Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[Doc_1]

Right from the start, I could easily understand the difference between what Jon and I are talking about. I am familiar with many varieties of crushed ice cushions, radiants, and princess cuts.
Jon, the stones you're calling crushed are totally different from what I would call crushed ice.
We have clients that don't want to see any patterning- ZERO.
We're talking total virtual facet reflection from girdle to girdle in a radiant.
That's what I would call the best crushed ice- or more accurately- my favorite type

Here's a few shots of what you are calling "slushy ice"- and a very good example of what I am talking about when I say "Crushed Ice"

The shots were taken in a slotted white plastic tray used to sort stones. Point and shoot camera.




I believe the photos portray both stone fairly. I can also see the effect Jon noted in his video of how the "slushy" stone does hold more body color.
Both stones in my example were graded G by GIA.

I don't believe that Jon had an example similar to the stone on the right in his video

Would you kindly post an ASET to both. and if possible a link to a video on them, with by the window video shooting so educational objectives can be achieved.

Doc- ASET photos are actually no simple matter.
As I've mentioned, there's no standardized methind for taking them- you can't by a kit that works well.
If you do the ASET with your method to the two stones side by side that will eliminate the lack of standerization you always refer to, you will be comparing the two stones with your one standard method.
Jon's are very good, and consistent.
I would be interested to see how that stone on the right looks in an ASET photo or simulation even.
I will have sarin for both the stones soon as possible.

I'll see about the other things though......

 

[Rockdiamond]

Doc
1) although is an easliy correctable problem, I cant find the portable one I had. I suppose that vendors using ASET photos- and all that implies- need to use an ASET when buying. I don't use an ASET when buying, so it's not something I have right now.
2) unless I'm mistaken, you can't photograph stones side by side with an ASET- another area where photos are far more informative to 99% of the people looking.

I believe that with the .srn file, a computer generated ASET is possible.

 

[clgwli]

CCL I fully admit my head is very congested today after helping someone move (lots of dust & stuff) so I don't have the mind to do a great reply. Which also means if something I said makes little sense, blame it on the Mucinex I took I can clarify and try to answer later.

To answer your question about the ASET colors. From that photo I would've had a very good guess as to where the white/light green would be. Not exact, but a pretty good idea. This is not for me to say that I am some sort of amazing person, just that I've really looked at a LOT of stones in the last year. It started as a hope for an upgrade to some unexpected money put a dream into reality. I spent a lot of time at some very well trusted jewelers seeing what I could with my own eye. Once I decided I wanted closer to a fancy yellow, I knew I had to go online to find what I needed. One jeweler could find exactly what I wanted most likely, but they fully admit it takes them a lot longer with fancy or near fancy colors since they work mostly with well cut colorless diamonds or a small selection of gemstones. Anyway, they had showed me a lot I will admit and I spent a ton of time looking at photos, videos and all other types of images all over the place on the internet. After a while you kind of know what to expect of a stone. I stopped feeling the need to look for an ASET if I could see the facet structure and know a relative depth. I only mention depth because I know it can affect a stone, and most of the ones I looked at were kept in a range since I knew what to expect. If they were out of a range I would have needed more photos and videos.

I will never say that a radiant or crushed ice cushion are ever going to be as bright as an AGS0 RB or even some of the specialized cuts made for high light return. I hope you and others don't think I will ever try to say that because that is just not true. But much like a well cut pear or marquise, I think there are some very nice and bright stones out there for that cut. And obviously I do believe crushed ice can be very beautiful.

Oddly enough an after thought, I do see a smidge of a pattern in my stone. I see kind of a <> pattern (though more elongated due to it being a rectangle) but it doesn't bother me. Those slanted lines show off a long flash of light at some angles and I like it. So I guess I might just have issues with an X more than a <> So while picking my stone apart I sitll am not sure why I prefer one type over another LOL

My head is pounding so I need to quit. I just felt the desire to reply before you thought I might be blowing you off.

Oh and I do believe though I have seen the article you spoke of with the GIA DD. I tried to find it again w/o luck, but could you link to it again if you know where it is?

