asscher question

[starryeyed]

That's a great suggestion Indecisive. Your avatar looks much more accurate - there for a while, I thought you had an Emerald! Ha-ha!

So I guess John Pollard from WF had seen this thread and read my comments about the sensitivity of the ASET-scope when I looked at the stone. In a forwarded email, here were his comments: (Traci gave me permission to post)

John Pollard, Director of Consumer Education:

...That's exactly right. In fact, I'm not surprised: The size of that Asscher pushes the boundaries of our setup which was standardized using more common, smaller sizes.

I've attached two graphics I prepared for a tutorial which will go up on our website soon. Please feel free to pass them [along] to demonstrate how ASET gives more detailed information than IS, but one must keep in mind that it's all light return, and that as the stone or the viewer moves the areas of contrast all shift and create the beauty we see in the pattern of scintillation.

The ASET definitely reveals more about the nature of fancies, even though the ideal-scope is very good at showing overall light return. Another important factor with fancies is how the diamond looks to the viewer when mounted and dynamic, which CAN'T BE REPRESENTED using a photo. The areas some may criticize for being a certain color in a still ASET photo may create wonderful contrast when viewed in natural conditions at normal human distances and sizes. Remember, that one photo was at a set distance and yields only one interpretation of angular spectrum. It's why Brian has long, long said that 2D images are not nearly enough by which to judge a fancy shape. No one can tell what it will look like from 1000 miles away. In your hand is the only way to judge.

I am attaching the images, courtesy of Whiteflash:

 

[starryeyed]

Again, courtesy of Whiteflash. We may need John to explain this to us:

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/13/2006 8:56:50 PM
Author: starryeyed


John Pollard, Director of Consumer Education:

...That''s exactly right. In fact, I''m not surprised: The size of that Asscher pushes the boundaries of our setup which was standardized using more common, smaller sizes.

I''ve attached two graphics I prepared for a tutorial which will go up on our website soon. Please feel free to pass them [along] to demonstrate how ASET gives more detailed information than IS, but one must keep in mind that it''s all light return, and that as the stone or the viewer moves the areas of contrast all shift and create the beauty we see in the pattern of scintillation.

The ASET definitely reveals more about the nature of fancies, even though the ideal-scope is very good at showing overall light return. Another important factor with fancies is how the diamond looks to the viewer when mounted and dynamic, which CAN''T BE REPRESENTED using a photo. The areas some may criticize for being a certain color in a still ASET photo may create wonderful contrast when viewed in natural conditions at normal human distances and sizes. Remember, that one photo was at a set distance and yields only one interpretation of angular spectrum. It''s why Brian has long, long said that 2D images are not nearly enough by which to judge a fancy shape. No one can tell what it will look like from 1000 miles away. exactly why it is important to get the most out of ASET by moving the stone while you look at it - as in ASET Reference charts (moving images) In your hand is the only way to judge.

I am attaching the images, courtesy of Whiteflash:

 

[starryeyed]

Also courtesy of Whiteflash. John, explanation?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/13/2006 8:56:50 PM
Author: starryeyed
That's a great suggestion Indecisive. Your avatar looks much more accurate - there for a while, I thought you had an Emerald! Ha-ha!

So I guess John Pollard from WF had seen this thread and read my comments about the sensitivity of the ASET-scope when I looked at the stone. In a forwarded email, here were his comments: (Traci gave me permission to post)

John Pollard, Director of Consumer Education:

...That's exactly right. In fact, I'm not surprised: The size of that Asscher pushes the boundaries of our setup which was standardized using more common, smaller sizes.

I've attached two graphics I prepared for a tutorial which will go up on our website soon. Please feel free to pass them [along] to demonstrate how ASET gives more detailed information than IS, but one must keep in mind that it's all light return, and that as the stone or the viewer moves the areas of contrast all shift and create the beauty we see in the pattern of scintillation.

The ASET definitely reveals more about the nature of fancies, even though the ideal-scope is very good at showing overall light return. Another important factor with fancies is how the diamond looks to the viewer when mounted and dynamic, which CAN'T BE REPRESENTED using a photo. The areas some may criticize for being a certain color in a still ASET photo may create wonderful contrast when viewed in natural conditions at normal human distances and sizes. Remember, that one photo was at a set distance and yields only one interpretation of angular spectrum. It's why Brian has long, long said that 2D images are not nearly enough by which to judge a fancy shape. No one can tell what it will look like from 1000 miles away. In your hand is the only way to judge.

