Asscher Pricescope Approval

[illume]

Hello...I put a hold on the diamond the first day..I just have to find out some info on the setting. I''m getting that sorted out...

Otherwise, I appreciate the feedback. All the other stuff, I''m not to sure I understand..actually, it''s way above my head. Way way above.

I just want a beautiful diamond that''s worth the money. I feel comfortable going with this diamond-if I see it and don''t like it-which I doubt-, or the setting issue throws it off, then GOG''s policy is great! So no worries. So thanks everyone.. Helen

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/22/2008 1:38:13 PM
Author: illume
Hello...I put a hold on the diamond the first day..I just have to find out some info on the setting. I''m getting that sorted out...

Otherwise, I appreciate the feedback. All the other stuff, I''m not to sure I understand..actually, it''s way above my head. Way way above.

I just want a beautiful diamond that''s worth the money. I feel comfortable going with this diamond-if I see it and don''t like it-which I doubt-, or the setting issue throws it off, then GOG''s policy is great! So no worries. So thanks everyone.. Helen

Helen,

Dont let this scientific mambo-jumbo throw you off..., all of us Diamond Geeks agreed from the start that this Asscher should be a super GEM!!!

The discussions you are witnessing are on minuscule ranges which most pro''s would not even have the luxury noticing the differences!!!

The highlighted part on Rhino''s post say''s it all!!!

I am certain this Asscher is a killer gem...!!!

And remember..., there is no such thing as a perfect Diamond!!!

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 1/22/2008 1:38:13 PM
Author: illume
Hello...I put a hold on the diamond the first day..I just have to find out some info on the setting. I''m getting that sorted out...


Otherwise, I appreciate the feedback. All the other stuff, I''m not to sure I understand..actually, it''s way above my head. Way way above.


I just want a beautiful diamond that''s worth the money. I feel comfortable going with this diamond-if I see it and don''t like it-which I doubt-, or the setting issue throws it off, then GOG''s policy is great! So no worries. So thanks everyone.. Helen

Helen, it''s over a bunch of our heads too. I''m just an average consumer and for me you are going about purchasing the right way. 1) trusted vendor 2) upgrade policy and 3) especially with fancy shapes but any stone really....eyes trump paper or tests or computer models etc...

i bet it''s one gorgeous stone and hope you get it and find the setting of your dreams. please come back with pictures once it''s all done

 

[Serg]

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,

Rhino,

re: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.
We have not goal mimic PGS or DiamXray or even IS.
I never used PGS( I have but due some principles did not even run it)

DiamXray , FS, IS ( standard version. ISpro is much better) due some constructive defect can not correctly show some problems( in one base) what are critical for diamond in closed holders( not for loose diamonds).

Our goal to show all important problems and show how is possible redesign structure lights ( for example DiamXray) to mimic Diamcalc (if you have goal to show all important problems in diamonds)

Please do below test

1) to Paint pavilion this diamond by black liquid
2) after this take photo in DiamXray
3) Publish this photo
Then we can continue constructive discussion on the one base

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/22/2008 3:50:11 PM
Author: Serg

Please do below test

1) to Paint pavilion this diamond by black liquid
2) after this take photo in DiamXray
3) Publish this photo

Then we can continue constructive discussion on the one base

Serg,

I imagine the effect will be the same for any pavilion step-facet cut at a shallower angle than 29 degrees...

 

[Rhino]

Date: 1/22/2008 1:32:26 PM
Author: 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....

Hey Diagem,

Firstly let me thank you kindly for your input not only in this thread but many others I''ve read of yours but haven''t had the chance to comment in. You bring a lot of excellent wisdom to the table.

When I was deciding on which fancies to put my signature on and back with lifetime policies I went round and round trying to determine which technology I should use to employ to communicate their superiority over the kaka we commonly see being pushed on the market place and really ... insofar as most of these are concerned I''m not 100% pleased with any of the technologies that most PS people are familiar with so I really appreciate your comment above.

If you''ve ever read through any of the technology articles on our site I am careful to point out what I consider to be both strengths and weakness'' of each. While I appreciate the data from each, I''ve yet to find the ultimate crystal ball in way of these machines.

Kind regards,

 

[strmrdr]

I''m getting too the point where I prefer a couple clear regular pictures to help select asschers remotely. Video being nice to go with the pictures.
combined with a vendor''s opinion who has a lot of experience with asschers goes a long way.
I had high hopes for aset but seeing the mess AGS came up with its less than I was hoping.

Change the head shadow a little and they change appearance, add too much back-lighting and the scopes are useless.

