ASET Comparison

[ebayatli]

Hello all PS members,

Could you share your opinion on the 2 diamonds below? Considering dimensions and ASET characteristics, which one would you prefer? I do know that contrast is importan, but is too much contrast bad? If thats the case, how much is 'too much'?

Thank You

 

[Christina...]

I don't really think that you can make a wrong choice here. Do you have a preference as to how many chevrons the stone has?

 

[diamondloveaffair]

Too much contrast is usually a bad thing. But the thing is, you can't tell accurately from ASETS in the grading reports alone. It could be good or it could be bad. More likely the later in most cases.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

 

[04diamond<3]

Too much contrast is usually a bad thing. But the thing is, you can't tell accurately from ASETS in the grading reports alone. It could be good or it could be bad. More likely the later in most cases.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

Again....what???

The second aset is gorgeous! And IMO there's nothing wrong with contrast....or "too much contrast"......I'd ask WF which one they say performs better, but I love the aset on the second stone.

 

[Lula]

Too much contrast is usually a bad thing. But the thing is, you can't tell accurately from ASETS in the grading reports alone. It could be good or it could be bad. More likely the later in most cases.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

Again....what???

The second aset is gorgeous! And IMO there's nothing wrong with contrast....or "too much contrast"......I'd ask WF which one they say performs better, but I love the aset on the second stone.

Too much contrast = a stone that may appear dark and dull in some lighting conditions.
The most obvious example, and one that has been discussed quite a bit lately on PS, are cushions and OECs and OMCs that have very large facets in the center of the stone that appear dark and dull when viewed head-on.

Too little contrast = a stone that looks like a bright flashlight or headlight. No definition, no scintillation, just a bright, white disk.

 

[Niel]

Too much contrast is usually a bad thing. But the thing is, you can't tell accurately from ASETS in the grading reports alone. It could be good or it could be bad. More likely the later in most cases.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

Again....what???

The second aset is gorgeous! And IMO there's nothing wrong with contrast....or "too much contrast"......I'd ask WF which one they say performs better, but I love the aset on the second stone.

again?


I like the crown angle of 1 and i like the table size of 2....I agree id just ask the gemologist which performs best, or if she is deadlocked, which is cheapest

 

[04diamond<3]

Too much contrast is usually a bad thing. But the thing is, you can't tell accurately from ASETS in the grading reports alone. It could be good or it could be bad. More likely the later in most cases.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

Again....what???

The second aset is gorgeous! And IMO there's nothing wrong with contrast....or "too much contrast"......I'd ask WF which one they say performs better, but I love the aset on the second stone.

again?

It's happened in other threads....

Lula, I guess I was saying in regards to the first stone. The blue is not over powering and seems to balance the stone. Although it's hard to tell without see an actual picture. It is, however, graded by AGS, so I believe it will be fine.

 

[chrono]

ASET seems to be finicky when it comes to fancies. I would ask for the gemmologist's opinion as well. If there is a video, that's even better. I'm with Niel that I like the crown of 1 and table of 2. Therefore, I would need to see a picture or video of the stone to double check with the ASET.

 

[Lula]

Too much contrast is usually a bad thing. But the thing is, you can't tell accurately from ASETS in the grading reports alone. It could be good or it could be bad. More likely the later in most cases.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

Again....what???

The second aset is gorgeous! And IMO there's nothing wrong with contrast....or "too much contrast"......I'd ask WF which one they say performs better, but I love the aset on the second stone.

again?

It's happened in other threads....

Lula, I guess I was saying in regards to the first stone. The blue is not over powering and seems to balance the stone. Although it's hard to tell without see an actual picture. It is, however, graded by AGS, so I believe it will be fine.

Thanks for the explanation, 04diamond. I agree that both stones are much better quality than the princess cuts seen in most jewelry stores, so I'm interested to hear the gemologist's assessment. The decision may come down to personal preference (fewer chevrons, smaller table vs. more chevrons and a larger table). The patterning in diamond #2 is very regular and distinctive. The patterning in #1 seems more random. #1 seems like it would be the brighter stone.

 

[psdumb]

Hello all PS members,

Could you share your opinion on the 2 diamonds below? Considering dimensions and ASET characteristics, which one would you prefer? I do know that contrast is importan, but is too much contrast bad? If thats the case, how much is 'too much'?

