Do not request ASET images for round diamonds

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I am happy to debate this as there will be those who disagree with me.

However I feel it is unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET images for round diamonds when taking Ideal-scope images is easier for most vendors AND ASET images provide no real additional info for selection / rejection. Especially since many ASET images have no backlight.

The only advantage I can see is there is more pressure for more vendors to learn to take ASET images which are invaluable for fancy shaped diamond selection / rejection.

 

[yssie]

Garry how completely (and with a small uncertainty margin) can a round (any round) be characterised in software like diamcalc?


I ask because I am wondering - I think for a 'superideal/H&A' type the precision of cut that yields such high (and expected, and largely studied, and therefore quantifiable more than other shapes) optical symmetry makes an ASET largely useless, but what about for a round with less optical (and probably physical) symmetry, does this make these stones technologically unpredictable like fancies - where numbers don't tell much, making an ASET a much more useful tool? Or round old cut stones, where tools like the HCA fail?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry- first of all- what a dashing new avitar- you look like a movie star!

Why do you say its easier to take an IS photo?

Truth be told, I'm still not an advocate of ASET - even for fancy shapes- but I can say that the photos are relatively easy to take with the light

 

[JogiaDiamonds]

Why do you say its easier to take an IS photo?

I wouldn't say it is easier to take IS pictures over the ASET. With the IS, you need to make sure the diamond is straight in the light, the IS itself is aligned properly with the diamond and that the camera is level. Not to mention you need to make sure the camera and light batteries are properly charged. With the ASET, it is plugged in to the computer and the light (the control device) is plugged into the mains. Everything is setup and you simply need to place the diamond on the glass, put the control device on and centre the diamond.

That said, the aperture on the ASET is far too small for rounds. Whilst this can easily be increased, you risk ruining a fairly expensive device.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry- first of all- what a dashing new avitar- you look like a movie star!

Why do you say its easier to take an IS photo?

Truth be told, I'm still not an advocate of ASET - even for fancy shapes- but I can say that the photos are relatively easy to take with the light

Thanks David.

The Ideal-scope larger lens size makes it easier than the very small hole through the hand held ASET David.

Also many people have developed more complex fixed systems - many of which do not in my opinion work as well - although there are a few exceptions.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

1) The precise angle and likely intensity of the incoming rays can be clearly differentiated with ASET and much less with idealscope.
2) Painting and Digging is much more readily observable on ASET and much harder to discern in IS
3) Contrast and borders between virtual facets is much more easily observable from ASET

As for photography that is the vendor's problem, consumers usually need to use the tool themselves not photograph images. Experienced vendors spend time and money on a robust setup and have solved the small aperture problem with ASET.

The conclusions that may be drawn from the idealscope images are sometimes misleading for all but the most experienced consumers and trade.

I refer you to case b in Karl's article here and compare it to a Classical Tolk Round.




The Classical Tolk has significantly superior brightness to the "Fixed Steep Deep" but which set of images do you think highlight the differences more easily?

One might say there from looking at the two IS images above that there is very little leakage under the table in both diamonds and therefore they have equivalent light return under the table. Whereas the ASET images make it very clear the two diamonds perform quite differently.

If choosing one I'd lose the Idealscope entirely and stick with ASET as the standard for better contrast and the extra information provided and that especially includes looking at round brilliants as well.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

1) The precise angle and likely intensity of the incoming rays can be clearly differentiated with ASET and much less with idealscope.
2) Painting and Digging is much more readily observable on ASET and much harder to discern in IS
3) Contrast and borders between virtual facets is much more easily observable from ASET

As for photography that is the vendor's problem, consumers usually need to use the tool themselves not photograph images. Experienced vendors spend time and money on a robust setup and have solved the small aperture problem with ASET.

The conclusions that may be drawn from the idealscope images are sometimes misleading for all but the most experienced consumers and trade.

I refer you to case b in Karl's article here and compare it to a Classical Tolk Round.




