Asscher Pricescope Approval

[Rhino]

Date: 1/19/2008 12:49:03 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/19/2008 12:42:34 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Is that last image the same stone Storm?
It looks nothing like my DiamCalc image with ASET 30

Aha - I just compared the lighting schemes in the older DC3 and the Beta version I am trialing at present Storm.
The back light is brighter on the lastest (not released yet) version.
Interesting.

But the dark zone data is unchanged

LOL... when people start walking around with the latest version of DiamCalc 3 beta attached to their pupils I''ll worry about it.

Strms examples are taken from a model based off a Heliium scan.

If you examine the actual DiamXray photography of that diamond and compare it to the IdealScope view based on the Helium model you will note the similarity.

That diamond exhibits no excessive leakge under the table unless red is now interpreted to mean leakage.

If that is the results of the latest DiamCalc 3 I can tell you *it is inaccurate*. I know what excessive leakage looks like in a diamond and this Asscher does not exhibit that.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/19/2008 2:25:31 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 1/19/2008 12:49:03 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/19/2008 12:42:34 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Is that last image the same stone Storm?
It looks nothing like my DiamCalc image with ASET 30

Aha - I just compared the lighting schemes in the older DC3 and the Beta version I am trialing at present Storm.
The back light is brighter on the lastest (not released yet) version.
Interesting.

But the dark zone data is unchanged

LOL... when people start walking around with the latest version of DiamCalc 3 beta attached to their pupils I''ll worry about it.

Strms examples are taken from a model based off a Heliium scan. I am using the same file I imagine - I took it from the Gem Adviser file?

If you examine the actual DiamXray photography of that diamond and compare it to the IdealScope view based on the Helium model you will note the similarity. Obviously the stone is getting red light into the pavilion. That is a flaw in your methodology Jonathon that I had never noticed before.

That diamond exhibits no excessive leakge under the table unless red is now interpreted to mean leakage.

If that is the results of the latest DiamCalc 3 I can tell you *it is inaccurate*. I know what excessive leakage looks like in a diamond and this Asscher does not exhibit that.

Jonathon the dark zone data and table light return data are about 1/2 of that of other nice stones.

There is another error in the current Ideal-scope on DiamCalc (I think I mentioned it a few months back) that will be fixed in the next version. It accounts for the light rays that exit as leakage out the pavilion above the horizontal. The current version has them reaching the red reflector. This will be fixed.

The result is that this stone will then leak like a seive in most of the table region.

Remeber my battles with Brad and Jan, Jonathon - about how they examine diamonds. You are letting light in the pavilion - holding stones in tweezers or whatever. This consumer has already mentioned the stone is to be in a setting where light will not reach the pavilion.

 

[Serg]

re:There is another error in the current Ideal-scope on DiamCalc (I think I mentioned it a few months back) that will be fixed in the next version. It accounts for the light rays that exit as leakage out the pavilion above the horizontal. The current version has them reaching the red reflector.
to fix it, You need reduce source diameter of red light.
we used 4m to model "Ideal" idealScope( to analyze loose , clean diamond)
To model real Idealscope( to analyze diamond in settings) you need use real distances and measurements of your IS

 

[Rhino]

Interesting ... so all this time anyone who may have been solely relying on this technology has been led astray?

One thing I always thought interesting was before I even began using DiamCalc (which btw I do love the technology for the info that can be attained from it) is how much the views correllated to the diamonds actual imagery, in particular the red reflectors and in certain other cases the office lighting view.

As you know, since I employ the use of many technologies my primary area of study with all of them is how much they correllate to human observation. When they fail to correlate with the eyes, that''s where their limitations kick in and I''ve yet to find the "ultimate crystal ball".

As good as the info is from any of them they all have their limitations including DiamCalc. I''m glad I place higher value on what I see over any of them.

One reason why I don''t back what I can''t physically inspect.

Peace,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/19/2008 8:16:49 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Jonathon the dark zone data and table light return data are about 1/2 of that of other nice stones.

There is another error in the current Ideal-scope on DiamCalc (I think I mentioned it a few months back) that will be fixed in the next version. It accounts for the light rays that exit as leakage out the pavilion above the horizontal. The current version has them reaching the red reflector. This will be fixed.

The result is that this stone will then leak like a seive in most of the table region.

Remeber my battles with Brad and Jan, Jonathon - about how they examine diamonds. You are letting light in the pavilion - holding stones in tweezers or whatever. This consumer has already mentioned the stone is to be in a setting where light will not reach the pavilion.

keep digging Garry and you will hit Alaska eventually or get sued for slander.
leaky stones don''t get red in real IS or like systems images unless your saying your entire system is a fraud.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/19/2008 10:42:45 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/19/2008 8:16:49 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Jonathon the dark zone data and table light return data are about 1/2 of that of other nice stones.