Thank You

Seriously some or all all of you that responded in this thread should be ashamed of yourselves and I feel sorry for anyone who trusts any "expert" advice on this forum. Most of you have no business advising any novice of anything and your opinions have very little value as they are just as uneducated as the person asking the question.

There is a serious lack of credibility on pricescope and a serious lack of knowledge here which is a shame it didn't used to be like this.

1) These two diamonds received AGS 0 cut grades using objective and unbiased critieria from a trusted and well respected grading laboratory. They are amongst the top 1% of all princess cuts produced on the market today in terms of brightness.

2) The generated ASET images found on the AGSL grading reports are generated from a non contact scan used by the laboratory, it is generated and highly dependent upon the scan error of the machine. These generated scans ARE NOT a replacement for an actual photographed ASET image and are far less accurate in terms of fine nuances but do give a general idea about brightness.

3) AGSL grading is is far more sophisticated than a simple ASET image and it properly accounts for scan error as well regions in a diamond that are close to the boundaries between Red/Blue and Green/Red in their data set. Just because a region is blue on a generated aset does not mean it will or has obstruction or head shadow darkness issues. However if such issues were present in a significant amount there would be enough contrast deduction and the stone would not be graded AGS 0 for light performance as both of these were.

In conclusion ebayatli I really hope you disregard all comments in this thread and really don't put much weight on the opinions of the so called "experienced" posters on these forums at all. Pricescope is just a joke referral service to the pricescope known vendors and sponsors these days.

Both of these stones are the top performers and it will come down to the size of flash you prefer and if you prefer fire/contrast over brightness. If I were advising you I would have both sent for viewing and choose the one the wearer preferred more they will both be nice and bright stones.

The second one will likely have larger and less frequent flashes, it may also exhibit more contrast and fire but viewing in person or video would be the best and only ways to be definitive on this comparison.

Good-luck

 

[Niel]

^ not worth it.

OP, I would not disregard "ALL COMMENTS" made in this thread. Like the ones that say to get more information, pick which one you prefer, and that you cant go wrong with either.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hello all PS members,

Could you share your opinion on the 2 diamonds below? Considering dimensions and ASET characteristics, which one would you prefer? I do know that contrast is importan, but is too much contrast bad? If thats the case, how much is 'too much'?

Thank You

Seriously some or all all of you that responded in this thread should be ashamed of yourselves and I feel sorry for anyone who trusts any "expert" advice on this forum. Most of you have no business advising any novice of anything and your opinions have very little value as they are just as uneducated as the person asking the question.

There is a serious lack of credibility on pricescope and a serious lack of knowledge here which is a shame it didn't used to be like this.

1) These two diamonds received AGS 0 cut grades using objective and unbiased critieria from a trusted and well respected grading laboratory. They are amongst the top 1% of all princess cuts produced on the market today in terms of brightness.

2) The generated ASET images found on the AGSL grading reports are generated from a non contact scan used by the laboratory, it is generated and highly dependent upon the scan error of the machine. These generated scans ARE NOT a replacement for an actual photographed ASET image and are far less accurate in terms of fine nuances but do give a general idea about brightness.

3) AGSL grading is is far more sophisticated than a simple ASET image and it properly accounts for scan error as well regions in a diamond that are close to the boundaries between Red/Blue and Green/Red in their data set. Just because a region is blue on a generated aset does not mean it will or has obstruction or head shadow darkness issues. However if such issues were present in a significant amount there would be enough contrast deduction and the stone would not be graded AGS 0 for light performance as both of these were.

In conclusion ebayatli I really hope you disregard all comments in this thread and really don't put much weight on the opinions of the so called "experienced" posters on these forums at all. Pricescope is just a joke referral service to the pricescope known vendors and sponsors these days.

Both of these stones are the top performers and it will come down to the size of flash you prefer and if you prefer fire/contrast over brightness. If I were advising you I would have both sent for viewing and choose the one the wearer preferred more they will both be nice and bright stones.

The second one will likely have larger and less frequent flashes, it may also exhibit more contrast and fire but viewing in person or video would be the best and only ways to be definitive on this comparison.

Good-luck

Hello psdumb,

Quite an impressive post for a newcomer. That truly is opening the door with a bang.