I really am enjoying this thread particularly with photos posted of real stones so far (David & CCL thank you) and hopefully my head will be clear to get back to see more tomorrow!

 

[Doc_1]

Doc
1) although is an easliy correctable problem, I cant find the portable one I had. I suppose that vendors using ASET photos- and all that implies- need to use an ASET when buying. I don't use an ASET when buying, so it's not something I have right now.

Can you post when you find it!!!?

2) unless I'm mistaken, you can't photograph stones side by side with an ASET- another area where photos are far more informative to 99% of the people looking.

Common RD...... When i said two stone's ASET together it is obvious, one stone at a time using your unified sole method which eliminates lack of standardization you always talk about and then posting them.


I believe that with the .srn file, a computer generated ASET is possible.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Doc- all due respect, but this conversation is about crushed ice- not ASET.
If we can get ASET, so much the better, but regardless, the question was , is crushed is bad.
If you don't get the idea of what I see as good examples of crushed ice from the evidence I present, you're certainly free to say so.
I already posted a few photos.
The radiant looks a lot different from the one CCL posted.
I can demonstrate more clearly with photos IMO- certainly well enough to get the point across.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc- all due respect, but this conversation is about crushed ice- not ASET.
If we can get ASET, so much the better, but regardless, the question was , is crushed is bad.
If you don't get the idea of what I see as good examples of crushed ice from the evidence I present, you're certainly free to say so.
I already posted a few photos.
The radiant looks a lot different from the one CCL posted.
I can demonstrate more clearly with photos IMO- certainly well enough to get the point across.

That is your right as a vendor not to show what your stones look like in ASET. i respect your decision.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Doc, just curious, but do you think crushed ice is bad?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Doc, just curious, but do you think crushed ice is bad?

Good Morning David,

I'm just curious as well, today is Monday and you were going to get those sarin scans then we can have a proper discussion.
Instead I see you asking a personal opinion question again which can only be used to attack and discredit his position.
If I were Doc_1 I would ignore your question and wait for you to provide the scans you promised.

CCL

 

[Rockdiamond]

CCL- I am not yet at my office ( being the boss has it's benefits )
I will get the scans of both the stones I used in the comparison shots today.

I have not attacked anyone- in fact it's crushed ice that's being attacked.

From what I see, Jon is not a fan of certain types of crushed ice- which is totally his right.
I believe that direct interaction between Jon and me is the most valuable intercourse here.
Clearly you are in the same camp as Jon, and clearly you have a chip on your shoulder against me.
For these reasons I expressed my feeling that your pulling out of the thread would be productive.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc, just curious, but do you think crushed ice is bad?

I am sorry David i hope you believe I am trying my best to see your point, I cannot see much of white (brightness) in the crushed ice you showed in the photos. I looked over and over and all i could see was few bright areas in the periphery and not much in the center under the table in the one you claim it represents in your opinion a nice crushed ice. My personal opinion (it may appeal to someone else though) if I am looking for crushed ice i will not buy that one. unless the photos are not doing the stone a favor.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi all,
Re ASET:
There is no place to buy an aset in NYC.
I have ordered a handheld aset from AGS to use to experiment with photos. The one I had was smaller then the unit currently sold by AGS- so I may have an easier time using this one.

According to AGS, there is no established method for taking an aset photo.
The aset camera was not intended for internet usage- and I do not believe Jon is using an aset camera.

Doc- thank you very much for giving your honest opinion- which is all anyone could ask.
I stand by the photos- and feel they do provide some insight into the difference between what I am calling crushed ice, and what Jon has termed crushed ice.


In the interest of full disclosure, both stones in the tray that I photographed are branded diamonds.
The "slushy stone" is a Daussi Cushion.
The Radiant is an "Original Radiant"- I used that one because IMO, the Original Radiant personifies what "good" crushed ice looks like in a colorless diamond.

We have not even touched on how crushed ice works with Fancy Colors...yet.