The Classical Tolk has significantly superior brightness to the "Fixed Steep Deep" but which set of images do you think highlight the differences more easily?

One might say there from looking at the two IS images above that there is very little leakage under the table in both diamonds and therefore they have equivalent light return under the table. Whereas the ASET images make it very clear the two diamonds perform quite differently.

If choosing one I'd lose the Idealscope entirely and stick with ASET as the standard for better contrast and the extra information provided and that especially includes looking at round brilliants as well.

Good example of how hard it is to prove me wrong CCL

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

In general, Garry, and not necessarily about this specific topic:

It is not about proving you wrong, it is about you proving yourself right.

Your 'expertise' is hinging on the reality that gemological science is still largely limited to the observation of brightness only. As a result, it is indeed difficult to prove you wrong, but it is just as difficult for you to prove yourself right.

Therefore, I would humbly beg you to avoid taking such high stands. You have greatly contributed to gemological knowledge about cut-quality, but that does not make you the messias.

As always, in great personal friendship, live long,

 

[waterlilly]

1) The precise angle and likely intensity of the incoming rays can be clearly differentiated with ASET and much less with idealscope.
2) Painting and Digging is much more readily observable on ASET and much harder to discern in IS
3) Contrast and borders between virtual facets is much more easily observable from ASET

As for photography that is the vendor's problem, consumers usually need to use the tool themselves not photograph images. Experienced vendors spend time and money on a robust setup and have solved the small aperture problem with ASET.

The conclusions that may be drawn from the idealscope images are sometimes misleading for all but the most experienced consumers and trade.

I refer you to case b in Karl's article here and compare it to a Classical Tolk Round.




The Classical Tolk has significantly superior brightness to the "Fixed Steep Deep" but which set of images do you think highlight the differences more easily?

One might say there from looking at the two IS images above that there is very little leakage under the table in both diamonds and therefore they have equivalent light return under the table. Whereas the ASET images make it very clear the two diamonds perform quite differently.

If choosing one I'd lose the Idealscope entirely and stick with ASET as the standard for better contrast and the extra information provided and that especially includes looking at round brilliants as well.

Good example of how hard it is to prove me wrong CCL

Really? This is your response? With the other statements and questions that people posed in an attempt to engage you on this topic - and this is what you respond to and how?

Now I see exactly what people are talking about when it comes to this forum.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Good example of how hard it is to prove me wrong CCL [/quote]

Garry I did prove you wrong, and unfortunately only trade members and a handful of consumers on this board appreciate the technical aspects of what I just posted above.

This isn't a new topic or argument either but you posted it perhaps because so many vendors (PS vendors in particular) are having trouble with their ASET setups, I would much rather we helped them fix these technical problems than consumers stop asking for the most informative image.

P.S.

My posting in this thread was a waste of time and served me no benefit. The community cannot learn anything from you when you respond in that manner which has become increasingly more frequent.

 

[risingsun]

Good example of how hard it is to prove me wrong CCL

Garry I did prove you wrong, and unfortunately only trade members and a handful of consumers on this board appreciate the technical aspects of what I just posted above.

This isn't a new topic or argument either but you posted it perhaps because so many vendors (PS vendors in particular) are having trouble with their ASET setups, I would much rather we helped them fix these technical problems than consumers stop asking for the most informative image.

P.S.

My posting in this thread was a waste of time and served me no benefit. The community cannot learn anything from you when you respond in that manner which has become increasingly more frequent.

I have to agree with CCL, Garry. Over the past few weeks you have posted some very glib responses to posters who have asked you some serious questions. It's not going down very well.

 

[slg47]

I am happy to debate this as there will be those who disagree with me.

this doesn't look like much of a debate?

 

[TakingthePlunge]

Kudos CCL. I was going to point to the merits of the additional information the aset provides but I was not prepared with pictorial examples. Good job.

As a side note Im diggin the new avatar Garry.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Good example of how hard it is to prove me wrong CCL

Garry I did prove you wrong, and unfortunately only trade members and a handful of consumers on this board appreciate the technical aspects of what I just posted above.