I knew the image that Garry showed was not representative of this stone the second I saw it, Jon would reject the stone in 3 seconds flat if it did,

 

[Rhino]

Date: 1/22/2008 3:50:11 PM
Author: Serg

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,

Rhino,

re: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.

We have not goal mimic PGS or DiamXray or even IS.
I never used PGS( I have but due some principles did not even run it)

DiamXray , FS, IS ( standard version. ISpro is much better) due some constructive defect can not correctly show some problems( in one base) what are critical for diamond in closed holders( not for loose diamonds).

Our goal to show all important problems and show how is possible redesign structure lights ( for example DiamXray) to mimic Diamcalc (if you have goal to show all important problems in diamonds)

Please do below test

1) to Paint pavilion this diamond by black liquid
2) after this take photo in DiamXray
3) Publish this photo

Then we can continue constructive discussion on the one base

Hi Sergey,

No need to paint it black. Concerning the client: A halo setting doesn''t (to my knowledge) completely block the pavilion of a diamond unless perhaps its some kind of bezel totallky encasing the entire pavilion but even at that when I examine diamonds there is absolutely no light whatsoever entering the pavilion area. It is totally blocked/covered and being viewed in a worse case scenario. I can tell you from personal experience, I know what it looks like and I know what large patches of leakage look like in asscher''s, rounds and whatever shape it is I''m examining.

I''ve been able to study these elements critically for years now and if I were to visually inspect the diamond and look at the current DiamCalc vs the new beta I would say the current one more accurately tells the story.

If the current beta one did I would plainly say so.

The reflector image that Garry posted is misleading. Had I seen that image from a poster on this forum asking for information I would have said exactly what Garry would have, ie. leak like a sieve.

I am running about 24 hours behind on my email so I may not get the chance to post tomorrow but if I get a chance to break away I''ll be happy to take a picture with the pavilion blocked.

Peace,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Jonathon Sergey is presenting you an opportunity to learn.

You, not him.
Most people would consider it as a very special opportunity.

BTW you mentions DiamCalc was trying to mimic AGS software. That is rather ammusing, since Diamcalc had the Gilbertsonscope model in it in 1999, or there abouts.

 

[Serg]

Hi Rhino,


re:I am running about 24 hours behind on my email so I may not get the chance to post tomorrow but if I get a chance to break away I''ll be happy to take a picture with the pavilion blocked.

Any update? When could you publish here such picture?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Dear Jonathon and Storm

I should have done this earlier.
On the left is the current DiamCalc that you are using, and on the right is the new beta test version.
You should certainly expect this diamond with a 41.55 degree pavilion to show a ring of leakage under your Xray?
You will note with your version of DiamCalc it does not. There is more leakage if you drop the pavilion angle by a little more, and less if you make it deeper (which you know from experiance is wrong).

Sergey and I discussed it, it is fixed in the next release which is shown on the right side.
Storm i am sure you will remember me mentioning it maybe about September / October in a thread here?

 

[diagem]

Date: 1/26/2008 6:38:24 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Dear Jonathon and Storm

I should have done this earlier.
On the left is the current DiamCalc that you are using, and on the right is the new beta test version.
You should certainly expect this diamond with a 41.55 degree pavilion to show a ring of leakage under your Xray?
You will note with your version of DiamCalc it does not. There is more leakage if you drop the pavilion angle by a little more, and less if you make it deeper (which you know from experiance is wrong).

Sergey and I discussed it, it is fixed in the next release which is shown on the right side.
Storm i am sure you will remember me mentioning it maybe about September / October in a thread here?

Garry..., what do you mean by making it deeper? Thicker girdle or longer crown facets (smaller table)?

Am I on your track?

 

[Serg]

Garry,

re:Sergey and I discussed it, it is fixed in the next release which is shown on the right side.

We did not finished this discussion yet.
We have several open questions yet:
1)What is intensity for horizontal ray should be ( if vertical ray in down hemisphere has intensity =1)
2) what is intensity for ray from pavilion what go to upper hemisphere?
If our task show possible black zone , Intensity for all pavilion rays should be same( maximum)
If we want model current structure lights ( for example IS), intensity should be different
But in any case Release DC3.2 will have not IS illumination like current beta

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/26/2008 6:38:24 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Dear Jonathon and Storm

I should have done this earlier.
On the left is the current DiamCalc that you are using, and on the right is the new beta test version.
You should certainly expect this diamond with a 41.55 degree pavilion to show a ring of leakage under your Xray?
You will note with your version of DiamCalc it does not. There is more leakage if you drop the pavilion angle by a little more, and less if you make it deeper (which you know from experiance is wrong).

Sergey and I discussed it, it is fixed in the next release which is shown on the right side.
Storm i am sure you will remember me mentioning it maybe about September / October in a thread here?

