Asscher Pricescope Approval

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 2:49:22 PM
Author: 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)

Garry I have compared asschers and rounds using my IS scope and never was there that kind of difference between using the ideal light/tray and tweazers properly used.
The only way I can explain the difference based on my experence is an overly bright back light on the left.
adjust the backlight too the same levels and try again.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/21/2008 3:13:33 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 2:49:22 PM
Author: 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)

Garry I have compared asschers and rounds using my IS scope and never was there that kind of difference between using the ideal light/tray and tweazers properly used.
The only way I can explain the difference based on my experence is an overly bright back light on the left.
adjust the backlight too the same levels and try again.

No Storm, the backlighting is the same strength

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/21/2008 3:27:25 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 1/21/2008 3:13:33 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 2:49:22 PM
Author: 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)

Garry I have compared asschers and rounds using my IS scope and never was there that kind of difference between using the ideal light/tray and tweazers properly used.
The only way I can explain the difference based on my experence is an overly bright back light on the left.
adjust the backlight too the same levels and try again.

No Storm, the backlighting is the same strength

Aha - but the new version lighting map shows that there is no COS type dimunition of the back lighton the new version.
I will talk with Sergey because I prefer the old style where the strongest back light comes from directly below and less intense from the sides.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

And just for fun - with no back light

 

[zhuzhu]

Hi Garry and Jon,

My brain is hurting from all these excitement over mathematics. However, may I ask you to use your eyes only to let me know which set is more appealing to you in this thread? https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pic-please-help-me-pick-better-lookin-one.76867/

It will take no more than 30 second I promise!

Thanks!!!!

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 3:03:50 PM
Author: 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.

According to the Sarin (condition that it is accurate) report of the Asscher in subject...,
I notice that main pavilion 1 is 57.1 degrees..., next main pavilion 2 is39.9 degrees.
A difference of 17.2 degrees between them.

Corners are even wider apart: corner pavilion 1 is 55.3 degrees vs. corner pavilion 2 which is 36.5 degrees.
A difference of 18.8 degrees!


Now there are a few reasons for this difference which I will not get into..., but in my experience...., the difference is too big!
By all means..., it does not mean its not a great Asscher!!! But this kind of range between Pav 1 and Pav 2 has some effects on the appearance which would be less apparent if the range was closer together!!!

Its also true that there are remedies for these type''s of ranges..., but it is way to complicated to get into here.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 3:46:01 PM
Author: DiaGem
According to the Sarin (condition that it is accurate) report of the Asscher in subject...,
I notice that main pavilion 1 is 57.1 degrees..., next main pavilion 2 is39.9 degrees.
A difference of 17.2 degrees between them.

Corners are even wider apart: corner pavilion 1 is 55.3 degrees vs. corner pavilion 2 which is 36.5 degrees.
A difference of 18.8 degrees!


Now there are a few reasons for this difference which I will not get into..., but in my experience...., the difference is too big!
By all means..., it does not mean its not a great Asscher!!! But this kind of range between Pav 1 and Pav 2 has some effects on the appearance which would be less apparent if the range was closer together!!!

Its also true that there are remedies for these type's of ranges..., but it is way to complicated to get into here.

I haven't studied 4 step asschers as much as 3 step but most of them I have seen sarins for have that large jump p1 too p2.
The p1 and p2 angles work the inner red square is over p2.
This is why angles are dangerous and pictures rule.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 3:38:12 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
And just for fun - with no back light

lol an IS with no backlight is dark as the backlight would be the only source of light.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 4:04:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 3:46:01 PM
Author: DiaGem
According to the Sarin (condition that it is accurate) report of the Asscher in subject...,
I notice that main pavilion 1 is 57.1 degrees..., next main pavilion 2 is39.9 degrees.
A difference of 17.2 degrees between them.

Corners are even wider apart: corner pavilion 1 is 55.3 degrees vs. corner pavilion 2 which is 36.5 degrees.
A difference of 18.8 degrees!


Now there are a few reasons for this difference which I will not get into..., but in my experience...., the difference is too big!
By all means..., it does not mean its not a great Asscher!!! But this kind of range between Pav 1 and Pav 2 has some effects on the appearance which would be less apparent if the range was closer together!!!

Its also true that there are remedies for these type''s of ranges..., but it is way to complicated to get into here.

I haven''t studied 4 step asschers as much as 3 step but most of them I have seen sarins for have that large jump p1 too p2.
The p1 and p2 angles work the inner red square is over p2.
This is why angles are dangerous and pictures rule.