I must say that I neither fully agree nor fully disagree with your comment, so I prefer to leave it at that. I however do know my stuff about princess-cuts and cut-quality, so please allow me to say that within the relatively wide Ideal-cut-grade of AGSL, I do see differences between these two stones, and I can predict which one will bang more

Knowing that the observation of fire and scintillation greatly comes from the contrast-pattern, it is easy to see that the second stone has a more symmetrical and pleasing contrast-pattern. If there are no other factors, invisible on the grading-report, I would say that the second stone will be the winner in a side-by-side-comparison, for most observers.

Live long,

 

[Lula]

Hello all PS members,

Could you share your opinion on the 2 diamonds below? Considering dimensions and ASET characteristics, which one would you prefer? I do know that contrast is importan, but is too much contrast bad? If thats the case, how much is 'too much'?

Thank You

[Taking the liberty of summing up the first part of psdumb's post as a "Jane, you ignorant sl*t" screed.]

3) AGSL grading is is far more sophisticated than a simple ASET image and it properly accounts for scan error as well regions in a diamond that are close to the boundaries between Red/Blue and Green/Red in their data set. Just because a region is blue on a generated aset does not mean it will or has obstruction or head shadow darkness issues. However if such issues were present in a significant amount there would be enough contrast deduction and the stone would not be graded AGS 0 for light performance as both of these were. Correct, but AGS does not grade scintillation or fire, which I'd argue determine the stone's personality, and "personality" is what people buy.

Both of these stones are the top performers and it will come down to the size of flash you prefer and if you prefer fire/contrast over brightness. If I were advising you I would have both sent for viewing and choose the one the wearer preferred more they will both be nice and bright stones. Er, I think we all came to this conclusion; perhaps not as incisively and divisively as you, though?

The second one will likely have larger and less frequent flashes, it may also exhibit more contrast and fire but viewing in person or video would be the best and only ways to be definitive on this comparison. Rinse, repeat.

Good-luck

Hello psdumb,

Quite an impressive post for a newcomer. That truly is opening the door with a bang.

I must say that I neither fully agree nor fully disagree with your comment, so I prefer to leave it at that. I however do know my stuff about princess-cuts and cut-quality, so please allow me to say that within the relatively wide Ideal-cut-grade of AGSL, I do see differences between these two stones, and I can predict which one will bang more

Knowing that the observation of fire and scintillation greatly comes from the contrast-pattern, it is easy to see that the second stone has a more symmetrical and pleasing contrast-pattern. If there are no other factors, invisible on the grading-report, I would say that the second stone will be the winner in a side-by-side-comparison, for most observers. With regard to the part of Paul's post that I underlined, I think it's important to stress that the common PS mantra is that visual inspection trumps buying stones solely by the numbers on the grading report. Even respected reports from AGSL and GIA labs, do not tell the whole story. There are a wide range of cut proportions allowed under the Triple Ex and Triple 0 grades that may not appeal to a buyer in person.

Live long,

 

[Christina...]

Hello all PS members,

Could you share your opinion on the 2 diamonds below? Considering dimensions and ASET characteristics, which one would you prefer? I do know that contrast is importan, but is too much contrast bad? If thats the case, how much is 'too much'?

Thank You

[Taking the liberty of summing up the first part of psdumb's post as a "Jane, you ignorant sl*t" screed.]

3) AGSL grading is is far more sophisticated than a simple ASET image and it properly accounts for scan error as well regions in a diamond that are close to the boundaries between Red/Blue and Green/Red in their data set. Just because a region is blue on a generated aset does not mean it will or has obstruction or head shadow darkness issues. However if such issues were present in a significant amount there would be enough contrast deduction and the stone would not be graded AGS 0 for light performance as both of these were. Correct, but AGS does not grade scintillation or fire, which I'd argue determine the stone's personality, and "personality" is what people buy.



Both of these stones are the top performers and it will come down to the size of flash you prefer and if you prefer fire/contrast over brightness. If I were advising you I would have both sent for viewing and choose the one the wearer preferred more they will both be nice and bright stones. Er, I think we all came to this conclusion; perhaps not as incisively and divisively as you, though?

The second one will likely have larger and less frequent flashes, it may also exhibit more contrast and fire but viewing in person or video would be the best and only ways to be definitive on this comparison. Rinse, repeat.

Good-luck

Hello psdumb,

Quite an impressive post for a newcomer. That truly is opening the door with a bang.