If I vary the backlight I could make such a stone look either way under my IS pro model.
Which is correct?
The color of the leakage like the colors of red dont mean much under real world setups.
I stand by my opinion that the beta has too strong a backlight for asschers.
They are super sensitive too it.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/26/2008 8:04:54 AM
Author: Serg

Garry,

re:Sergey and I discussed it, it is fixed in the next release which is shown on the right side.

We did not finished this discussion yet.

We have several open questions yet:
1)What is intensity for horizontal ray should be ( if vertical ray in down hemisphere has intensity =1)
2) what is intensity for ray from pavilion what go to upper hemisphere?

If our task show possible black zone , Intensity for all pavilion rays should be same( maximum)
If we want model current structure lights ( for example IS), intensity should be different

But in any case Release DC3.2 will have not IS illumination like current beta

under my IS I could make it look like either image.
Which is the right one?
By your last line it sounds like neither of them is what you would consider the best representation.

 

[strmrdr]

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,

that would explain why the PGS grade has not been a good representative of real world stones if it misrepresents what the actual appearance is.
Reflector images of rounds is easy compared too step cuts.
They are much more sensitive to head shadow and back-lighting than rounds.

Garry and Jon try this experiment,
Take an asscher in office lighting and view it from 8 to 24 inches away side by side with a modern tolk round.
You will notice a huge difference in the range of looks vs distance in the asscher compared too the round.

Now do the same with a variable light source as a blacklight with the stone in tweasers.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 1/23/2008 1:00:06 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Jonathon Sergey is presenting you an opportunity to learn.

You, not him.
Most people would consider it as a very special opportunity.

BTW you mentions DiamCalc was trying to mimic AGS software. That is rather ammusing, since Diamcalc had the Gilbertsonscope model in it in 1999, or there abouts.

Hi Garry,

A busy week for me. Lots of things going on which has given me little time to even check here. Believe me when I tell you I am always open to listening to Sergey and you on diamond issues. There are many times our paths have crossed and its interesting to see the DiamCalc 3.2 cross with AGS ASET whether I agree or disagree with the results.

While all that gets sorted out on the technological front I''ve learned to trust my gold ol peepers in the meantime and the opinions of the kind folks who allow themselves to be subjects in my own observation testing. That combo hasn''t failed me yet and have been the balance to the critical determinations made in and with technologies. In my world the consumers voice comes first before DiamCalc 3 and ASET because they are ones who must be happy in the end.

Sergey... if I may ask ... what lighting environment would you suggest I bring the diamond into to *see* the large culet effect suggested by the new DC3 ASET/IS image? I have observed this diamond with the pavilion completely blocked and do not see what the graphic is suggesting. I do not have black paint in my store to paint the pavilion (a new way to paint diamonds eh!

).

Kind regards,

 

[Rhino]

Hey strm,

Just read your last post. when I get up after hte weekend I''ll give this a shot.

Peace,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/27/2008 12:42:25 AM
Author: Rhino
Hey strm,

Just read your last post. when I get up after hte weekend I''ll give this a shot.

Peace,

kewl

 

[Serg]

Re: if I may ask ... what lighting environment would you suggest I bring the diamond into to *see* the large culet effect suggested by the new DC3 ASET/IS image? I have observed this diamond with the pavilion completely blocked and do not see what the graphic is suggesting. I do not have black paint in my store to paint the pavilion

Rhino, I prefer continue discussion after you publish DiamXray photo with pavilion had been painted by black liquid . It is very easy .
You can use any black spirit soft-tip pen( it is easy buy in shope , you can use same what cutters use for marking rough. If you can not find it I will ask send it you) There are too easy
1) buy black spirit soft-tip pen,
2) paint pavilion,
3) take photo in your DiamXray
4) publish photo here.
5) Continue discussion

On what step do you need help? I can wait weeks , no problem at all

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Jonathon I bought this product in the super market here and it works.
It is made in USA, so you should be able to get it.
http://www.sanfordcorp.com/sanford/consumer/jhtml/new-product/browse_brand_product_list.jhtml?locationId=LOC00012&currentType=SNTYPE004&nextType=noValue&%2Fnr%2Fsession%2FUserContext.category=SNATT40201&_D%3A%2Fnr%2Fsession%2FUserContext.category=+&attributeId=SNATT40201&_DARGS=%2Fsanford%2Fjhtml%2Fnew-catalog%2Ffrags%2Fbrowse_subbrand_main.jhtml
It is packaged as PaperMate Sharpie here and writes on metal and glass etc.
Cost about $1.
There are other European pens too - jewellers use them because they can mark on gold and platinum

 

[Imdanny]

Well, it looks like a gorgeous stone to me!