 

[Doc_1]

Hi all,
Re ASET:


Doc- thank you very much for giving your honest opinion- which is all anyone could ask.
I stand by the photos- and feel they do provide some insight into the difference between what I am calling crushed ice, and what Jon has termed crushed ice.

David

I DO RESPECT YOUR STANCE ON YOUR PRODUCT, even if it happened i had a different view of it, with your policy of satisfying the eye of the customer so they can have a grace period of looking and SEEING it in person then if they like it they keep it if they do not they can return it...That is all an online buyer can ask for.

IF ANY THING FROM THIS LONG BACK AND FORTH CONVERSATION WITH YOU, I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT TO YOU AS A VENDOR.

Am still though in love for August vintage cut so is my wife, but YOU SEEM TO ME A MAN THAT STANDS BEHIND HIS PRODUCT, I did not deal with you to confirm but at least it appears to me that way.

MAY BE IN THE FUTURE FOR A FANCY COLOR DIAMOND

I am leaving the thread on a good note with you RD, and pleasure having this discussion with you.

 

[CharmyPoo]

ROck Diamond - a cheaper setup to take ASET picture is to get the ideal light and the ASET scope. I am sure the pros have a much more sophisticated setup.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Doc- Thank you so very much for keeping an open mind- and the lovely reply.
From what I see, you have a GORGEOUS ring, and a great looking "chunky" cushion.

Charmy, Just as I don't like to go into specifics on my exact methods, I feel pretty sure other vendors are not going to give "aset photography lessons"
In speaking with AGS this morning, I learned quite a bit.
They mentioned that areas of leakage may show white using the handheld- depending on the lighting environment.
If it turns out by best photos are done with the stone in the air, that may be the case.

I'll be glad to order the light as well.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Charmy, Just as I don't like to go into specifics on my exact methods, I feel pretty sure other vendors are not going to give "aset photography lessons"

No they will not, you are right. However most vendors here are using the standard ASET camera which connects directly to a computer for video or still image capture, no camera necessary. Not for the internet not sure how you came to that conclusion?
http://www.americangemsociety.org/asetcamera.htm. GOG and WF setups are different, their proprietary setups achieve better resolution(better camera) and better control of lighting but they can't do video that way.

In speaking with AGS this morning, I learned quite a bit.
They mentioned that areas of leakage may show white using the handheld- depending on the lighting environment.

Look at the handheld ASET, take it apart and see what it is. Three plastic cones cones with a magnifying lense and eye piece, if its the AGS ASET it has a metal housing on top of it to block light from entering from the side. The areas of leakage will show as whatever background you put the diamond over.



That is why it is best to use a white screen like the ideal light, you want leakage areas (in this case white) to stand out from the other colors. You need to seat the diamond on top of the light and make sure the plane of the diamond's girdle is paralell to the plane of the lense. If the two planes are tilted with respect to one another you are not seeing the faceup image, and if you allow extraneous light to enter from the side or top than the results will not be accurate either. It is very difficult to photograph the faceup image while holding the diamond in the air, just like your photos in the Daussi Cushion thread every single one was different as you tilted the diamond or scope slightly from one shot to another.

I am still much more interested in the sarin scans, given a good scan the simulated ASET will show the same information as seen through the handheld and the simulated scans use standardized lighting conditions.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc- Thank you so very much for keeping an open mind- and the lovely reply.
From what I see, you have a GORGEOUS ring, and a great looking "chunky" cushion.

You are welcome.
Thank you for taking the time to shoot the vid, i see your point better:
http://www.youtube.com/user/diamondsbyl ... zcR4kIBkCw

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

CCL I fully admit my head is very congested today after helping someone move (lots of dust & stuff) so I don't have the mind to do a great reply. Which also means if something I said makes little sense, blame it on the Mucinex I took I can clarify and try to answer later. To answer your question about the ASET colors. From that photo I would've had a very good guess as to where the white/light green would be.

One can never be completely certain from a photograph if the diamond gathers light from only lower angles (ASET green) only or from the upper angles (ASET red) especially with assymetric lighting. Looking at many photographs and correlating them with ASET results allows you to make an educated guess but the precision of these guesses is not always good.