I am attaching the images, courtesy of Whiteflash:

Static patterns are far more important in asschers than any other cut with EC being second.
Without the patterns you dont get the 10 mile deep look that draws the eye into the stone.
The patterns are the heart and soul of the asscher cut.
Even a badly cut asscher can have awesome scint. when moved but if it dont have the patterns it is better off being cut into a princess cut. (and everyone knows i dont like em)

Without great patterns an asscher is missing its heart and soul.
Where that line is can depend on the person viewing it.
Patterns can be graded in good static pictures and in ASET images.
What cant be graded is the persons reaction to varying degrees of patterns or types of patterns.
There have been a whole bunch of asschers sold on pricescope by patterns and crown height that have made a whole lot of owners very very very happy.
Has a good diamond been rejected along the way for what ever reason, yea it happens.

In the case of this diamond if the person loves it im more than happy to say congrates!
It is a nice diamond and may be the perfect diamond for the person who bought it.

 

[starryeyed]

Date: 12/13/2006 10:39:56 PM
Author: strmrdr

In the case of this diamond if the person loves it im more than happy to say congrates!

It is a nice diamond and may be the perfect diamond for the person who bought it.

Hi Storm. That's maybe me! I am "reviewing" the stone and deciding if I "love" it, and I really appreciate all of your help and advice. Had you said this was a "woofer", I wouldn't have touched it - that's for sure. I considered it though because you and Garry both said it may be nice in person. I couldn't imagine a cutter cutting a slouch stone out of F IF rough. However, the stone's cert is from May 04, so I was worried about why it's been hanging around since then.

I thought John's comment about their ASET setup was interesting. The diamond through my handy-dandy ASET-scope doesn't look anything like the image from WF's ASET. I'm kinda relieved about that.

If I do decide to keep it, I think it will be an interesting exercise to send it to AGS in February. I would certainly post the results for you to see!

I'll try to take more pictures if the sun ever comes out. The camera mastery is another issue....

 

[starryeyed]

Ok, so I''m attempting more photos....

 

[starryeyed]

Here we go...

 

[starryeyed]

another...

 

[starryeyed]

...

 

[starryeyed]

....

 

[starryeyed]

....

 

[starryeyed]

....

 

[starryeyed]

...

 

[starryeyed]

Last one...

 

[decodelighted]

Great shots .. you're doing SO much better than I do photographing Asschers & I've had mine over a year now!!!

I love the 3rd to last one INTENSELY!!

Asschers may face up smaller than RB's but that stone is no slouch in the size dept. It looks really big on you!!

Getting closer to a verdict?? Taken it on some field trips??

 

[starryeyed]

Hi Decodelighted! Thanks! I literally took like 30 pictures and these are the only ones that even remotely turned out. It's not easy - I wish I had one of those super-duper macro lenses, rather than just the setting on my simple Powershot. I like the third to last too.

My fingers are probably the skinniest part of me (!!!) - this finger is a 5, so the stone looks big, right?

Question, am I suppose to see a lot of brilliance and scintillation around the edges of the stone? In the area between the table and the edge?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 12/14/2006 3:18:31 PM
Author: starryeyed


Question, am I suppose to see a lot of brilliance and scintillation around the edges of the stone? In the area between the table and the edge?

With this one thats where most of it will be.
A better cut one will have more brightness into the stone to the center.
Which is what Garry and I were talking about.
Its up to you too decide if this one is bright enough for you and it very well could be.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/13/2006 10:08:13 PM
Author: starryeyed
Also courtesy of Whiteflash. John, explanation?

Hi Starryeyed. Sorry it has taken me all day to get to this.

I think you’re getting enough public opinion about Square Emerald/Asschers, so I’m going to confine my comments to the graphics you asked me to explain: Ideal-Scope and ASET, their differences and the differences we need to bear in mind when judging fancy shapes versus rounds. This will be re-hashing old material for many, so if it’s boring just skip ahead a bit.

The ideal-scope and ASET create structured light environments.

Ideal-Scope: With the diamond’s girdle flush with the bottom of the tube, light entering the crown from above and properly bounced back to the eye will be red. Light escaping or leaking out of the diamond's pavilion will appear white (because it is lit from underneath). Black is ‘obstruction,’ or light normally coming into the diamond from the highest angles, but now blocked (obstructed) by the viewer or the camera. A balance of obstruction is desirable.

ASET: With the diamond’s girdle flush with the bottom of the tube, light entering the crown from above and properly bounced back to the eye will be red...or green: Red is most intense (higher angles) and green is less intense. This is the main difference between IS and ASET: Ideal-scope does not separate direct from indirect, showing both as red. Light escaping or leaking out of the diamond's pavilion is black in our system (white if in a backlit system). Blue is 'obstruction,' as above.

In simple terms, the ASET is just like the Ideal-Scope with one extra color.

The Ideal-Scope shows:

• All Light Return (red)
• Obstruction (black)
• Leakage (white)

The ASET shows:

• Direct Light Return (red)
• Indirect Light Return (green)
• Obstruction (blue)
• Leakage (black or white, depending on setup)

 

[JohnQuixote]

Here are comparison photos of two premium diamonds; one round and one princess.

