&3) ? I dont know much about ASET and pictures, but if it has premium price I thought the aset and image should be prittier in the report?

These are computer-generated images. Can you ask the vendor for actual ASET and heart photos?

 

[Karl_K]

These are computer-generated images. Can you ask the vendor for actual ASET and heart photos?

yes that is correct.

All 3 images are showing glitches that are probably the result of being scan based and scanner errors.
The only way to tell for sure is to look at actual images.
The second image is an ASET with 40 degrees obstruction, called ASET 40 which is somewhat useless but is showing the same glitch as the ASET image.
The heart image is always the most complex for a scan based computer generated image to produce a representative image.
This is because it is made up of more facet interactions than face up arrow/ASET images.

 

[DejaWiz]

yes that is correct.

All 3 images are showing glitches that are probably the result of being scan based and scanner errors.
The only way to tell for sure is to look at actual images.
The second image is an ASET with 40 degrees obstruction, called ASET 40 which is somewhat useless but is showing the same glitch as the ASET image.
The heart image is always the most complex for a scan based computer generated image to produce a representative image.
This is because it is made up of more facet interactions than face up arrow/ASET images.

Anything jump out at you (such as the chevrons that's I've circled) as suspected symmetry or cut issues?

 

[Karl_K]

Anything jump out at you (such as the chevrons that's I've circled) as suspected symmetry or cut issues?

off set heart halves could be real but are more likely scan issues. 1 and 5 o'clock heart being the worst.
Slight varying clefts are at one time I would have said its a sarin issue but the newer one is better at that area but not always perfect. So id call that inconclusive.

 

[Nguyen N]

Hello -
The seller claim this diamond has super ideal cut but I am not sure about the ASET & Image pictures because they does not look ideal to me. It has premium price due to its cut. Please share your opinion give me your thought. Thank you so much.

It is AGS000
D: 61.8
Table 55.8
CA: 34.7
PA: 40.8
Star%: 52
crown% : 15.3
LG %: 77

These aset&images are from seller.

 

[DejaWiz]

These aset&images are from seller.

ASET and Ideal-Scope appear to indicate excellent light return, but it also appears to have some nuances that I (personally) would detract it from being a true super ideal. Nearly there, but not quite.
If I were shopping for light performance, then I'd probably have it on my short list as long as the price was fair but, if I were shopping for the utmost pinnacle of mind-clean cut precision via super ideal cut, then I don't think this one would make my list.

 

[Karl_K]

@DejaWiz
Im not saying I agree or disagree, if you dont mind sharing I am interested in your thoughts behind the conclusion.

 

[Nguyen N]

ASET and Ideal-Scope appear to indicate excellent light return, but it also appears to have some nuances that I (personally) would detract it from being a true super ideal. Nearly there, but not quite.
If I were shopping for light performance, then I'd probably have it on my short list as long as the price was fair but, if I were shopping for the utmost pinnacle of mind-clean cut precision via super ideal cut, then I don't think this one would make my list.

Thanks - Can you explain it a bit more , I dont know much about Is, aset and images.

Thanks - Can you explain it a bit more , I dont know much about Is, aset and images.

 

[DejaWiz]

@DejaWiz
Im not saying I agree or disagree, if you dont mind sharing I am interested in your thoughts behind the conclusion.

Thanks - Can you explain it a bit more , I dont know much about Is, aset and images.

Just going by what I've learned here (mostly from Texas Leaguer, Wink, Karl_K, sledge, Garry H (Cut Nut), John Pollard, and many others)...in this case, specifically, the chevrons aren't pristine.

How Hearts and Arrows Diamonds are Graded | Whiteflash

Hearts and arrows diamond grading is key to understanding the level of a quality craftsmanship and light performance. Learn about this here.

www.whiteflash.com

The actual ASET looks really good to me. The mix of green and red in the culet area indicates facets in the 40.7-40.8 range, and I don't think I see any indications of painting or digging.

 

[Karl_K]

The actual ASET looks really good to me. The mix of green and red in the culet area indicates facets in the 40.7-40.8 range, and I don't think I see any indications of painting or digging.

Yep sounds good.

 

[Karl_K]

Just going by what I've learned here (mostly from Texas Leaguer, Wink, Karl_K, sledge, Garry H (Cut Nut), John Pollard, and many others)...in this case, specifically, the chevrons aren't pristine.