This isn't a new topic or argument either but you posted it perhaps because so many vendors (PS vendors in particular) are having trouble with their ASET setups, I would much rather we helped them fix these technical problems than consumers stop asking for the most informative image.

P.S.

My posting in this thread was a waste of time and served me no benefit. The community cannot learn anything from you when you respond in that manner which has become increasingly more frequent.[/quote]

Sorry, I have been very busy.

In your example CCL the Ideal-scope would be adequate to reject the stone on the right.

I agree that it would be great if all vendors did great ASET images. But clearly there is a big problem there. I am happy to help any vendor and have tried with some. The invitation stands.
I strongly promote ASET and believe it is the best tool for online selection of fancy shapes. I also sell ASET and have worked with AGS and supplied them with hand helds. So this is not an anti ASET issue from my side.

I do not believe it is fair for people on this forum to advise consumers to ask vendors to go out of their way to take ASET photo's of round brilliant cut diamonds.

There may be very rare instances with some painted or dug stones where an ASET might help some of the helpers on this forum, but those instances are very rare - perhaps 1 in 20 of the painted stones where we see an ideal-scope.
Otherwise very small variations in proportions of near H&A's stones can result in color differences that would stop consumers from buying wonderful stones.

 

[Rhino]

Interesting thread. I was wondering if David managed to hack into Garry's account and make this post?

 

[Karl_K]

With rounds if there is a well taken IS photo I can get enough information that the ASET image wouldn't tell me anything more.
If a vendor asked me and they only wanted to offer one reflector image type for all diamond shapes, I would tell them to work very hard at setting up a good ASET photo setup and not mess with IS.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

With rounds if there is a well taken IS photo I can get enough information that the ASET image wouldn't tell me anything more.
If a vendor asked me and they only wanted to offer one reflector image type for all diamond shapes, I would tell them to work very hard at setting up a good ASET photo setup and not mess with IS.

I agree with this idea Karl.
But what % of ASET images are you happy with that have been linked to or posted here?
vs
What % of Ideal-scope images are you happy with that have been linked to or posted here?

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

The majority of 'bad' ASET-pics are due to the incorrect position of the stone relative to the cone of the ASET.

If a vendor makes that basic mistake, it means that the same mistake is in their Ideal-Scope-pic. Only, it is more difficult to spot the error there.

The big problem (for the consumer) is that both pics thus look better than a correct picture would tell.

Two questions:

1. Why did this thread get moved to 'Diamond Research' where hardly any consumers read it? After all, the original topic was a plea to consumers to not ask ASET-pics anymore. Moving the topic does not make sense.

2. What gives Garry the authority to decide or advise which level of information is sufficient for consumers? 'Good enough' might not be what the consumer wants. For sure, what is 'good enough' for Garry definitely is 'less than sufficient' for me.

Live long,

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

With rounds if there is a well taken IS photo I can get enough information that the ASET image wouldn't tell me anything more.
If a vendor asked me and they only wanted to offer one reflector image type for all diamond shapes, I would tell them to work very hard at setting up a good ASET photo setup and not mess with IS.

I will have to disagree. What does pink represent in Idealscope? What does grey represent? How do these colors differ from vendor to vendor depending upon image saturation?

This whole concept of lengthening LGFs to help steep deep stone is overstated and ASET images instead of IS would make this much more clear.

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/do_pavilion_mains_drive_light_return_modern_round_brilliant

How can the cutter remove the under-table leakage?

They cannot remove it only try to incompletely minnimize it.

3 ways:

A: Remove the lower girdle facets from under the table by shortening them to 40%, image A.

B: Bring the angles of the lower girdles down by lengthening them out to 83% and an angle of 42.24 degrees. Image B.

C: Paint the lower girdles to an angle of 42.24 degrees. Image C.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

The majority of 'bad' ASET-pics are due to the incorrect position of the stone relative to the cone of the ASET.