There is another error in the current Ideal-scope on DiamCalc (I think I mentioned it a few months back) that will be fixed in the next version. It accounts for the light rays that exit as leakage out the pavilion above the horizontal. The current version has them reaching the red reflector. This will be fixed.

The result is that this stone will then leak like a seive in most of the table region.

Remeber my battles with Brad and Jan, Jonathon - about how they examine diamonds. You are letting light in the pavilion - holding stones in tweezers or whatever. This consumer has already mentioned the stone is to be in a setting where light will not reach the pavilion.

keep digging Garry and you will hit Alaska eventually or get sued for slander.
leaky stones don''t get red in real IS or like systems images unless your saying your entire system is a fraud.

Why the need to get nasty Storm?
I am simply explaining very openly why this stone has various appearances under certain test environments.
Jonathon''s X-ray scope must use a tray that has this stone sitting so the girdle is above the hole. It explains why there is more red where there would be less if the stone was sitting lower.

No slander and no fraud.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/19/2008 8:42:48 AM
Author: Serg
re:There is another error in the current Ideal-scope on DiamCalc (I think I mentioned it a few months back) that will be fixed in the next version. It accounts for the light rays that exit as leakage out the pavilion above the horizontal. The current version has them reaching the red reflector.
to fix it, You need reduce source diameter of red light.
we used 4m to model ''Ideal'' idealScope( to analyze loose , clean diamond)
To model real Idealscope( to analyze diamond in settings) you need use real distances and measurements of your IS

I prefer to model the lighting to match photographs where the stone is sitting in a tray with the pavilion unable to be illuminated by the reflector. This is the usual method of producing photographs - many companies are using the rotary trays we made about 3 years ago for this purpose - we made them with several different hole sizes for different sized diamonds http://www.ideal-scope.com/manuf_iscapture.asp or in its simples form - the ideal-light - with its 2 holes of about 6mm http://www.ideal-scope.com/using_howto.asp

What DiamCalc is currently modelling is examining a diamond held in tweezers.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 1/19/2008 8:16:49 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/19/2008 2:25:31 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 1/19/2008 12:49:03 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/19/2008 12:42:34 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Is that last image the same stone Storm?
It looks nothing like my DiamCalc image with ASET 30

Aha - I just compared the lighting schemes in the older DC3 and the Beta version I am trialing at present Storm.
The back light is brighter on the lastest (not released yet) version.
Interesting.

But the dark zone data is unchanged

LOL... when people start walking around with the latest version of DiamCalc 3 beta attached to their pupils I''ll worry about it.

Strms examples are taken from a model based off a Heliium scan. I am using the same file I imagine - I took it from the Gem Adviser file?

If you examine the actual DiamXray photography of that diamond and compare it to the IdealScope view based on the Helium model you will note the similarity. Obviously the stone is getting red light into the pavilion. That is a flaw in your methodology Jonathon that I had never noticed before.

Garry, a .1mm below the girdle makes no difference. Here is why I conclude this. Red is getting onto the pavilion for one and only one reason. It is because the crown/pavilion combination cause the reflections entering through the crown to reflect off of the pavilion and back to the viewer. It is not leaking out from under it. White in a reflector is indicative of leakage. Red is not.

Also and more importantly, you must bear in mind the following fact. I started doing my photography with DiamXray long before I ever met Sergey or Octonus. When I discovered the DiamCalc software and the research they were conducting on their own and independent from my own research their "red reflector image" (then called IdealScope image in DC) was all but *identical* to the photography I was taking. Octonus and I were not conspiring behind the scenes to form these identical images and you are fully aware of this. Neil Beatty also conducted an independant experiment by sending the same diamond to many vendors who featured this photography of which I have seen the results of. Ours was identical to the simulated Octonus image generated by the 3d model. Do you believe this was coincidence? Did Octonus also calculate a .1mm girdle raised above the hole to match my photography? I think not.

Also consider ... if what you are saying is true then critically observing light leakage in a relfector is not dependant upon the physical angles of the diamond in question but whether the reflector is .1mm higher/lower than the girdle of the diamond. This makes absolutely no sense because then the following people who have studied this independantly *are all wrong* including Pete Yantzer, Jim Caudill and the AGS team, Dr. Sassian, Mike Cowing, Richard Von Sternberg, all of Octonus previous studies, myself and YOU. Not to mention the scores of consumers who previously commented on reflector images posted on this forum AND upon which the HCA''s foundation lies.