True..., and a problem with a lot of cutters applying steep P1''s is because when mass producing step-cuts..., a ultra steep P1 will solve quite a few problems in one shot!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 4:16:35 PM
Author: DiaGem
True..., and a problem with a lot of cutters applying steep P1''s is because when mass producing step-cuts..., a ultra steep P1 will solve quite a few problems in one shot!

running p1 too far down the stone another thing they like too do.. but yea your right :}
Most of the drop style asschers have long steep p1''s that is why you see a lot of them and a lot of consumers love the high contrast look so everyone wins.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 4:21:44 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 4:16:35 PM
Author: DiaGem
True..., and a problem with a lot of cutters applying steep P1''s is because when mass producing step-cuts..., a ultra steep P1 will solve quite a few problems in one shot!

running p1 too far down the stone another thing they like too do.. but yea your right :}
Most of the drop style asschers have long steep p1''s that is why you see a lot of them and a lot of consumers love the high contrast look so everyone wins.

Yes..., but on this one you clearly see the effect too.
I am not certain..., but I think that is one of the effects Garry is seeing.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 4:33:08 PM
Author: DiaGem
Yes..., but on this one you clearly see the effect too.
I am not certain..., but I think that is one of the effects Garry is seeing.

naw he is complaining about the p3 and p4 area.
p1 and p2 are fine.

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 3:03:50 PM
Author: strmrdr

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.

On a side note...

You cant expect to flip it into a job..., you dont flip..., its not a coin.

But I am sure you could add value and at the same time learn by offering your knowledge and experience from many years here on PS plus the passion of Diamonds to jewelers who are starting or plan to start doing business via the Internet...

Its just a matter of selling yourself and presenting a business plan (you know well) to jewelers showing the potential of doing business in a correct manner through the net!

Strmrdr..., dont forget this business is very primitive and a lot of jewelers dont have knowledge of the potential to move into the Internet age!!!
Plus they are scared from it!

But all the jewelers who are not involved in Internet dealings feel they are loosing out or missing on something!

It could be the perfect timing!

Just some thoughts...

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 4:35:14 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 4:33:08 PM
Author: DiaGem
Yes..., but on this one you clearly see the effect too.
I am not certain..., but I think that is one of the effects Garry is seeing.

naw he is complaining about the p3 and p4 area.
p1 and p2 are fine.

Strmrdr..., it could definitely be tied together..., remember in step cuts all issue's are tied together..., just like a train..., if the connections between the carts dont fit..., the ride becomes bumpy!

There is only 6 degrees difference between P2 and P3...!
Almost painted!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/21/2008 4:09:22 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 3:38:12 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
And just for fun - with no back light

lol an IS with no backlight is dark as the backlight would be the only source of light.

imagine the red reflector is not a reflector, but a self illuninating device (like me if you will

)

 

[Rank Amateur]

Garry

I presume the ray you posted was centered on the mains. Could you post one in the corner? I''m curious as to the % returned out.

R/A

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/21/2008 6:43:24 PM
Author: Rank Amateur
Garry

I presume the ray you posted was centered on the mains. Could you post one in the corner? I''m curious as to the % returned out.

R/A

Single rays do not tell much of the story RA
Are you familiar with this DiamCalc function of mutiple rays done to model Bruce Harding aka Beryl''s 1970''s paper?
It shows better.
I rotated the stone 45 degrees.
It correlates well with the ideal-scope image I posted

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 4:53:27 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 4:35:14 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 4:33:08 PM
Author: DiaGem
Yes..., but on this one you clearly see the effect too.
I am not certain..., but I think that is one of the effects Garry is seeing.

naw he is complaining about the p3 and p4 area.
p1 and p2 are fine.

Strmrdr..., it could definitely be tied together..., remember in step cuts all issue's are tied together..., just like a train..., if the connections between the carts dont fit..., the ride becomes bumpy!

There is only 6 degrees difference between P2 and P3...!
Almost painted!

I did a virtual recut and combined p3 and 4 into one facet, it resulted in a large culet because the stone would be a little deeper.
p1 and p2 are angles(58/41) are close too what they were the difference between p1 and p2 on average actualy increased slightly.
edit: I also moved the location of p2 slightly.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 4:50:12 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 3:03:50 PM
Author: strmrdr

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.

On a side note...

You cant expect to flip it into a job..., you dont flip..., its not a coin.

But I am sure you could add value and at the same time learn by offering your knowledge and experience from many years here on PS plus the passion of Diamonds to jewelers who are starting or plan to start doing business via the Internet...

Its just a matter of selling yourself and presenting a business plan (you know well) to jewelers showing the potential of doing business in a correct manner through the net!

Strmrdr..., dont forget this business is very primitive and a lot of jewelers dont have knowledge of the potential to move into the Internet age!!!
Plus they are scared from it!