I agree that is one problem, but in almost all AGS ASET non backlit camera users have a problem especially if the vendor doesn't control the background lighting from day to day in their in their setup (like controlling overhead stray lights).

If a vendor makes that basic mistake, it means that the same mistake is in their Ideal-Scope-pic. Only, it is more difficult to spot the error there.

The big problem (for the consumer) is that both pics thus look better than a correct picture would tell.

Two questions:

1. Why did this thread get moved to 'Diamond Research' where hardly any consumers read it? After all, the original topic was a plea to consumers to not ask ASET-pics anymore. Moving the topic does not make sense.

I agree move it back, don't know why we even have this subforum it just loses the consumer posters until Andrey figures out how to have the RT thread bump up when someone posts here.


2. What gives Garry the authority to decide or advise which level of information is sufficient for consumers? 'Good enough' might not be what the consumer wants. For sure, what is 'good enough' for Garry definitely is 'less than sufficient' for me.

I agree for a cut nut this is strange and it certainly is not good enough for me.


Live long,

 

[Karl_K]

This whole concept of lengthening LGFs to help steep deep stone is overstated and ASET images instead of IS would make this much more clear.

I chose that level of leakage to demonstrate that the lower halves are going to leak before the mains and at the same angles that the mains would start to leak in that area.
I could have picked a point with less leakage(different angle) and use ASET and the results would be the same.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The majority of 'bad' ASET-pics are due to the incorrect position of the stone relative to the cone of the ASET.

I agree that is one problem, but in almost all AGS ASET non backlit camera users have a problem especially if the vendor doesn't control the background lighting from day to day in their in their setup (like controlling overhead stray lights).

If a vendor makes that basic mistake, it means that the same mistake is in their Ideal-Scope-pic. Only, it is more difficult to spot the error there.

The big problem (for the consumer) is that both pics thus look better than a correct picture would tell.
Paul please show and example - I do not believe this can be true?

Two questions:

1. Why did this thread get moved to 'Diamond Research' where hardly any consumers read it? After all, the original topic was a plea to consumers to not ask ASET-pics anymore. Moving the topic does not make sense.

I agree move it back, don't know why we even have this subforum it just loses the consumer posters until Andrey figures out how to have the RT thread bump up when someone posts here.

The idea of this Forum came out of a discussion that you were all invloved in about 2-3 months ago. I am still not convinced, but thought it was worth considering and trying. I agree that the thread bumper needs to be fixed and have no objection to it being moved back to RT (Andrey is looking into the thread bumbper)

2. What gives Garry the authority to decide or advise which level of information is sufficient for consumers? 'Good enough' might not be what the consumer wants. For sure, what is 'good enough' for Garry definitely is 'less than sufficient' for me.

I agree for a cut nut this is strange and it certainly is not good enough for me.
I buy a lot of diamonds and I never use ASET for rounds - I use Ideal-scope only and I always use ASET for fancy shapes. I am happpy to be shown why ASET is needed, but given that it involves a lot more explanation to newbies, and until experts here tell me why we should bother vendors with the additional work load (and cost) - this is my opinion.

So please tell me, or better still show me, what value ASET brings for rounds?
What is in-sufficient in an ideal-scope Paul that an ASET provides? What authority can you provide to show that my statement is "less than sufficient" ?


Live long,

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ealscope-photos.154229/#post-2805396#p2805396


I refer you back to my original questions:

1) What does grey in an Idealscope image represent?
2) What does pink in an Idealscope image represent?

The answer is we do not know, and cannot seperate changes in lighting conditions in two images from differences in the way a diamond returns lights.

ASET has far better contrast and resolution so it is far easier to interpret fine nuances.

 

[bright&shiny]

Thank you for moving this thread out into the light for the rest of us to see!

I have to say, as a consumer, I originally felt the same way - and only took my IS with me on a few trips, but after a fun night at home with various family members looking at stones (in our various rings and my jewelry box), I discovered how much more I could see (easily) and explain to those who were unfamiliar with the tools. They could read their own stones with the ASET relatively easily - but the IS was much more difficult for them. It was a revelation - and now I take the ASET with me on my trips. I do have a back light btw.