Another thing you must consider is the FireScope''s lens is not just .1mm difference or so above or below the girdle but miles in comparison yet a similar view is seen.

Below I have posted the images of the Asscher in question. If what you are saying is true THEN PULL THE WHOLE IDEALSCOPE TUTORIAL AND CHART DOWN because now 3 indepenant sources bearing information on this Asscher are all wrong.
1. My actual photography of the diamond under both ASET and Red Reflector.
2. The Helium Scanner that measured the diamond and created the 3d model and
3. The Octonus Software that generated the graphics producing the images (which correlate to the actual photography).

This is not to mention our confirmation with the most accurate Sarin scanner on the market and the images it generates as well and my familiarity and personal experience hand selecting Asscher cuts and exactly what light leakage looks like in diamonds.

That diamond exhibits no excessive leakge under the table unless red is now interpreted to mean leakage.


That diamond exhibits no excessive leakge under the table unless red is now interpreted to mean leakage.

If that is the results of the latest DiamCalc 3 I can tell you *it is inaccurate*. I know what excessive leakage looks like in a diamond and this Asscher does not exhibit that.

Jonathon the dark zone data and table light return data are about 1/2 of that of other nice stones.

There is another error in the current Ideal-scope on DiamCalc (I think I mentioned it a few months back) that will be fixed in the next version. It accounts for the light rays that exit as leakage out the pavilion above the horizontal. The current version has them reaching the red reflector. This will be fixed.

If so, then why does the photography correlate? The camera is not picking up light rays that are exiting parallel to the table. Only those that are being directed through the hole to the viewer. Aren''t those the rays that count?

The result is that this stone will then leak like a seive in most of the table region.

If so then the IdealScope and all other reflectors are good for one thing ... the garbage can because the photography and results from more than one technology suggest otherwise. While I do not live inside the box of a reflector I value the information I get from them. They are most definitely not end all be all solutions and in fact *leakage* in Asscher''s and other fancies do not = train wrecks either as you are suggesting. My assessment is that of actual observation and comparison to know I know are woofers on the market which in my book always takes precedence over any technology and I am intimately familiar with most of them.

Remeber my battles with Brad and Jan, Jonathon - about how they examine diamonds. You are letting light in the pavilion - holding stones in tweezers or whatever. This consumer has already mentioned the stone is to be in a setting where light will not reach the pavilion.

Not so and yes I do remember. Another fatal flaw in your arguement is you assume I am making that mistake when in fact I am not. My examinations always involve observing the diamond with the pavilion covered.

If the below images generated via actual photography, Helium and DC are wrong then you need to scrap the whole concept of IdealScope and the HCA along with it because it is based on reflector tech and consumers using hand held models will not be nearly as accurate.

Think about what I''m saying Garry. If leakage is dependant upon the .1mm distance from the girdle and NOT the actual angles of the diamond then you are right. If so, then you must explain the similarities between FireScope and reflectors like mine and yours that are much closer to the girdle (if not dead on) than the FireScope is.

I believe the images speak for themself.

Regards,

PS: Sorry if I can''t come on here during the week to answer, as I''m hella busy in the store but wanted to respond to this. I will subscribe and try to answer again as time allows.

 

[Dreamer_D]

This conversation is over my head! I just wanted to see if illume had made a decision about the stone he/she was asking about? Are you going to get it or keep trying?

DD

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Illume My advice holds - by all means look at the stone and consider it, place a deposit on it - whatever. Jonathon is a man of honest intentions. Our debate here is rather too technical, you need not try to follow it all unless you are really into this stuff. and just because a stone leaks does not mean it is bad - there are many pattern related things with asschers that we nerds are still learning about.
Jonathon I will try to strip the quotes out and make an answer as simple as I can for you.
I will do it later tonight my time.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/20/2008 7:41:14 PM
Author: Rhino

Date: 1/19/2008 8:16:49 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/19/2008 2:25:31 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 1/19/2008 12:49:03 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/19/2008 12:42:34 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Is that last image the same stone Storm?
It looks nothing like my DiamCalc image with ASET 30

Aha - I just compared the lighting schemes in the older DC3 and the Beta version I am trialing at present Storm.
The back light is brighter on the lastest (not released yet) version.
Interesting.

But the dark zone data is unchanged

LOL... when people start walking around with the latest version of DiamCalc 3 beta attached to their pupils I''ll worry about it.

Strms examples are taken from a model based off a Heliium scan. I am using the same file I imagine - I took it from the Gem Adviser file?

If you examine the actual DiamXray photography of that diamond and compare it to the IdealScope view based on the Helium model you will note the similarity. Obviously the stone is getting red light into the pavilion. That is a flaw in your methodology Jonathon that I had never noticed before.