But all the jewelers who are not involved in Internet dealings feel they are loosing out or missing on something!

It could be the perfect timing!

Just some thoughts...

I have talked too one about it when he saw the margins he about had a heartattack and said he would keep em himself at that profit level.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/21/2008 8:35:11 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 4:53:27 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 4:35:14 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 4:33:08 PM
Author: DiaGem
Yes..., but on this one you clearly see the effect too.
I am not certain..., but I think that is one of the effects Garry is seeing.

naw he is complaining about the p3 and p4 area.
p1 and p2 are fine.

Strmrdr..., it could definitely be tied together..., remember in step cuts all issue''s are tied together..., just like a train..., if the connections between the carts dont fit..., the ride becomes bumpy!

There is only 6 degrees difference between P2 and P3...!
Almost painted!

I did a virtual recut and combined p3 and 4 into one facet, it resulted in a large culet because the stone would be a little deeper.
p1 and p2 are angles(58/41) are close too what they were the difference between p1 and p2 on average actualy increased slightly.
edit: I also moved the location of p2 slightly.

Nice job Storm
Did you add material or take it away?
I presume you used "Advanced Edit" ?
Have you downloaded the new DC3.0 and used the new cut designer yet?

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 8:35:11 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 4:53:27 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 4:35:14 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 4:33:08 PM
Author: DiaGem
Yes..., but on this one you clearly see the effect too.
I am not certain..., but I think that is one of the effects Garry is seeing.

naw he is complaining about the p3 and p4 area.
p1 and p2 are fine.

Strmrdr..., it could definitely be tied together..., remember in step cuts all issue''s are tied together..., just like a train..., if the connections between the carts dont fit..., the ride becomes bumpy!

There is only 6 degrees difference between P2 and P3...!
Almost painted!

I did a virtual recut and combined p3 and 4 into one facet, it resulted in a large culet because the stone would be a little deeper.
p1 and p2 are angles(58/41) are close too what they were the difference between p1 and p2 on average actualy increased slightly.
edit: I also moved the location of p2 slightly.

Now do the same with the P2 at 45 degrees as per your designs...
And another example P1 53 P2 41 P3 30...

and can you give me a real image?

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/21/2008 8:50:41 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 4:50:12 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 1/21/2008 3:03:50 PM
Author: strmrdr

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.

On a side note...

You cant expect to flip it into a job..., you dont flip..., its not a coin.

But I am sure you could add value and at the same time learn by offering your knowledge and experience from many years here on PS plus the passion of Diamonds to jewelers who are starting or plan to start doing business via the Internet...

Its just a matter of selling yourself and presenting a business plan (you know well) to jewelers showing the potential of doing business in a correct manner through the net!

Strmrdr..., dont forget this business is very primitive and a lot of jewelers dont have knowledge of the potential to move into the Internet age!!!
Plus they are scared from it!

But all the jewelers who are not involved in Internet dealings feel they are loosing out or missing on something!

It could be the perfect timing!

Just some thoughts...

I have talked too one about it when he saw the margins he about had a heartattack and said he would keep em himself at that profit level.

Hummm..., one uh!

Well the world if full of Internet wannabees..., and they are all pretty much useless when it comes to Tech!!!
Suggestions..., dont talk to them about their profits..., show them how big this world is and how reachable and small you can make it for them...

Jewelers need to see and feel volume!! Once they see the potential..., believe me profits %''s will be a secondary issue!

Strmrdr..., I''ve learned the more the doors close for me..., the more chances I have opening them!

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/21/2008 10:36:02 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Nice job Storm
Did you add material or take it away?
I presume you used ''Advanced Edit'' ?
Have you downloaded the new DC3.0 and used the new cut designer yet?

when I moved p2 it added material, I was showing that the p1,p2 angles could work not what the real stone could be recut too.
havent used cut designer yet too be honest forgot all about it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/22/2008 12:53:23 AM
Author: DiaGem
Now do the same with the P2 at 45 degrees as per your designs...
And another example P1 53 P2 41 P3 30...

and can you give me a real image?

too hard too move that one around,, tried it a little with one of my designes but the crown angles that work well with my combos aren't optimal for 53,41,30 i did notice that 53,41,30 gave a more RA look to the where p2 at 45 gives a more contrasty look to them.
Will play with it more tomorrow as time allows.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/22/2008 1:26:37 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/21/2008 10:36:02 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Nice job Storm
Did you add material or take it away?
I presume you used ''Advanced Edit'' ?
Have you downloaded the new DC3.0 and used the new cut designer yet?

when I moved p2 it added material, I was showing that the p1,p2 angles could work not what the real stone could be recut too.
havent used cut designer yet too be honest forgot all about it.