The IS takes more skill to read, in my mind, and it is very dependent upon the right angles. It is also harder to explain - particularly those pesky questions about pink and grey. ASETs are also clearly susceptible to correct angles and light, but I can see more and discern more about the cut and do so very quickly. If I were on a desert island with lots of diamonds and had to choose one tool (in addition to a loupe), I'd make it an ASET. Again, I'm not a trades person, but why not make it as easy as possible for data to be understood and viewed?

It's good to see all of you back out in the main again. My husband and I were just discussing your absence last night. As an aside, does this debate remind anyone else of the debate over adding color print to newspapers or color TV vs. black and white? Somehow these were considered by some to 'dumb down' the media....

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thank you for moving this thread out into the light for the rest of us to see!

I have to say, as a consumer, I originally felt the same way - and only took my IS with me on a few trips, but after a fun night at home with various family members looking at stones (in our various rings and my jewelry box), I discovered how much more I could see (easily) and explain to those who were unfamiliar with the tools. They could read their own stones with the ASET relatively easily - but the IS was much more difficult for them. It was a revelation - and now I take the ASET with me on my trips. I do have a back light btw.

The IS takes more skill to read, in my mind, and it is very dependent upon the right angles. It is also harder to explain - particularly those pesky questions about pink and grey. ASETs are also clearly susceptible to correct angles and light, but I can see more and discern more about the cut and do so very quickly. If I were on a desert island with lots of diamonds and had to choose one tool (in addition to a loupe), I'd make it an ASET. Again, I'm not a trades person, but why not make it as easy as possible for data to be understood and viewed?

It's good to see all of you back out in the main again. My husband and I were just discussing your absence last night. As an aside, does this debate remind anyone else of the debate over adding color print to newspapers or color TV vs. black and white? Somehow these were considered by some to 'dumb down' the media....

It is enlightening to know that many people on this board "get it".
But as Peter Yantzer, AGS Lab director sadly comments - many jewellers eyes glaze over as he explains ASET to them in conferences and presentations he has been doing for 6 years.
I always have both ASET and IS with me when buying.
I IS everything, and ASET the fancies that pass the Ideal-scope.
Never use ASET with rounds

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Again, Garry, I do not see the relevance of your own buying-practices.

As an authority on this forum and an interested party in this forum, you should refrain from taking positions, simply because certain aspects of business might be difficult for certain vendors. It does not look good.

Live long,

 

[Serg]

I am happy to debate this as there will be those who disagree with me.

However I feel it is unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET images for round diamonds when taking Ideal-scope images is easier for most vendors AND ASET images provide no real additional info for selection / rejection. Especially since many ASET images have no backlight.

The only advantage I can see is there is more pressure for more vendors to learn to take ASET images which are invaluable for fancy shaped diamond selection / rejection.

I completely agree with these Garry statements and support it.
Black ASET images has less important information about RBC( specially near AGSO) than IS images.
I see too much unfair attacks to this Clear Garry statement and Garry personally
ASET( specially white ASET) is helpful mainly for Fancy cuts.

Black ASET help hide cut disadvantages .

Nobody in this thread gives clear example when ASET is more helpful in selection "classical" RBC than IS.

White ASET and IS have similar level of information about "classical " RBC and choice between these tools is question of Taste and practice
IS has better "durability in selection" ( for RBC)
Black ASET is misleading sometimes

there are many AGS Bias on PS who don't even try to understand tools limitations

it is become more and more uncomfortable to Bring new ideas , opinions and knowledge to PS.

 

[Serg]

1) The precise angle and likely intensity of the incoming rays can be clearly differentiated with ASET and much less with idealscope.
2) Painting and Digging is much more readily observable on ASET and much harder to discern in IS
3) Contrast and borders between virtual facets is much more easily observable from ASET

As for photography that is the vendor's problem, consumers usually need to use the tool themselves not photograph images. Experienced vendors spend time and money on a robust setup and have solved the small aperture problem with ASET.