Garry, a .1mm below the girdle makes no difference. Here is why I conclude this. Red is getting onto the pavilion for one and only one reason. It is because the crown/pavilion combination cause the reflections entering through the crown to reflect off of the pavilion and back to the viewer. It is not leaking out from under it. White in a reflector is indicative of leakage. Red is not.Unfortunately that is not so in this instance Jonathon - the ray tracing images I posted and you can also check show that within the table region we can see 3 main pavilion reflections. The outer one I am pleased to say has 2 different sources and is strong - and it is the largest by surface area. However the center and middle zones have very little light sourced via the crown with the exception of one very small band / square between the mid and central zones..

Also and more importantly, you must bear in mind the following fact. I started doing my photography with DiamXray long before I ever met Sergey or Octonus. When I discovered the DiamCalc software and the research they were conducting on their own and independent from my own research their ''red reflector image'' (then called IdealScope image in DC) was all but *identical* to the photography I was taking. Octonus and I were not conspiring behind the scenes to form these identical images and you are fully aware of this. Neil Beatty also conducted an independant experiment by sending the same diamond to many vendors who featured this photography of which I have seen the results of. Ours was identical to the simulated Octonus image generated by the 3d model. Do you believe this was coincidence? Did Octonus also calculate a .1mm girdle raised above the hole to match my photography? I think not.

I have made it clear that there are some problems with DiamCalc. I identified them earlier in the thread and explained them. Your mention of 0.1mm shows you did not understand the issue. Sergey mentioned 4meters - that is part of the problem, but not all of it. But it is not what I am doing to make the staments I made 2 paragraphs above - I am using ray tracing. Try it and you will see how the light from your reflectors is shining onto the pavilion and coming out the the crown to the camera. Fact.

Also consider ... if what you are saying is true then critically observing light leakage in a relfector is not dependant upon the physical angles of the diamond in question but whether the reflector is .1mm higher/lower than the girdle of the diamond. This makes absolutely no sense because then the following people who have studied this independantly *are all wrong* including Pete Yantzer, Jim Caudill and the AGS team, Dr. Sassian, Mike Cowing, Richard Von Sternberg, all of Octonus previous studies, myself and YOU. Not to mention the scores of consumers who previously commented on reflector images posted on this forum AND upon which the HCA''s foundation lies.

It is not the height Jonathon, it is the angle that the light leaves the pavilion - anything exiting in a +ve angle hits the reflector - same in DiamCalc. Sergey knows about it - I discovered it some months back, and I have asked for it to be changed in a later version of DiamCalc

Another thing you must consider is the FireScope''s lens is not just .1mm difference or so above or below the girdle but miles in comparison yet a similar view is seen.
Again - it is not the issue
Below I have posted the images of the Asscher in question. If what you are saying is true THEN PULL THE WHOLE IDEALSCOPE TUTORIAL AND CHART DOWN because now 3 indepenant sources bearing information on this Asscher are all wrong.

1. My actual photography of the diamond under both ASET and Red Reflector.
2. The Helium Scanner that measured the diamond and created the 3d model and
3. The Octonus Software that generated the graphics producing the images (which correlate to the actual photography).Do you think light that exits below the girdle at an upward angle should be considered differently? For example if you set such a diamond in a 4 prong high setting, the stone would capture and return some light. The issue I rasied here though is that Illumene stated the stone was to go in a halo type design, and so this should stop light getting in the pavilion. I would consider lifting it a little in such a case.

This is not to mention our confirmation with the most accurate Sarin scanner on the market and the images it generates as well and my familiarity and personal experience hand selecting Asscher cuts and exactly what light leakage looks like in diamonds.

That diamond exhibits no excessive leakge under the table unless red is now interpreted to mean leakage.
See the Dark zone score Jonathon - I compared this stone under discussion on the left, to another of your stones on the right. Note that the dark zone for both one eyed view and tilting the stone shows the considerable leakage. Now that leakage might give the stone a positive appearance - no one ever said we knew all the numbers with asschers, but it is a watch out. I would want to sit the stone between my fingers and see if I see too much finger color in the stone center.

That diamond exhibits no excessive leakge under the table unless red is now interpreted to mean leakage.

If that is the results of the latest DiamCalc 3 I can tell you *it is inaccurate*. I know what excessive leakage looks like in a diamond and this Asscher does not exhibit that.

Jonathon the dark zone data and table light return data are about 1/2 of that of other nice stones.

There is another error in the current Ideal-scope on DiamCalc (I think I mentioned it a few months back) that will be fixed in the next version. It accounts for the light rays that exit as leakage out the pavilion above the horizontal. The current version has them reaching the red reflector. This will be fixed.