The advantage is you get control over each facet individually.
But it takes some learning.
The version 3.1 (free upgrade) will have an easier format, but you might find it very useful Storm for what you are trying to do here because the advanced edit is laborious

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/22/2008 2:35:55 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
The advantage is you get control over each facet individually.
But it takes some learning.
The version 3.1 (free upgrade) will have an easier format, but you might find it very useful Storm for what you are trying to do here because the advanced edit is laborious

kewl hopfuly it will let me work with 3c/4p and 3c/5p asschers in an easy manner.
they are a real pita right now.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Use the manual. Itt is in your >All programs>DiamCalc>Diamcalc3.0 user Manual.
Try a baguette first

 

[elmo]

Date: 1/21/2008 2:22:10 PM
Author: DiaGem
Its a gift you (strm) should pursue!!!

Strm - he''s right. As much as I love old cushions and as much as you love Asschers, I keep thinking there''s a business opportunity here. Not necessarily advising other folks...think Jim Schultz and Todd at Niceice 5-10 years back, selling just old cut reproductions on the web, potentially commissioning the cutting. I keep thinking it would be fun if just as a hobby. If nothing more it would get us into the AGTA pavilion at Tucson each year!

 

[Rhino]

Just an update Garry. I reserached further into this as the diamond did not ship out yet and ran some further tests you may find interesting.

1. I ran the PGS on it and and ASET image produced via the PGS software was very similar although not entirely identical to your image suggesting that large block of leakage under the table. Hence your comments which are now making some sense BUT are still misleading and I'll expound why below. BTW the diamond overall gets an AGS "1" insofar as that technology is concerned, which as I have expressed I'm not sold on AGS' grading for Asscher's.
2. MOST IMPORTANTLY ... when I saw your generated image via the new DiamCalc beta 3 it was suggesting that large gaping hole of leakage functioning akin to a very large culet ... in fact even larger based on that graphic and also the PGS.

So ... if the goal of DC was to better mimic the PGS you have basically succeeded.
If the goal was to better mimic real world photographic reflector testing (via actual photography) then you are moving in the wrong direction.

I would suggest sticking with the latter because it more accurately reflects real world testing. That image has led you to faulty conclusions and I better understand why. If I had seen that image I would have thought precisely what you had and would have suggested against the diamond.

Perhaps Sergey should leave both but I know on a personal level which I give heavier weight to having been able to examine this diamond live and for myself.

I happen to be intimately familiar with the rather undesireable visuals produced from such leakage Garry. I have visually inspected the diamond again and confirmed what I knew all along ... these effects in a visual examination are not showing what the PGS and the new DiamCalc 3 are suggesting.

If it were I would not have backed the diamond with lifetime policies. Ultimately is it my $$$ on the line because that client can return/exchange at any time.

Peace,

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/22/2008 12:53:03 PM
Author: Rhino
Just an update Garry. I reserached further into this as the diamond did not ship out yet and ran some further tests you may find interesting.

1. I ran the PGS on it and and ASET image produced via the PGS software was very similar although not entirely identical to your image suggesting that large block of leakage under the table. Hence your comments which are now making some sense BUT are still misleading and I''ll expound why below. BTW the diamond overall gets an AGS ''1'' insofar as that technology is concerned, which as I have expressed I''m not sold on AGS'' grading for Asscher''s.
2. MOST IMPORTANTLY ... when I saw your generated image via the new DiamCalc beta 3 it was suggesting that large gaping hole of leakage functioning akin to a very large culet ... in fact even larger based on that graphic and also the PGS.

So ... if the goal of DC was to better mimic the PGS you have basically succeeded.
If the goal was to better mimic real world photographic reflector testing (via actual photography) then you are moving in the wrong direction.

I would suggest sticking with the latter because it more accurately reflects real world testing. That image has led you to faulty conclusions and I better understand why. If I had seen that image I would have thought precisely what you had and would have suggested against the diamond.

Perhaps Sergey should leave both but I know on a personal level which I give heavier weight to having been able to examine this diamond live and for myself.

I happen to be intimately familiar with the rather undesireable visuals produced from such leakage Garry. I have visually inspected the diamond again and confirmed what I knew all along ... these effects in a visual examination are not showing what the PGS and the new DiamCalc 3 are suggesting.

If it were I would not have backed the diamond with lifetime policies. Ultimately is it my $$$ on the line because that client can return/exchange at any time.

Peace,

As I am not too familiar with these tools..., I must admit it makes me smile to read and know that a Fancy Cut Diamond''s beauty MUST still be judged by the eyes ONLY!!!

Poor Round Brilliants....