Seeing leakage in a photograph depends on the tilt angle of the stone to the camera, the background underneath the stone and the directional nature of the lighting.

Not exact, but a pretty good idea. This is not for me to say that I am some sort of amazing person, just that I've really looked at a LOT of stones in the last year. It started as a hope for an upgrade to some unexpected money put a dream into reality. I spent a lot of time at some very well trusted jewelers seeing what I could with my own eye. Once I decided I wanted closer to a fancy yellow, I knew I had to go online to find what I needed. One jeweler could find exactly what I wanted most likely, but they fully admit it takes them a lot longer with fancy or near fancy colors since they work mostly with well cut colorless diamonds or a small selection of gemstones. Anyway, they had showed me a lot I will admit and I spent a ton of time looking at photos, videos and all other types of images all over the place on the internet.

You are still romancing your stone, take an ASET of it, or get a sarin scan and then we can talk about it with accuracy and objectivity. It would be extremely rare for a Fancy or lower color diamond to be cut with optimal brightness in mind, color and weight saving are much more likely goals.

After a while you kind of know what to expect of a stone. I stopped feeling the need to look for an ASET if I could see the facet structure and know a relative depth.

Relative depth is a very good term to use, Stan Grossbard uses it to point out that rectangular radiants have more shallow angles and require a greater depth than square ones to achieve the same light return signature.

I will never say that a radiant or crushed ice cushion are ever going to be as bright as an AGS0 RB or even some of the specialized cuts made for high light return.

Its not even close, the purpose of this facet design is to enhance saturation of color, or work more closely with odd shape of the rough for higher yield. A more accurate comparison would be comparing a GIA Fair to a GIA Excellent RB in terms of brightness and leakage.

This is a rare square radiant and is just about the brightest one could expect from this facet design. Top quality light return even in a radiant is not cheap and is easier to achieve with other facet designs and outline shapes. I beleive stones like this are expensive due to lower yield and rare due to lack of demand.

Oddly enough an after thought, I do see a smidge of a pattern in my stone. I see kind of a <> pattern (though more elongated due to it being a rectangle) but it doesn't bother me. Those slanted lines show off a long flash of light at some angles and I like it. So I guess I might just have issues with an X more than a <> So while picking my stone apart I sitll am not sure why I prefer one type over another LOL

All radiants have pavilion mains with that pattern the physical facets are quite similar from one to the next. However because of the way they reflect light this pattern is chopped up or "virtualized". If you want to see the pattern more clearly shine more light through the pavilion.

My head is pounding so I need to quit. I just felt the desire to reply before you thought I might be blowing you off.
Oh and I do believe though I have seen the article you spoke of with the GIA DD. I tried to find it again w/o luck, but could you link to it again if you know where it is?

http://www.pricescope.com/journal/gia_excellent_cut_grade_case_study

 

[Rockdiamond]

CCL- Maybe I was wrong to attribute your behavior to my differences of opinion with Jon, and your friendship with him. It seemed plausible as I don't know you- never had any personal experience with you whatsoever. What is clear is that you have something against me. I don't know why, we've never met.
However it's kind of tiresome .
I called AGS.
I ordered a handheld aset.
They explained to me that the ASET camera was developed years ago, and for use in stores. Someone started using it on the web, but it does a screen capture, which is different than a photograph. They told me directly it was not designed for online use.
That's how I "came to that conclusion"
CCL- can you please post an ASET photo taken by the ASET camera? Do you think Jon's are better?

The scans I promised.
Both were performed at the New York DDC ( Diamond Dealers Club) today.

Above is the Radiant, below is the Daussi Cushion



Doc- thank you for posting that link!

