dhog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 159
Best Diamond Viewing Tool Ever
- Thread starter dhog
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,529
Would be nice if everyone''s vision were the same, but not everyone has "gifted" eyes, experienced in evaluating what they see.
While hi tech stuff doesn''t replace what the eyes do see, it does assist immensely in verifying/ or turning on the "red light" as a warning to check and recheck.
Rockdoc
While hi tech stuff doesn''t replace what the eyes do see, it does assist immensely in verifying/ or turning on the "red light" as a warning to check and recheck.
Rockdoc
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,675
The eye is great - but most consumers have no idea as to what types of lighting and how to hold the diamond (block backlight) and all sorts of other stuff.
I use an ideal-scope for rounds and ASET for fancy shapes and i bet you $1,000 I can pick better than you can with your eyes alone.
And any consumer can use these devices and achieve better and more consistent results than probably better than 50% of expert appraisers can with only their own eyes.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,675
I definitely agree with you Garry. I used the IdealScope to buy an uncertified stone this past weekend! I was looking at 2 stones and all I know about the stones were the carat weight and color and clarity. Both looked beautiful and flashy, but when I looked at it with the IdealScope, one stone did not show any arrows at all and it has a lot of leakage in the center of the stone. The other stone shows the arrows and minimal leakage. My heart was pounding, because I knew which stone I was going to pick! The one with the arrows. Without the IdealScope, I wouldn''t know which one is a better cut. It was really an eye opener!!! Here is the link to the stone that I picked.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/i-finally-got-the-upgrade-diamond-for-my-setting.57023/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/i-finally-got-the-upgrade-diamond-for-my-setting.57023/
Why does this level of comparison seem a little "lopsided" to me.
In this challenge you get to use your eyes, and the IS/ASET.
and I only get to use my eyes.
I have my own favorite set of viewing tools, so if you want to use yours and I use mine, well then its more even, don''t you think?
Further, which side of the 50% of expert apprasiers do you consider me to be on?
Rockdoc
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 33,612
"Both looked beautiful and flashy, but when I looked at it with the IdealScope, one stone did not show any arrows at all and it has a lot of leakage in the center of the stone."
While I think there is definitely value in the idealscope, aset, etc, this statement is kind of funny. If both stones looked beautiful and flashy, who cares if one exhibits hearts and arrows and if one doesn''t. While this isn''t the case, what would you do if one appeared to have leakage, yet looked better than one with a perfect H&A pattern? Do you go with the idealscope or your eyes?
While I think there is definitely value in the idealscope, aset, etc, this statement is kind of funny. If both stones looked beautiful and flashy, who cares if one exhibits hearts and arrows and if one doesn''t. While this isn''t the case, what would you do if one appeared to have leakage, yet looked better than one with a perfect H&A pattern? Do you go with the idealscope or your eyes?
starryeyed
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2006
- Messages
- 2,398
DBM
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 404
I was thinking, and this is somewhat a matter of philosophy, that there's a fundamental questoin of Beauty that runs in the issue of Hearts & Arrows. Certainly in no way am i coming to disparage the beauty of H&As but i think people don't also realize the subconcious beauty our minds recognize in "a little bit of chaos". It's partly the non-perfection of symmetry and proportions that can give something a look of beauty. it's the "chaos" of it...
I think if i had to give an analogy it would be like a guy who has his hair combed Perfectly. All the hairs are where they should be, neat, in place, etc... versus the "little bit of chaos" look that jives more with what we subconscously know to be reality and hence makes a more "fitting fit" in our minds of what ought to be.
but for the record, regarding the stone mentioned above, i'd certainly agree that if it leaks alot in the center and hence "is dead" when looked at it's certainly not what i'd consider a nice diamond.
enbcfsobe
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 1,154
A CZ sparkles and shines in jewelry store lighting. So does cut glass. For those of us that don't get to paw through oodles of diamonds every day, pretty much everything looks good in a store. Even taking them outside, and even in a side-by-side comparison, if you don't have the advantage of professional training (I won't get into the discussion about the pros and what they should be using) it is, at least in my experience, very difficult (if not impossible) to distinguish between diamonds in a store based on performance. Obvious flaws, color, size are all things that even inexperienced folks have some frame of reference for (we look for and distinguish similar traits in things we see every day). Light performance is a whole different story. As many pictures as I have looked at on the internet or in books, I have very little idea how a diamond is supposed to look in various light conditions. Nor do I, as the customer coming into a store, have much (if any) control over those light conditions such that I could recreate a lighting situation to recognize whether a particular stone looks the way it should, or even the way I would like it to based on observing various photos/models. Having an idealscope gives me a way to have what is still a fairly subjective look at the stone (as compared to diameter, angles, etc.) but removes some of the variables so that I have a better idea of what it will look like in other situations. This is important to me because I don't plan on living in a jewelry store for the rest of my life, but still want my diamond to look beautiful. If I could take a diamond for an extended test drive (without having to lay out the purchase price!) to see if I still thought it was beautiful in a variety of situations, I would certainly prefer that to staring through a pink thing. I haven't yet found a jeweler who is willing to do that, so I will continue to stare through the "girly loupe" as one clueless salesperson called it. I also hate the idea of picking out a stone based on sight because even if I could easily tell the difference between the performances of the diamonds presented, that doesn't mean that any of them, even the one that looks the most pretty and sparkly, is actually particularly good. It just means it is the best of those that the jeweler had on hand and chose to show me. I am sure that is good enough for many people, but it is not good enough for me. Even if the only thing it does is make me feel a false sense of empowerment, that can't be worse than guessing. I am not convinced that I am going to pick a worse diamond by using the ideal scope, so the reduced worry and indecisiveness is well worth the cost of the so-called 'hype.'