If so, then why does the photography correlate? The camera is not picking up light rays that are exiting parallel to the table. Only those that are being directed through the hole to the viewer. Aren''t those the rays that count?

The result is that this stone will then leak like a seive in most of the table region.

If so then the IdealScope and all other reflectors are good for one thing ... the garbage can because the photography and results from more than one technology suggest otherwise. While I do not live inside the box of a reflector I value the information I get from them. They are most definitely not end all be all solutions and in fact *leakage* in Asscher''s and other fancies do not = train wrecks either as you are suggesting. My assessment is that of actual observation and comparison to know I know are woofers on the market which in my book always takes precedence over any technology and I am intimately familiar with most of them. always Jonathon, always, but there is nothing wrong with the tools like ideal-scope as long as we use them wisely. I pointed out a similar problem to AGS about their desk top unit and suggested a way around it - I do not think they ever listened, but that''s cool.

Remeber my battles with Brad and Jan, Jonathon - about how they examine diamonds. You are letting light in the pavilion - holding stones in tweezers or whatever. This consumer has already mentioned the stone is to be in a setting where light will not reach the pavilion.

Not so and yes I do remember. Another fatal flaw in your arguement is you assume I am making that mistake when in fact I am not. My examinations always involve observing the diamond with the pavilion covered. Clearly not in the case of the photographs.

If the below images generated via actual photography, Helium and DC are wrong then you need to scrap the whole concept of IdealScope and the HCA along with it because it is based on reflector tech and consumers using hand held models will not be nearly as accurate.

Think about what I''m saying Garry. If leakage is dependant upon the .1mm distance from the girdle and NOT the actual angles of the diamond then you are right. If so, then you must explain the similarities between FireScope and reflectors like mine and yours that are much closer to the girdle (if not dead on) than the FireScope is. I think you understand what i am saying now - clearly you did not when you wrote this

I believe the images speak for themself.

Regards,

PS: Sorry if I can''t come on here during the week to answer, as I''m hella busy in the store but wanted to respond to this. I will subscribe and try to answer again as time allows. You need not answer Jonathon, but I hope you will read and understand

 

[strmrdr]

Garry you are applying round parameters to Asschers and they don''t work...
Below is my reference drop asscher design...
kicken isn''t she? :}

 

[strmrdr]

Yea the dark zone mono really tells the story don''t it?
Yep it must be one ugly design and I should be ashamed too show it in public.
NOT :}

 

[strmrdr]

One of my favorite asschers ever and I wish I could have bought it.
It''s owner loves it!

 

[strmrdr]

utoh dark zone mono says its poor too very bad!
yikes the owner must be blind and I must not know what im talking about how could this ugly thing be allowed to exist!!!!!!
NOT! :}

Anyone else getting the idea that dark zone mono is a very very bad way too judge asschers?
Need I post the hundreds more examples I have collected over the years both real scans and my designs?

Now you understand why I got frustrated earlier in this thread?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/21/2008 3:34:30 AM
Author: strmrdr
utoh dark zone mono says its poor too very bad!
yikes the owner must be blind and I must not know what im talking about how could this ugly thing be allowed to exist!!!!!!
NOT! :}

Anyone else getting the idea that dark zone mono is a very very bad way too judge asschers?
Need I post the hundreds more examples I have collected over the years both real scans and my designs?

Now you understand why I got frustrated earlier in this thread?

Storm I have said this is a watch out - that 2 large adjacent areas have leakage. You said it did not leak. I am sure you understand now that it does. The visual effect to the eye is the only way to settle this. I want the shopper to know to block the pavilion.
That is what I do here. I pointed out that there were discrepencies in the data and what to look for. i have always maintained this stone had some good features, and what to look out for.
Lets see what Illumene thinks

 

[strmrdr]

Garry if this was a design I was working on and wanted too make it better id add leakage to make the bands of leakage bigger (see arrows) and tweek the angles just a tad to bring it a tad more into the red zone center but it works the way it is.
If anything this stone has too little leakage but it works overall.
There are not 2 large areas of leakage anywhere on the diamond so I dont know what you are seeing....

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 5:12:43 AM
Author: strmrdr
Garry if this was a design I was working on and wanted too make it better id add leakage to make the bands of leakage bigger (see arrows) and tweek the angles just a tad to bring it a tad more into the red zone center but it works the way it is.
If anything this stone has too little leakage but it works overall.
There are not 2 large areas of leakage anywhere on the diamond so I dont know what you are seeing....