CCL-I also strongly disagree with something cwgli wrote, and your response. A well cut crushed ice stone is indeed as bright as any other stone you want to compare it to- ANY.
How many different types of pavilion designs exist on the market in cut cornered square ( or rectangular) modified brilliants?
The answer: there is no one single radiant pavilion design- there are many different pavilion designs being called "radiant"
What is the basis of your experience, and statement that square radiant cuts are not in demand?
You're wrong, but I just want to know why you made that statement

CCL, if we see a dark area in the center of a photo of a stone, is that good in your opinion?
For purposes of comparison, here's a photo of the square radiant who's Sarin is listed above- the one shown in the tray next to the Daussi


I don't see that dark area in the center of the stone- this is consistent with live viewing.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi David,
My hand held has brighter colors than the one Doc shows. AGS have a heap of mine too - I am sure if you ask they will sell you one of those (then you need not pay me a cent).
But you should order the ideal lite too - you can get that from Dave Atlas (but I will then recieve the cost price).

Here is how to do it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SfK5Nt3oXw
And please use a point and click camera because they work best.

And regarding any professional who wants to know how to make, or buy a professional set up - I am an open source and have solutions to the comon problem of too much black because the hole in the blue is too large.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you Garry!
Do you have a photo of the handheld you're speaking of?
AGS did not mention anything about a second version when I called, but I can call them back to ask.
I will order the light from Dave.

To come back to ASET again: Please don't take my criticism of ASET as a criticism of Garry- or any seller using ASET.
I understand the reasoning and draw to it. Despite the fact that Garry and I have had many "interesting" exchanges about these technologies, I have tons of respect for the man.
My luddite-ness about this has more to do with the "mis-use" and wrong interpretation of the photos than anything else.

I would be interested to see how the square radiant I posted looks in both the simulation, and the photos I can get with the hand held ( that's going to take a week or so to get here)

Garry- CCL posted both an ASET and a photo of a stone in his post above.
I notice a dark area in the center of the photo, that does not seem to be reflected in the ASET photo.

I have seen this phenomenon many times in real life- and in many cases it is a nice area of contrast, not a problem- but shouldn't we see that in the ASET?

 

[Karl_K]

Garry- CCL posted both an ASET and a photo of a stone in his post above.
I notice a dark area in the center of the photo, that does not seem to be reflected in the ASET photo.

I have seen this phenomenon many times in real life- and in many cases it is a nice area of contrast, not a problem- but shouldn't we see that in the ASET?

The photo has a lot more head shadow aka obstruction and very little light from the angles covered by the green zone in ASET.
That is pretty common in photos because of the size and color of the camera lens and side lighting causes glare in photos.
The red areas in the center of the ASET image are drawing light from close to the blue zone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks Karl- of course I have more questions.
1) Would this dark area be mimicked in real life- my thinking is that it would because the viewer's head will create the same obstruction as the camera?
2) Is the lack of that central dark area in my diamond due to photographic methods or the way the stone actually looks? ( in your opinion)

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

RD,

Thanks for getting the scan. I need a full .srn file please kindly attach it to a post so that it can be downloaded and imported into Diamcalc.

As for the other things in your post:

If you don't want to feel like I am out to get you some helpful hints from personal experience and given to me by other pricescopers:

i)Cite proper original references of information whenever possible
ii)Paraphrase carefully what others have said to you
iii)Keep your posts as short and concise as possible
iv)Choose your battles carefully, you can't fight every point, try to disagree with two or three points maximum per post. Commenting on only the main point in detail is often the most effective.
v) Avoid commenting on a personal level and remove "color" from your posting style
vi) Proofread your posts carefully, shortening where possible

I am trying to practice these as well.

CCL

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks Karl- of course I have more questions.
1) Would this dark area be mimicked in real life- my thinking is that it would because the viewer's head will create the same obstruction as the camera?
2) Is the lack of that central dark area in my diamond due to photographic methods or the way the stone actually looks? ( in your opinion)

If you had a very large head and you were looking from 6 inches away, the center would go black.

You can see my ASET on the pictures on my ideal-scope site David.
Patrick stout at AGS knows which scope. They use mine in the desk top demo unit.

 

[Rockdiamond]

You're welcome ccl.
I photographed the slips given to me by the DDC- I don't know that they can provide anything further- and they are closed for the day.

