Can an ASET image on a fancy provide a false positive?

[JulietRomeoTango]

I know that ASETs that reflect mostly red with some degree of regularly placed greens and blues are what to look for. And, from reading these forums, I know that a poor ASET with a fancy does not necessarily mean the stone will not look great in person.

What I am wondering now is whether you can get a nice looking ASET with the fancy actually not looking great in person? Or, is this just too unlikely?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/26/2009 8:54:02 AM
Author:JulietRomeoTango
I know that ASETs that reflect mostly red with some degree of regularly placed greens and blues are what to look for. And, from reading these forums, I know that a poor ASET with a fancy does not necessarily mean the stone will not look great in person.

What I am wondering now is whether you can get a nice looking ASET with the fancy actually not looking great in person? Or, is this just too unlikely?

I think a good ASET can show the light return of a diamond to prove it has a good '' engine'' so to speak, but as fancies are so variable it can''t allow for personal taste, a diamond can be a super performer but this doesn''t matter if it isn''t the shape you want, length to width ratio you like, doesn''t have the type of virtual faceting etc etc. Maybe one of the experts might know of a case ( or not) where a diamond had a great ASET but was unexciting in person!

 

[strmrdr]

With asschers yes,
ASET directly tells you nothing of fire potential.
That is why you need crown height then look at table size and virtual facets to get an idea of the fire.
Or better yet a good video.

ASET is close to being worse case when it comes to obstruction.
It over emphasizes it some what compared to the real world.
So it can provide a false negative also.

Static aset also does not tell you if it has hard or soft contrast.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 8/26/2009 8:54:02 AM
Author:JulietRomeoTango
I know that ASETs that reflect mostly red with some degree of regularly placed greens and blues are what to look for. And, from reading these forums, I know that a poor ASET with a fancy does not necessarily mean the stone will not look great in person.

What I am wondering now is whether you can get a nice looking ASET with the fancy actually not looking great in person? Or, is this just too unlikely?

Absolutelty- as Lorelei mentioned there are issues of shape and facet placement that go beyond ASET. It can also happen with round diamonds that people prefer stones with "worse" aset.
Many professionals do not feel it''s a valid tool for these reasons. It''s also true that outside of PS, ASET use is extremely limited.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 8/26/2009 8:54:02 AM
Author:JulietRomeoTango
I know that ASETs that reflect mostly red with some degree of regularly placed greens and blues are what to look for. And, from reading these forums, I know that a poor ASET with a fancy does not necessarily mean the stone will not look great in person.

What I am wondering now is whether you can get a nice looking ASET with the fancy actually not looking great in person? Or, is this just too unlikely?

There is a a lot of subjectivity in deciding what looks "great" in real life(IRL). The best use of ASET IMO is in comparing two stones with the same cut to determine which one is better.

The problems that arise are often in the interpretation of an ASET specifically in the green and blue areas http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_reference_chart_ASET.asp, it is rare for brilliant cuts(ie round brilliant, cushion brilliant etc.) to have nice ASETs and be a dud. It is a little more common that our strict interpretation of ASETs(too much green or blue) on PS eliminates fancy stones that IRL many of us would still consider desireable.

In general though a properly interpreted ASET will be a very useful tool and if someone argues against the interpretation of the ASET they better be prepared to give pretty strong evidence like a video or have seen the stone IRL.

For step cuts there seem to be more exceptions and it become more difficult to use an ASET in these cases. I would prefer to see the stone in person, and most of all seeing IRL supercedes the use of reflector technology, I would not want contradict what I see with my eyes due to a contrary evidence from an ASET image.

 

[JulietRomeoTango]

Thanks for all your replies. I learn more and more everyday here. The whole reason for my asking was that an ASET did not match well with what my eyes were telling me and I still feel insecure about what I "see" in diamonds if that makes sense to people.

 

[Yekutiel]

Date: 8/26/2009 10:03:15 AM
Author: strmrdr
With asschers yes,
ASET directly tells you nothing of fire potential.
That is why you need crown height then look at table size and virtual facets to get an idea of the fire.
Or better yet a good video.

ASET is close to being worse case when it comes to obstruction.
It over emphasizes it some what compared to the real world.
So it can provide a false negative also.

Static aset also does not tell you if it has hard or soft contrast.

Totally agree,
That’s why they call them fancies because they aren’t simple.

 

[Rhino]

Short answer: Yes.

The real key is being able to compare visually the diamond with "x" resultant ASET image with a known visually stunning diamond; preferably one whose ASET image also demonstrates superior optics.

In theory a great ASET image should dictate an exceptional diamond and in many cases it does with fancies. There are however exceptions to this rule.

There are cases where seemingly great ASET images result in less than stellar diamonds and cases where less than stellar ASET images result in visually stunning diamonds.

When that exception exists the burden of proof lies on the one who is claiming it is equally superior to the diamond with the superior ASET.

As strm pointed out and something I would emphasize is that ASET images, while I would deem necessary to see before a purchase is primarily useless if the one advising on the ASET image has not visually correlated the diamond with known diamonds with superior optics because then you're boiling it down to a "trust me" factor. As a natural born skeptic I like proof.