Are you guy''s forgetting Diamonds move and live on movements??? Not to mention light.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 5:17:04 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 5:12:43 AM
Author: strmrdr
Garry if this was a design I was working on and wanted too make it better id add leakage to make the bands of leakage bigger (see arrows) and tweek the angles just a tad to bring it a tad more into the red zone center but it works the way it is.
If anything this stone has too little leakage but it works overall.
There are not 2 large areas of leakage anywhere on the diamond so I dont know what you are seeing....

Are you guy's forgetting Diamonds move and live on movements??? Not to mention light.

nope I havent... you know this...
when you slightly tilt a step cut where are the brightest areas of light return usualy located?
yep where it was showing leakage strait up :}
leakage is asschers in the right place does not bug me at all.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 5:20:22 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 5:17:04 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 5:12:43 AM
Author: strmrdr
Garry if this was a design I was working on and wanted too make it better id add leakage to make the bands of leakage bigger (see arrows) and tweek the angles just a tad to bring it a tad more into the red zone center but it works the way it is.
If anything this stone has too little leakage but it works overall.
There are not 2 large areas of leakage anywhere on the diamond so I dont know what you are seeing....

Are you guy''s forgetting Diamonds move and live on movements??? Not to mention light.

nope I havent... you know this...
when you slightly tilt a step cut where are the brightest areas of light return usualy located?
yep where it was showing leakage strait up :}
leakage is asschers in the right place does not bug me at all.

You have leakage in all polished Diamonds..., You know this...

In step faceted Diamond cuts..., when you move them..., the area which leaked start returning light..., and "chances" are the facet which returned light prior to the movement will leak! That is what we call "LIFE"! And is an important part of the contrast!

You are right that with step cuts this is more noticeable (than modern brilliants) since the facets are large and long and basically go through the length of the straight edge''s

I am just amazed at your (all of you) arguments..., In my book... as long as the step facets by the culet are not critically shallow..., then the light return should appear fine from the table. It can appear fine or better depending on so many other factors...

We all know the key is the middle step pavilion (I am counting on a 3 step Pav.), not that the rest are not-important...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Please take the time to read my posts Storm.
My English might not be American, but you have not understood any of it?????????

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Storm this is DC office lighting and I made the background black.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/21/2008 5:58:26 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 5:20:22 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 5:17:04 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 5:12:43 AM
Author: strmrdr
Garry if this was a design I was working on and wanted too make it better id add leakage to make the bands of leakage bigger (see arrows) and tweek the angles just a tad to bring it a tad more into the red zone center but it works the way it is.
If anything this stone has too little leakage but it works overall.
There are not 2 large areas of leakage anywhere on the diamond so I dont know what you are seeing....

Are you guy''s forgetting Diamonds move and live on movements??? Not to mention light.

nope I havent... you know this...
when you slightly tilt a step cut where are the brightest areas of light return usualy located?
yep where it was showing leakage strait up :}
leakage is asschers in the right place does not bug me at all.

You have leakage in all polished Diamonds..., You know this...

In step faceted Diamond cuts..., when you move them..., the area which leaked start returning light..., and ''chances'' are the facet which returned light prior to the movement will leak! That is what we call ''LIFE''! And is an important part of the contrast!

You are right that with step cuts this is more noticeable (than modern brilliants) since the facets are large and long and basically go through the length of the straight edge''s

I am just amazed at your (all of you) arguments..., In my book... as long as the step facets by the culet are not critically shallow..., then the light return should appear fine from the table. It can appear fine or better depending on so many other factors...

We all know the key is the middle step pavilion (I am counting on a 3 step Pav.), not that the rest are not-important...

Actually DG it is more complex. in this case there is a problem between the relationship of the crown and pavilion facets. You can see this is not straight out the pavilion leakage - actually the stone is reasonably well spread. Look at the ray traces I posted and you will see what I mean (assuming you at least still have an open mind).

Storm i already mentioned this stone does not light up much thru a 25 degree range in those areas I nominated. Try a Gem Adviser movie in office lighting and you will see what I mean.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 6:32:44 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/21/2008 5:58:26 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 5:20:22 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 5:17:04 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 5:12:43 AM
Author: strmrdr
Garry if this was a design I was working on and wanted too make it better id add leakage to make the bands of leakage bigger (see arrows) and tweek the angles just a tad to bring it a tad more into the red zone center but it works the way it is.
If anything this stone has too little leakage but it works overall.
There are not 2 large areas of leakage anywhere on the diamond so I dont know what you are seeing....

Are you guy''s forgetting Diamonds move and live on movements??? Not to mention light.

nope I havent... you know this...
when you slightly tilt a step cut where are the brightest areas of light return usualy located?
yep where it was showing leakage strait up :}
leakage is asschers in the right place does not bug me at all.