I must say that I neither fully agree nor fully disagree with your comment, so I prefer to leave it at that. I however do know my stuff about princess-cuts and cut-quality, so please allow me to say that within the relatively wide Ideal-cut-grade of AGSL, I do see differences between these two stones, and I can predict which one will bang more

Knowing that the observation of fire and scintillation greatly comes from the contrast-pattern, it is easy to see that the second stone has a more symmetrical and pleasing contrast-pattern. If there are no other factors, invisible on the grading-report, I would say that the second stone will be the winner in a side-by-side-comparison, for most observers. With regard to the part of Paul's post that I underlined, I think it's important to stress that the common PS mantra is that visual inspection trumps buying stones solely by the numbers on the grading report. Even respected reports from AGSL and GIA labs, do not tell the whole story. There are a wide range of cut proportions allowed under the Triple Ex and Triple 0 grades that may not appeal to a buyer in person.

Live long,

plus one

stick around psdumb, even you may learn something!

 

[denverappraiser]

Good morning Psdumb,

Welcome to the deep end of the pool.

I'm not inclined to disagree with much of you comment about PS as a whole but it doesn't seem to apply to this particular thread and it's definitely an overgeneralization. Ebayati posted 2 possible stones, at least one of which is from one of the oft referred dealers who isn't even one of the advertisers, and one is apparently from a long time PS favorite. Not a single poster referred them away to some other option. Ixnay the part about PS being nothing more than a referral engine (or at least this thread isn't and example of it). The advice given has been consistently that both stones are likely terrific and that the ASET isn't really sufficient to decide which is 'better'. That's fundamentally correct and is not incompatible with what you yourself said. It's only when it delves into reading things into the ASET that AGS doesn't claim are there that it gets dicey. There are several examples of that, not the least of which came from you and the claim that #2 will exhibit more fire. Maybe it does, but this data is not present on the reports and cannot be inferred from the ASETs.

By the way, you're clearly a trade member and are passionate about the material. Your input is ENTIRELY WELCOME here, even if you disagree with the popular advice, with Paul, with me, with Garry or with anyone else. I, for one, specifically welcome dissenting opinions, and especially those that come from a solid basis of experience.

 

[diamondloveaffair]

Too much contrast is usually a bad thing. But the thing is, you can't tell accurately from ASETS in the grading reports alone. It could be good or it could be bad. More likely the later in most cases.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

Again....what???

The second aset is gorgeous! And IMO there's nothing wrong with contrast....or "too much contrast"......I'd ask WF which one they say performs better, but I love the aset on the second stone.

Seems like you like to reply without reading what was typed in properly and I probably question your reply on offering advice to newbie shoppers. It doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the thread poster.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.[/quote]

Did you see the IF YOUR WERE SHOPPING BLIND? Let me put it across to you. Would you honestly make a choice between these 2 diamonds by if all you the reference you have is based on a grading report? Even for an AGSL 0 diamond for that matter.

The first stone is from Brian Gavin's signature line. I for one know that it must pass a certain standard in order to be part of that line. The AGSL 0 range is big as someone pointed out here. For the 2nd stone, IF YOU WERE BUYING BLIND with no videos/images or any other kind of information (which the poster didn't post), what would be the smart thing to do?

Again, open your eyes when you read and process the statement made. I mentioned IF he/she were shopping blind. I didn't say the diamond was bad. Unlike round diamonds, inferring from a report isn't straightforward for fancy shapes.

 

[ebayatli]

Thanks you for the reply Christina I do prefer higher number of chevrons. I like the broken-ice look. However, for me the light performance is the most important. Cheers for the input

 

[ebayatli]

Too much contrast is usually a bad thing. But the thing is, you can't tell accurately from ASETS in the grading reports alone. It could be good or it could be bad. More likely the later in most cases.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

Again....what???

The second aset is gorgeous! And IMO there's nothing wrong with contrast....or "too much contrast"......I'd ask WF which one they say performs better, but I love the aset on the second stone.

again?


I like the crown angle of 1 and i like the table size of 2....I agree id just ask the gemologist which performs best, or if she is deadlocked, which is cheapest

ASET #2 is cheaper. In fact, the price for ASET #2 is a very good price, which scares me a bit. Although I like its symmetry, the table, and the contrast, I keep thinking that it is cheap because it has a lot of contrast.