How Hearts and Arrows Diamonds are Graded | Whiteflash

Hearts and arrows diamond grading is key to understanding the level of a quality craftsmanship and light performance. Learn about this here.

www.whiteflash.com

This part is a little more tricky because it could be yaw or it could be an alignment issue with the diamond/scope/camera.
I am leaning towards some yaw or slight 3d variation on the stone itself.
Overall I can not call your call wrong, but I would consider it h&a therefore it meets the PS definition for super-ideal in my opinion.
This is a case where there is not likely going to be universal agreement and it can go either way.
Super-ideal or not its a very well cut stone.

 

[DejaWiz]

This part is a little more tricky because it could be yaw or it could be an alignment issue with the diamond/scope/camera.
I am leaning towards some yaw or slight 3d variation on the stone itself.
Overall I can not call your call wrong, but I would consider it h&a therefore it meets the PS definition for super-ideal in my opinion.
This is a case where there is not likely going to be universal agreement and it can go either way.
Super-ideal or not its a very well cut stone.

You rock, thanks for such enlightening discussion, Karl!
I absolutely agree that it's a well cut stone and the ASET indicates outstanding performance.

 

[Wink]

The second image is an ASET with 40 degrees obstruction, called ASET 40 which is somewhat useless

I do not think I have seen anyone discuss the importance of the ASET 40, but since I know a little about the history of it, I will comment about it.

In the beginning the ASET images on the AGS reports were ASET 30. Many of the best cut “modern Tolkowsky” diamonds do not show any cluttering around the table reflection at ASET 30, Some years ago, who knows why, (read this as pressure from the big vendors0 The AGS reports started, without ever telling anyone who did not call to complain, using ASET 33.5. Some of the best cut “modern Tolkowsky” diamonds started showing “cluttering” around the table reflection while some deeper, not so well cut diamonds didn’t.

We begged and pleaded for many moons to get our reports issued with ASET 30 and were told how to cut our diamonds to not show “cluttering at ASET 33.5. This was a no-go for those of us who care enough to only sell treasures that have been cut for perfection.

The compromise that was reached was for both the ASET 30 and ASET 40 to be printed on the same report. This more accurately represents what is seen in an actual ASET viewer, as these are all made to show the diamond at ASET 30. It also shows how the diamond will look at ASET 40, which can be caused by getting up too close and personal to the diamond and also by a bouffant hairdo or a wide brimmed hat. The ASET 40 will have significant “cluttering,” but will still have great sparkle.

Thus, I disagree with you slightly Karl. I think the ASET 40 is very useful as it allows us to also have the ASET 30.

It is important to note that the AGS cut grading system requires diamonds to meet certain light return standards between ASET 30 and ASET 40 in order to qualify for the AGS 0 cut grade.

 

[Karl_K]

Wink, so they stopped doing as they taught and advertised by not using ASET 30 and had to bring out an even more broken 40 degree obstruction model to go back to the already broke ASET 30 model from a frankenstein 33.5 model.
Yep that sounds like the diamond industry!
rofl!

 

[Wink]

Wink, so they stopped doing as they taught and advertised by not using ASET 30 and had to bring out an even more broken 40 degree obstruction model to go back to the already broke ASET 30 model from a frankenstein 33.5 model.
Yep that sounds like the diamond industry!
rofl!

I am not sure I understand your comment about going back to the already broken ASET 30 model. That model is not broken. It is brilliant and incredibly useful. The ASET 40 is and has been part of the testing for the qualification of the AGS 0 cut grade.

The ASET 33.5 was done at the request of the large vendors who are cutting steeper deeper diamonds that make the AGS 0 requirements by the skin of their teeth and look better at ASET 33.5. Those extra points on the thousands. of diamonds they cut each year add up to a whale of a lot of money. If I was one of those large vendors, I would be putting a ton of pressure on AGSL too. I would know that the AGSL needs the money I would spend with them to keep the doors open for those small specialist cutters and vendors who only want the best possible performance. Since I am one of those smaller players, I am very glad the AGSL is there and I am happy to get the reports with the dual ASETs on them

Many here have seen for themselves the difference between an AGS 0 at the peak of the pyramid versus the AGS 0s at the bottom of the AGS0 grade. The big vendors do not want their clients to know these things, but that is part of the beauty of Pricescope. Pricescopers know these things and share them with all who will listen and look.