You have leakage in all polished Diamonds..., You know this...

In step faceted Diamond cuts..., when you move them..., the area which leaked start returning light..., and ''chances'' are the facet which returned light prior to the movement will leak! That is what we call ''LIFE''! And is an important part of the contrast!

You are right that with step cuts this is more noticeable (than modern brilliants) since the facets are large and long and basically go through the length of the straight edge''s

I am just amazed at your (all of you) arguments..., In my book... as long as the step facets by the culet are not critically shallow..., then the light return should appear fine from the table. It can appear fine or better depending on so many other factors...

We all know the key is the middle step pavilion (I am counting on a 3 step Pav.), not that the rest are not-important...

Actually DG it is more complex. in this case there is a problem between the relationship of the crown and pavilion facets. You can see this is not straight out the pavilion leakage - actually the stone is reasonably well spread. Look at the ray traces I posted and you will see what I mean (assuming you at least still have an open mind).

Storm i already mentioned this stone does not light up much thru a 25 degree range in those areas I nominated. Try a Gem Adviser movie in office lighting and you will see what I mean.

I am not too certain as the light shining on the face of this photo is uneven..., this could throw of a bit!
See image:


Secondly, based on the numbers... (and its hard to base things on numbers only..., for me at least)..., the only Crown/Pavilion relationship issue I can identify is:

Pav 1 is a bit too steep in relation to the rest of the Pav steps..., the difference between Pav 1 relative to the others is rather large.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Garry,

Thank you for the response. I have errands to run today, Lord willing I''ll be ablel to respond tonight. Just a couple of points ...

1. What is bothersome to me personally is your sharp critcisum of a diamond I have visually confirmed and have some darn good technology''s to back up my claim *not to mention a visual confirmation with a covered pavilion*. I see some real crap posted on this forum at times with folks asking for input that you are silent on or that you don''t seemingly pull these beta rabbits out of the hat to comment on. Perhaps becuase I''m not able to read the forums like I used to but I hope you''re not singling out my diamonds only to do this on. It apperars you make extra strides (as in introducing results from a technology not even released yet) to diss a perfectly fine diamond. I certainly don''t mind a good conversation but sometimes I don''t think you realize how sensitive people are to your comments. If your comments had merit I''m all for it but they are comments yet to be confirmed because you have not physically seen the diamond in question while I have. My *visual inspection* of diamond involves covering the pavilion. Always has always will. I am intimately familiar with the best and worst Asschers out there and familiar with the optical effects that both leakage and obstruction have on a diamond in more than one lighting environment. I''ve had AGS "0" light performance Asschers in my possession amongst others and I''m personally not convinced with all that I have seen. Discussion is great and I''m always open to it but let''s see some DiamCalc beta 3 on some of the garbage cushions and asschers being posted on these boards if you''re going to do it ... do em all.
2. Back in 2000-2001 I learned the hard way ($$$) how much I could not trust reflectors even with the selecting of rounds. If I had blindly followed reflectors back then and not consulted other technologies (Bscope, Isee2 and MOSTLY the input of my clients who in essence were my then observation tests), when the labs released their cut grading systems I would have found myself with tens to hundreds of thousands in inventory that would not cut the mustard today. I am thankful I listened to those sources of input and learned from them. As stated ... I value their input but NEVER rely solely on them (or any one technology for that matter) when making serious financial decisions. If you take note I at once did not back Asschers or Cushions with lifetime policies. I must personally visually inspect them regardless of what any technology suggests.

Have a great day and hope to hop on later.

Regards,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 6:25:36 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Storm this is DC office lighting and I made the background black.

DC office is the most unrealistic lighting in DC and makes my reference designs look bad too and changing them too black background is even more so.
it even makes most super-ideal rounds look bad.
With wifey2b''s diamond I could not duplicate the look in the real world.

Yes I have read every post in this thread...

1> its been proved the aset model you posted is not correct and needs to be fixed in beta1. (too strong a backlight)
2> its been proved that dark zone mono is meaningless with asschers.
3> if I need too I can prove office black is a less than steller to judge any stone.

There is really nothing else brought up that needs too be discussed that I see once those are delt with.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 5:58:26 AM
Author: DiaGem
You have leakage in all polished Diamonds..., You know this...

In step faceted Diamond cuts..., when you move them..., the area which leaked start returning light..., and ''chances'' are the facet which returned light prior to the movement will leak! That is what we call ''LIFE''! And is an important part of the contrast!