 

[clgwli]

One can never be completely certain from a photograph if the diamond gathers light from only lower angles (ASET green) only or from the upper angles (ASET red) especially with assymetric lighting. Looking at many photographs and correlating them with ASET results allows you to make an educated guess but the precision of these guesses is not always good.

Seeing leakage in a photograph depends on the tilt angle of the stone to the camera, the background underneath the stone and the directional nature of the lighting.

That is why I said a guess. I never said I would be certain, but I definitely can guess from photos where leakage is. Much like many here can see leakage under the table in a regular photo as well as the IS or ASET on RBs out there. Obviously no where near perfect, but simply a decent guess. Obviously all you stated about camera set up matters too.

You are still romancing your stone, take an ASET of it, or get a sarin scan and then we can talk about it with accuracy and objectivity. It would be extremely rare for a Fancy or lower color diamond to be cut with optimal brightness in mind, color and weight saving are much more likely goals.

I suggest before you comment on me romancing my stone, that you remember I state that fancy shapes are no where near as bright as many RBs out there. I was making a comment compared to other radiants I have seen with my own eyes. We aren't speaking "optimal brightness" here, just relative brigtness in its class. I am no fool here. But then again I have stated I don't have a draw to these stones cut for "optimal light return" They just don't do it for me personally. Much like my stone really doesn't do it for others. Whether it is the cut itself or the color.

I have not seen an ASET of my stone. I have seen an IS (and I am aware of the downfall of IS for fancy shapes and for stones with color the leakage shows up differently). I do not own it though and wasn't able to get pictures to come out when I had the chance. I will check to see if I deleted them or not. I know you will say go buy one, but I'll be honest I have other wants higher on a list right now (and I want a set, not just a scope so I can take photos). I will look into it come mid winter if no one gifts it to me from a wish list I have created. I have no access to any other kind of scan honestly. And as much as I would like to do one to discuss, I am not willing to send my stone back to NYC to have it done for me. I am sure you can understand why.

Relative depth is a very good term to use, Stan Grossbard uses it to point out that rectangular radiants have more shallow angles and require a greater depth than square ones to achieve the same light return signature.
I do remember reading that on their site I believe a while ago. I liked that term given that radiants come in all kinds of outlines.

Its not even close, the purpose of this facet design is to enhance saturation of color, or work more closely with odd shape of the rough for higher yield. A more accurate comparison would be comparing a GIA Fair to a GIA Excellent RB in terms of brightness and leakage.

This is a rare square radiant and is just about the brightest one could expect from this facet design. Top quality light return even in a radiant is not cheap and is easier to achieve with other facet designs and outline shapes. I beleive stones like this are expensive due to lower yield and rare due to lack of demand.



I realize all this. And you might find this strange, but I would pass that stone right by if I saw it. I just do not care for the pattern in this stone at all. Reminds me of the cushette in a way (if I am remembering the name of the cut right). I saw one almost identical to this as a colorless stone and I did not care for it.

All radiants have pavilion mains with that pattern the physical facets are quite similar from one to the next. However because of the way they reflect light this pattern is chopped up or "virtualized". If you want to see the pattern more clearly shine more light through the pavilion.

I have noticed the effect of very bright light shinging towards the pavilion. I can easily see the X that I don't care to see when I do so. The patterning I am mentioning is in regular difussed lighting more than bright lighting though. However my comment on the <> pattern is just that I like it and not a X, so purely just an observation of not being able to understand why some patterns are fine to me and others I cannot tolerate personally.

I fully admit to fully looking over this stone in all types of lighting and even taking photos so I can see what things look like in that split second that my eye cannot focus on as well.