Fancy shapes don’t return light as well as well-cut rounds. The ideal-scope on the princess shows much much red, and you can see how helpful the ASET is to determine what light is direct light return (light red) and what is indirect light return (green). This is a well-cut princess. Seeing as much red or pink as possible is still a goal for brilliance, but don’t worry that it does not look like a round; it’s not supposed to.

Princess, radiant and square emerald/Assher shapes have less light return than rounds, but more than rectangular diamonds.

Here is a page that elaborates, with some good examples, and demonstrates why in-motion is so important to judging fancy shapes.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/14/2006 3:18:31 PM
Author: starryeyed

...I literally took like 30 pictures and these are the only ones that even remotely turned out. It''s not easy - I wish I had one of those super-duper macro lenses, rather than just the setting on my simple Powershot. I like the third to last too.

You did great on the photos. I''ve used a Powershot for many years and am thinking of buying a newer model. I saw demos of the newest PS and the Nikon S7 last weekend. Tough call.

 

[starryeyed]

Date: 12/14/2006 4:57:43 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 12/14/2006 3:18:31 PM

Author: starryeyed

Question, am I suppose to see a lot of brilliance and scintillation around the edges of the stone? In the area between the table and the edge?

With this one thats where most of it will be.

A better cut one will have more brightness into the stone to the center.

Which is what Garry and I were talking about.

Its up to you too decide if this one is bright enough for you and it very well could be.

Thanks Storm. I guess what I'm seeing top-down is a little darkness, but more like contrast, I think. If I move the stone slightly, a darker facet disappears and another pops up on the other side. Does that sound right? The center doesn't look dead to my eye, but I could see where not all facets under the table are bright white. Can you describe the difference between a dark center and good contrast?

I guess I'm wondering how much fire and scintillation I should be seeing around the edges? Should it rival a RB around the edges?

Thanks John for the explanation of the graphics!

Also, Decodelighted, I checked out your asscher and the pictures - I really like the setting. It's so different and compliments the shape of the asscher well. The asscher itself looks nice too. I was noticing that you were "worried about worrying" that the table size might be too big. How do you feel about it now? By the way, you did a nice job on your photos - I know how tough it can be to even get one in focus!

Here's the link to Deco's lovely ring.

 

[starryeyed]

Just a bump - need some help, please?

 

[kenny]

FWIW
I am also holding an asscher.

I am familiar with two superbly-cut rounds, a Solasfera, and an ACA.
Asschers do not have the same blow your head off bling that ideal rounds do.

To me the strength of the asscher look is in the hall-of-mirrors optical illusion.
Plus they do have gorgeous fire, but more refined than loud, with large bars of color.

Specifically what you see is so dependent on light conditions and what is in the room and what you are wearing that it really is no help to describe what you see when you rotate it.

 

[strmrdr]

Asschers return light as mainly large chunks of fire vs mostly white light and small chunks of fire on an RB.
They aren''t really comparable but an asscher can look a lot more fiery than a round.

As Kenny said different but kewl.

 

[starryeyed]

Date: 12/15/2006 7:43:57 PM
Author: kenny
FWIW

Plus they do have gorgeous fire, but more refined than loud, with large bars of color.

Specifically what you see is so dependent on light conditions and what is in the room and what you are wearing that it really is no help to describe what you see when you rotate it.

Hi Kenny. What does FWIW mean? Under what conditions do you see large bars of color and a lot of fire? Is it the kind that leaps off the stone, or is it just color differences inside the stone?

Thanks Storm. I''m trying to figure out what I''m looking at. How much of the edges should resemble a RB, if any?

 

[indecisive]

FWIW= For what it''s worth

Mine has the "leaps of the stone" and the color difference in the diamond. It has a little less white light return than a round but a lot more fire!

 

[starryeyed]

Ok, Indecisive, so I''m chasing around the house right now with the asscher in one hand and my G VS2 Ideal RB stud in the other. I think I see the same or more fire in my stud. Does that mean the asscher is a dud??

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/15/2006 8:42:31 PM
Author: indecisive
FWIW= For what it''s worth

Mine has the ''leaps of the stone'' and the color difference in the diamond. It has a little less white light return than a round but a lot more fire!

something i once said that caused a bit of a storm in a tea cup - brilliance is the enemy of fire.

It is hard to see the fire in rounds in many lighting environ''s because of the brilliance - that - and the large virtual facets of an asscher - are the reasons why you often see more fire (larger but less frequent than in say a radiant) in an asscher or emerald cut

eg - the single facet areas as shown here can light up

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 12/15/2006 8:59:20 PM
Author: starryeyed
Ok, Indecisive, so I''m chasing around the house right now with the asscher in one hand and my G VS2 Ideal RB stud in the other. I think I see the same or more fire in my stud. Does that mean the asscher is a dud??

look from many distances - you should see more bits of fire but smaller fire in the round