You are right that with step cuts this is more noticeable (than modern brilliants) since the facets are large and long and basically go through the length of the straight edge''s

I am just amazed at your (all of you) arguments..., In my book... as long as the step facets by the culet are not critically shallow..., then the light return should appear fine from the table. It can appear fine or better depending on so many other factors...

We all know the key is the middle step pavilion (I am counting on a 3 step Pav.), not that the rest are not-important...

"contrast leakage" as I call it adds life yes, if its in the right place and amount.

3 step pavilion from the girdle down..

1st: sets the stage for light return thru the crown steps and must be at the a complimentary angle too them.
2nd: mostly determines the the pattern type, drop, widestep, multi .. In some designs the first has more influence than others.. It is very very important to the overall look we agree.
3rd: can make or break a stone by leaking or showing headshadow. yep we agree there too.

What is interesting is that the 2nd steps performance is one that can be largely effected by girdle thickness and it has too be taken into account.
We don''t see that much in other shapes the girdle is just there in them mostly.

It''s really nice too talk to someone with a deep understanding of step cuts :}

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 12:09:33 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 5:58:26 AM
Author: DiaGem
You have leakage in all polished Diamonds..., You know this...

In step faceted Diamond cuts..., when you move them..., the area which leaked start returning light..., and 'chances' are the facet which returned light prior to the movement will leak! That is what we call 'LIFE'! And is an important part of the contrast!

You are right that with step cuts this is more noticeable (than modern brilliants) since the facets are large and long and basically go through the length of the straight edge's

I am just amazed at your (all of you) arguments..., In my book... as long as the step facets by the culet are not critically shallow..., then the light return should appear fine from the table. It can appear fine or better depending on so many other factors...

We all know the key is the middle step pavilion (I am counting on a 3 step Pav.), not that the rest are not-important...

'contrast leakage' as I call it adds life yes, if its in the right place and amount.

"Right place and amount" greatly depends on the step-facets, their size, positions, angle's..., but most importantly their relations to each other!

3 step pavilion from the girdle down..

1st: sets the stage for light return thru the crown steps and must be at the a complimentary angle too them.
And receives light entering through the table bouncing back from Pav 3 and 2!!! (see Garry's profile ray tracing sketch!)

2nd: mostly determines the the pattern type, drop, widestep, multi .. In some designs the first has more influence than others.. It is very very important to the overall look we agree.
Strmrdr..., the second is the most important one for light return (out of the three) as you most probably know its suggested angles are in the 41 degree range..., and you know what that means...

3rd: can make or break a stone by leaking or showing headshadow. yep we agree there too.
Agree..., as it is the pupil of the overall appearance!!!

What is interesting is that the 2nd steps performance is one that can be largely effected by girdle thickness and it has too be taken into account.
We don't see that much in other shapes the girdle is just there in them mostly.

I am surprised..., as you should know girdle reflection show up in most fancy shapes..., and when they are thick and wavy..., they disturb the cleanliness of the faceting patterns reflected on the pavilion! It is hard to notice those reflections through photographs..., but when you inspect live stones with a loupe..., it will jump at you if it is not aesthetic!

It's really nice too talk to someone with a deep understanding of step cuts :}

Like I said previously..., I am amazed at your technical knowledge for a non-professional..., Its a gift you should pursue!!!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Actually Sergey has pointed out that they already corrected the Beta version of DC which shows how a diamond will look if the stone is blocked from light from the red reflector from the the crown down. This is the version on the right hand side is how the stone could look in a hand held ideal-scope.

Sergey has suggested we make a version of each, which is a good idea and should settle this discussion (if you will stop being so emotional Jonathon, and turn your brain on).

The same of course explains why we had such differences in the ASET - the new DC model shows what you would see in an ASET set up as described in the patent. We could have hand held ASET and photographic versions - but maybe that is taking things too far?

(BTW I am sure i described this glitch earlier Storm in a thread discussing why there is no leakage where there should be in certain really steep deep rounds)

 

[strmrdr]

Hi DiaGem, I''m aware of girdle reflections, it goes beyond that in asscher design and a more right way of saying it is that it has more effect then in some cuts.

I hate listing angles for asschers because they are so useless when trying too find a great one but most of my designs usually end up around 55,45,38 which is also where AGS groups the most AGS0''s but there are several other kicken combos one could use.
The main reason angles are useless is the location of each step is up and down the pavilion is just as important and the right angle depends on start location and depth.
AGS dealt with this by saying they all had too be evenly spaced when viewed from the bottom.
Which is a not so smart requirement that is based on getting a workable handle on them more than anything else.

Iv tried a few times too flip it into a job, all there is locally is counter help and that isn''t my strong point and they dont pay very well.