 

[Lula]

Too much contrast is usually a bad thing. But the thing is, you can't tell accurately from ASETS in the grading reports alone. It could be good or it could be bad. More likely the later in most cases.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

Again....what???

The second aset is gorgeous! And IMO there's nothing wrong with contrast....or "too much contrast"......I'd ask WF which one they say performs better, but I love the aset on the second stone.

again?


I like the crown angle of 1 and i like the table size of 2....I agree id just ask the gemologist which performs best, or if she is deadlocked, which is cheapest

ASET #2 is cheaper. In fact, the price for ASET #2 is a very good price, which scares me a bit. Although I like its symmetry, the table, and the contrast, I keep thinking that it is cheap because it has a lot of contrast.

I think it's likely less expensive because it's not a branded stone -- "branded" meaning "designer." Note how the first stone's report has a notation on it that the girdle is inscribed with the name "Brian Gavin." That means it's a branded stone. Are you able to ask the vendor to compare the two diamonds, or are these from two different vendors?

 

[Christina...]

I prefer more chevrons as well. I'm not sure who the second vendor is but is it possible for you to post actual images of the stone and ask them to provide you with an ASET other than the one posted on the report? The images provided by BGD show an ASET than correlates well to the ASET on the report, so that tells us that the information is likely accurate. Have you asked Brian to evaluate the stone for you? He would be able to explain to you what he is seeing when he views the stone.

As far as contrast, some of course is needed and is desirable, but I agree too much of a good thing is never good. However I don't think that there is 'too much' in the second ASET image. It appears that the two stones will perform differently but I think that this is a case of personality and which personality do you prefer? It isn't possible in many cases, but it would be ideal if you could purchase both stones and view them side by side to see which diamond YOUR eyes prefer.

edit: Oh, and I agree with Lula that the price differences is likely brand related. There isn't anything obvious in the information that you provided that would suggest that there was a reason for the second stone to be priced less than the first, other than the brand.

 

[ebayatli]

Too much contrast is usually a bad thing. But the thing is, you can't tell accurately from ASETS in the grading reports alone. It could be good or it could be bad. More likely the later in most cases.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

Again....what???

The second aset is gorgeous! And IMO there's nothing wrong with contrast....or "too much contrast"......I'd ask WF which one they say performs better, but I love the aset on the second stone.

Seems like you like to reply without reading what was typed in properly and I probably question your reply on offering advice to newbie shoppers. It doesn't seem to be in the best interest of the thread poster.

If you were shopping blind, the safe choice would be to avoid the 2nd stone.

Did you see the IF YOUR WERE SHOPPING BLIND? Let me put it across to you. Would you honestly make a choice between these 2 diamonds by if all you the reference you have is based on a grading report? Even for an AGSL 0 diamond for that matter.

The first stone is from Brian Gavin's signature line. I for one know that it must pass a certain standard in order to be part of that line. The AGSL 0 range is big as someone pointed out here. For the 2nd stone, IF YOU WERE BUYING BLIND with no videos/images or any other kind of information (which the poster didn't post), what would be the smart thing to do?

Again, open your eyes when you read and process the statement made. I mentioned IF he/she were shopping blind. I didn't say the diamond was bad. Unlike round diamonds, inferring from a report isn't straightforward for fancy shapes.[/quote]

diamondloveaffair, I thank you for your input. You are correct; ASET #1 is from Brian Gaven Diamonds. Now, considering that I am a blind shopper, would you still be saying 'go with #1' if you did not know #1 was from Brian Gaven Diamonds? The reason why I am asking you this, is because maybe your opinion is solely based on that fact. You could be biased. Don't get me wrong, after reading about who Brian Gaven, beleive me, I would not blame you Thanks again diamondloveaffair. Your opinion is greatly appreciated

 

[JulieN]

The second looks like a Solasfera.

http://vimeo.com/10464275


The ASET on the Platinum reports will have more blue than the desktop model; John Pollard said they use a wider angle for obstruction.

 

[ebayatli]

These stones are from 2 different vendor. The vendor for ASET #2 is B2C Jewels. I am going to ask them if they can provide me with pictures of the stone and another ASET image. I will post the pics as soon I get them.


I thank everyone for their comments

 

[JulieN]

I believe B2C has pays for shipping on returns, so I would just order it and see for yourself.

 

[sha4000]

Yes B2C does pay for return shipping.