I've really picked this stone apart a lot more than probably even the seller realizes LOL Again I will never say this stone doesn't "leak" but I am fine with it and really think compared to many other radiants this one has the right amount of brightness, sparkle, fire and obviously color for me. I think that a lot of fancies here on PS aren't as well loved because they do leak. My whole point on this thread is that the crushed ice is very pretty so some. I am one of those apparently who do love it. And to add I have looked at all the "ideal" stones and they really are not for me. So I am not just an uneducated person who was sucked into an emotional decision. I researched the heck out of it. And as a techno geek who usually has to buy the best of the best it started to surprise me that I wasn't liking what the majority here see as the "best of the best" But the eyes like what they like and I think given how quickly I spot minute details on teeny things, I actually appreciate something my eye doesn't focus on easily (a pattern in this case)

ETA: And thank you for the link. I will be re-reading that article later as it has been a while since I did read it. But I do remember looking at those pictures so I know it is the one I did read.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You're welcome ccl.
I photographed the slips given to me by the DDC- I don't know that they can provide anything further- and they are closed for the day.

You know that we know that you know we know what you were asked to do......
Why the continual games - is it solely to increase the number of posts and links back?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks Karl- of course I have more questions.
1) Would this dark area be mimicked in real life- my thinking is that it would because the viewer's head will create the same obstruction as the camera?
2) Is the lack of that central dark area in my diamond due to photographic methods or the way the stone actually looks? ( in your opinion)

If you hd a very large head and you were looking from 6 inches away, the center would go black.

You can see my ASET on the pictures on my ideal-scope site David.
Patrick stout at AGS knows which scope. They use mine in the desk top demo unit.

Now we can see the source of all the problems!
Ask many PS readers about the size of my head!

Seriously- Garry- are you saying that in person the stone won't have that dark area in normal viewing conditions?
Based on the photo on your site, and the AGS site, I believe I'm getting the same aset

clgwli- my issue in many conversations is when people make statements like "round is brighter than fancy shapes"
The reason is that if we consider many different lighting environments, and viewer's perceptions, it's not a fair generalization.
Even if we can use reflectors to prove that round returns more light, it's still not a good generalization as some viewers will identify what's coming off a stone like the Radiant I posted ( or your stone) as being "brighter" than what comes off the best Ideal Cut round.

To again clarify- I love chunky stones, hearts and arrows, etc.
Maybe not as much as crushed ice, but I love them regardless.
It's the "calibration" that drives me wild. The putting down of what one does not prefer- and using science to make the case.
It follows that if one loves crushed ice, they love something that's "not cut as well" as a H&A round or fancy shape.
That's the problem.
If I was saying crushed ice is "better" I could see people getting angry- all I'm saying is that in prime examples of each, crushed ice can be just as well cut.

ETA- Garry, all due respect, but I don't have a sarin. I'm running a business here ( you know I come in late) and can't drop everything to go buy one- amd since I really don;t have much need for one, the expense does not make sense.
I initially sent the stones to the Original Radiant Company, but they have "adjusted figures" for the Radiant, so I figured DDC was more appropriate.
I sent the stones to DDC, what I got, I posted.
If they can provide files, I'll post them.
if you have a friend, or associate in New York who can run the scans to provide the info you need, I'll make that happen tomorrow.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

If you hd a very large head and you were looking from 6 inches away, the center would go black.

You can see my ASET on the pictures on my ideal-scope site David.
Patrick stout at AGS knows which scope. They use mine in the desk top demo unit.[/quote]

Garry H,

Could you please measure the viewing area diameter of the eye piece in your scope in mm? If its significantly bigger than the AGS one I posted above, I'll buy one as well.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Hi David,
My hand held has brighter colors than the one Doc shows. AGS have a heap of mine too - I am sure if you ask they will sell you one of those (then you need not pay me a cent).
But you should order the ideal lite too - you can get that from Dave Atlas (but I will then recieve the cost price).

Here is how to do it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SfK5Nt3oXw
And please use a point and click camera because they work best.

And regarding any professional who wants to know how to make, or buy a professional set up - I am an open source and have solutions to the comon problem of too much black because the hole in the blue is too large.

Thank you for confirming that I am not an idiot. This is exactly what I was suggesting. I own an ideal lite and take ASET photos this way. Granted .. it's not like I have tons of stones to take ASETs of.