Hi Daniel.
I believe what you are desctibing is actually just one component of light return, which is:
Scintillation.... the movement of light through the diamond when viewed in one of the following conditions.
A. The eyes and light are stable, and the stone is moved.
B. The light is moved while the stone and the eyes are stable
C. The viewers eyes/head is moved, and the stone and the light are stable.
This affect is slightly decreased in many stones when the optical symmetry is not quite exact. This becomes a little apparent with Eightstar diamonds.
When the optical symmetry is slightly "chaotic" it has the potential of increasing the affect of the scintillation, but also has the potential of reducing some white light return.
What characteristic of light return is more important? Naturally a great balance ... but some people find scintillation to outweight white light return. For others it''s the opposite, and still other put a stronger consideration of beauty in the spectral colors displayed.
In addition obscuration can have an affect on this too, by "tricking the eye" into thinking that a great amount of constrast exists, which the human eye judges as "attractive".
Some of the information rendered by the hi tech toys, helps separate and define what the eye is seeing but always isn''t able to interpret properly.
Here''s a question for you.... when looking at a diamond can your eyes segregate the spectral colors into which color is the most predoiminant by individual color?
Most dealers I met cannot do this. They can recognize the colors "as a whole" but haven''t really trained their eyes to separate and be to judge which colors are the most attractive to the eye and see the separations.
Two instruments can do this well.
1. The B Scope Analyzer Unit by "measurement" and the B Scope Viewer by human eye.
2. Marty Haske''s Fire Performance Scope
If you ever get to S. Fl let me know and I''ll show you in person how this all fits together.
Rockdoc
dhog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 159
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,675
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,675
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,675
Maisie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 12,587
I can see what you are saying - not everyone cares about seeing exactly what the diamond looks like up close and personal. If it sparkles and looks pretty then who cares? If I am getting you wrong then please tell me.
I am relatively new to this diamond business. About two months ago I would have bought a diamond ring from my local shop and been happy enough with it. But, I think its nice to be educated too. We aren''t rich - probably never will be. When we do buy my ring its going to cost a huge amount of money to us. I suppose I just want to get the best for my money. I don''t think this is unreasonable. I want this diamond to be the best that I can achieve with the funds we have.
Where I live we don''t know much about diamonds and the shops are happy with that. They charge you a lot more than you really should be paying. Because I have learned something about diamonds from hanging round PScope I will now be buying a 1.2 instead of a .45. I won''t buy from a shop - I will buy online. Because I can''t go all the way from the UK to the US to visit some diamonds I have to rely on the pictures I see on websites. That, for me, is where all these fancy tools come into play.
Maisie
I am relatively new to this diamond business. About two months ago I would have bought a diamond ring from my local shop and been happy enough with it. But, I think its nice to be educated too. We aren''t rich - probably never will be. When we do buy my ring its going to cost a huge amount of money to us. I suppose I just want to get the best for my money. I don''t think this is unreasonable. I want this diamond to be the best that I can achieve with the funds we have.
Where I live we don''t know much about diamonds and the shops are happy with that. They charge you a lot more than you really should be paying. Because I have learned something about diamonds from hanging round PScope I will now be buying a 1.2 instead of a .45. I won''t buy from a shop - I will buy online. Because I can''t go all the way from the UK to the US to visit some diamonds I have to rely on the pictures I see on websites. That, for me, is where all these fancy tools come into play.
Maisie
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
Maisie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 12,587
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
I hear you, that is a great part of the fun and with the type of rock you are going to end up with!! It is going to be rough when it is ordered and on it''s way....Date: 2/1/2007 7:21:37 AM
Author: Maisiebelle
Yey!! I can''t wait. I actually get butterflies in my tummy when I think about getting it.... how silly is that?!!
Maisie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 12,587
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2005
- Messages
- 42,064
Maisie
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2006
- Messages
- 12,587
dhog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 159
IF you like that maybe you will like this read also
The diamond invention is far more than a monopoly for fixing diamond prices; it is a mechanism for converting tiny crystals of carbon into universally recognized tokens of wealth, power, and romance. To achieve this goal, De Beers had to control demand as well as supply. Both women and men had to be made to perceive diamonds not as marketable precious stones but as an inseparable part of courtship and married life. To stabilize the market, De Beers had to endow these stones with a sentiment that would inhibit the public from ever reselling them. The illusion had to be created that diamonds were forever -- "forever" in the sense that they should never be resold.