Wink

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Wink as I understood it the 33.5 degree obstruction is used in those images on the right side at the start of this thread. They are used because that is the best angle to show the hearts in upside down images.
I do not agree that 30 degrees is the best obstruction, and 40 degrees is way over the top for most viewers 6 degrees is the obstruction from one eye and 22 degrees from the other eye.
Ideal-scope is set around 25 degrees and is possibly a bit over done.
See around page 20:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263843604_How_diamond_performance_attributes_brilliance_scintillation_and_fire_depend_on_human_vision_features

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The earlier printing of the ASET map on AGS reports set to 33.5 does have logic. The ray tracer measures obscuration at both 30 and 40 degrees (as @Wink pointed out). The formula for determining a deduction due to too much contrast factored 2 parts 30 and 1 part 40, thus if you are going to print one map as a snapshot of contrast setting it at 33.5 makes sense.

The so-called 'advanced aset' dual maps of 30 and 40 show both. Importantly, and where I again agree with Wink, the 40 helps visualize how much light is being gathered even at very close viewing or viewing by someone with big hair or hat. It's all valuable info for gaining a comprehensive understanding of the diamond. There is more on our advanced aset page.

@Garry H (Cut Nut) 's comment about binocular vision is also valid, but is not factored into the AGS system. It is my understanding that this was something the AGS reckoned with at the time the light performance system was developed, but computing power at the time made it not feasible to incorporate the significantly increased complexity.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

@Garry H (Cut Nut) 's comment about binocular vision is also valid, but is not factored into the AGS system. It is my understanding that this was something the AGS reckoned with at the time the light performance system was developed, but computing power at the time made it not feasible to incorporate the significantly increased complexity.

Thanks Bryan, you agree the results of the AGS grades would have moved shallower. AGS L and HCA would be in alignment except that they use a spread penalty where as HCA uses a spread benefit approach.

I also disagree with AGS using 8 or 10 inches as their grading distance. Way to close up.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

The viewing distance used in the AGS structured environment (250mm) is based on the "distance of distinct vision" in the field of optometry.

The least distance of distinct vision for a young adult with normal vision is 25 cm.

In optometry, the least distance of distinct vision (LDDV) or the reference seeing distance (RSD) is the closest someone with "normal" vision (20/20 vision) can comfortably look at something. In other words, LDDV is the minimum comfortable distance between the naked human eye and a visible object.

This distance various considerably from person to person, but in our observations with our customers it holds generally true. It is also surprising how many people in our demographic can focus much closer than 10 inches.

Having said that, it it is true that a significant aspect of a diamond's appeal is how it performs at distance where head shadow is not a factor at all. The contrast is coming not from the observer but from the light and dark areas of the environment that the diamond is scanning as it moves.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I understand the economics Bryan.
We want people to buy diamonds, especially engagement rings, because they are a big part of diamond sales.
Young people have better close up vision than older people. But even post purchase younger folk rarely look at their diamonds close up. I am sure you notice when people glance at their diamonds. It is sitting in a café, typing on a key board, dangerously driving in a car!
Almost always the viewing distance is 12 to 20 inches (30 to 50cm) or more.
By ruling out shallower diamonds millions of people are cheated of the opportunity to have a larger diamond for the same carat weight.
Diamond cutters are penalised by GIA's grading system and avoid producing diamonds that are too shallow to achieve GIA X.
The waste maddens me.

There are almost no shallow diamonds on RapNet. I searched for this - but wait - It seems GIA and now doing shallower diamonds. I must start a new thread!

Here is the thread of a 57.5% depth 61% table GIA Excellent cut 32.5 crown 40.8 pavilion!

Does GIA like shallow diamonds now?

I was replying to viewing distances in a thread to Bryan Texas Leaguer when I discovered something interesting. An extremely shallow GIA X cut! Not only does this diamond have a depth % of 57.5%, if you raise the crown angle slightly it gets a better HCA score - it is on the lower limits of...

www.pricescope.com

 

[Karl_K]

I am not sure I understand your comment about going back to the already broken ASET 30 model. That model is not broken.
Wink

Hi Wink sorry for the delay had a migraine and was not up to this.

The basic reason it is broken is the distance is not based on anything related to jewellery its based on some military eyesight tests that have nothing to do with looking at jewellery and are skewed towards healthy young people. Then add in people are not blue disks with mono vision.

If you want to argue its a some what useful approximation it can be argued that it could be one but its still broken.
40 is even more unrealistic than 30....

edit: After pitching 30 as the best it is just deceptive to without notice substitute 33.5.

 

[Nguyen N]

Thank you everyone for your opinion and input. I really appreciated