In September of 1938, Harry Oppenheimer, son of the founder of De Beers and then twenty-nine, traveled from Johannesburg to New York City, to meet with Gerold M. Lauck, the president of N. W. Ayer, a leading advertising agency in the United States. Lauck and N. W. Ayer had been recommended to Oppenheimer by the Morgan Bank, which had helped his father consolidate the De Beers financial empire. His bankers were concerned about the price of diamonds, which had declined worldwide.
In Europe, where diamond prices had collapsed during the Depression, there seemed little possibility of restoring public confidence in diamonds. In Germany, Austria, Italy, and Spain, the notion of giving a diamond ring to commemorate an engagement had never taken hold. In England and France, diamonds were still presumed to be jewels for aristocrats rather than the masses. Furthermore, Europe was on the verge of war, and there seemed little possibility of expanding diamond sales. This left the United States as the only real market for De Beers''s diamonds. In fact, in 1938 some three quarters of all the cartel''s diamonds were sold for engagement rings in the United States. Most of these stones, however, were smaller and of poorer quality than those bought in Europe, and had an average price of $80 apiece. Oppenheimer and the bankers believed that an advertising campaign could persuade Americans to buy more expensive diamonds.
Oppenheimer suggested to Lauck that his agency prepare a plan for creating a new image for diamonds among Americans. He assured Lauck that De Beers had not called on any other American advertising agency with this proposal, and that if the plan met with his father''s approval, N. W. Ayer would be the exclusive agents for the placement of newspaper and radio advertisements in the United States. Oppenheimer agreed to underwrite the costs of the research necessary for developing the campaign. Lauck instantly accepted the offer.
In their subsequent investigation of the American diamond market, the staff of N. W. Ayer found that since the end of World War I, in 1919, the total amount of diamonds sold in America, measured in carats, had declined by 50 percent; at the same time, the quality of the diamonds, measured in dollar value, had declined by nearly 100 percent. An Ayer memo concluded that the depressed state of the market for diamonds was "the result of the economy, changes in social attitudes and the promotion of competitive luxuries."
Although it could do little about the state of the economy, N. W. Ayer suggested that through a well-orchestrated advertising and public-relations campaign it could have a significant impact on the "social attitudes of the public at large and thereby channel American spending toward larger and more expensive diamonds instead of "competitive luxuries." Specifically, the Ayer study stressed the need to strengthen the association in the public''s mind of diamonds with romance. Since "young men buy over 90% of all engagement rings" it would be crucial to inculcate in them the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women had to be encouraged to view diamonds as an integral part of any romantic courtship.
Since the Ayer plan to romanticize diamonds required subtly altering the public''s picture of the way a man courts -- and wins -- a woman, the advertising agency strongly suggested exploiting the relatively new medium of motion pictures. Movie idols, the paragons of romance for the mass audience, would be given diamonds to use as their symbols of indestructible love. In addition, the agency suggested offering stories and society photographs to selected magazines and newspapers which would reinforce the link between diamonds and romance. Stories would stress the size of diamonds that celebrities presented to their loved ones, and photographs would conspicuously show the glittering stone on the hand of a well-known woman. Fashion designers would talk on radio programs about the "trend towards diamonds" that Ayer planned to start. The Ayer plan also envisioned using the British royal family to help foster the romantic allure of diamonds. An Ayer memo said, "Since Great Britain has such an important interest in the diamond industry, the royal couple could be of tremendous assistance to this British industry by wearing diamonds rather than other jewels." Queen Elizabeth later went on a well-publicized trip to several South African diamond mines, and she accepted a diamond from Oppenheimer.
In addition to putting these plans into action, N. W. Ayer placed a series of lush four-color advertisements in magazines that were presumed to mold elite opinion, featuring reproductions of famous paintings by such artists as Picasso, Derain, Dali, and Dufy. The advertisements were intended to convey the idea that diamonds, like paintings, were unique works of art.
dhog
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 159
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,675
Yes they did an amzing job - very clever people who desreved to be successful.
The part not mentioned was that after 1 or 2 generations since the founding of De beers (not by the big O family - but Barney Barnato and Cecil Rhodes - as in Rhodesia and Rhodes Scholarship) many of the original co-operative share holders families no longer wanted to own shares in their ancestors diamond co-op.
That led to a run on the shares during the depression - and Harry hocked himself to the hilt and bought the majority of the shares at dpressed prices nearly bankrupting his family.
He then changed the market from functional to emotional.
And made an empire.
Anyone can do this - but you need guts and determination - and smarts.
- Status
Did You Miss the Jewels of the Weeks for August 2024?
Did You Miss the Jewels of the Weeks for August 2024? - 09/01
Did You Miss the Throwback Thursdays for August 2024?
Did You Miss the Throwback Thursdays for August 2024? - 08/29
300x240.png)