The conclusions that may be drawn from the idealscope images are sometimes misleading for all but the most experienced consumers and trade.

I refer you to case b in Karl's article here and compare it to a Classical Tolk Round.




The Classical Tolk has significantly superior brightness to the "Fixed Steep Deep" but which set of images do you think highlight the differences more easily?

One might say there from looking at the two IS images above that there is very little leakage under the table in both diamonds and therefore they have equivalent light return under the table. Whereas the ASET images make it very clear the two diamonds perform quite differently.

If choosing one I'd lose the Idealscope entirely and stick with ASET as the standard for better contrast and the extra information provided and that especially includes looking at round brilliants as well.

Good example of how hard it is to prove me wrong CCL

Really? This is your response? With the other statements and questions that people posed in an attempt to engage you on this topic - and this is what you respond to and how?

Now I see exactly what people are talking about when it comes to this forum.

CCL example, Has Huge difference in IS and ASET images( in same time)

so CCL did not give example when ASET is more useful than IS. You can easily use IS to separate these two diamonds

1)One of most important goal Structure lights environments( as IS, ASET, BS, H&A etc..) is to show Difference between current stone and Reference stone.

it is important to have good balance between real difference between diamonds( in optical appearance ) and visual difference in Photos( IS, ASET)

such balance for H&A, IS is discussable until now( there are may Persons thinks what IS, H&A TOO sensitive what reduce their real effectiveness ). ASET is even more sensitive than IS. More sensitive does not mean more helpful, practical ( specially for beginners).
Many additional useless information could easy mislead beginners.

2) Other of most important goal Structure light environments is to show Similarity between similar Diamonds

in other words IS and ASET should help clustering . Clustering is helpful for human when you can received 5-7 clear different Groups.

Did anybody try to do clustering RBC diamonds by ASET? even for IS it is not easy. ASET does this task is too difficult for consumers

 

[John P]

CCL example, Has Huge difference in IS and ASET images( in same time)

so CCL did not give example when ASET is more useful than IS. You can easily use IS to separate these two diamonds

1)One of most important goal Structure lights environments( as IS, ASET, BS, H&A etc..) is to show Difference between current stone and Reference stone.

it is important to have good balance between real difference between diamonds( in optical appearance ) and visual difference in Photos( IS, ASET)

such balance for H&A, IS is discussable until now( there are may Persons thinks what IS, H&A TOO sensitive what reduce their real effectiveness ). ASET is even more sensitive than IS. More sensitive does not mean more helpful, practical ( specially for beginners).
Many additional useless information could easy mislead beginners.

2) Other of most important goal Structure light environments is to show Similarity between similar Diamonds

in other words IS and ASET should help clustering . Clustering is helpful for human when you can received 5-7 clear different Groups.

Did anybody try to do clustering RBC diamonds by ASET? even for IS it is not easy. ASET does this task is too difficult for consumers

RE: <<Too difficult for consumers.>>

I believe that's a different dialogue from the content of the original post, where Garry said "I feel it is unfair to ask vendors to provide ASET images for round diamonds when taking Ideal-scope images is easier for most vendors AND ASET images provide no real additional info for selection / rejection "

RE: << CCL example, Has Huge difference in IS and ASET images( in same time) so CCL did not give example when ASET is more useful than IS. You can easily use IS to separate these two diamonds. >>

How about this example?

 

[John P]

I completely agree with these Garry statements and support it.
Black ASET images has less important information about RBC( specially near AGSO) than IS images.
I see too much unfair attacks to this Clear Garry statement and Garry personally
ASET( specially white ASET) is helpful mainly for Fancy cuts.

Black ASET help hide cut disadvantages .

Nobody in this thread gives clear example when ASET is more helpful in selection "classical" RBC than IS.

White ASET and IS have similar level of information about "classical " RBC and choice between these tools is question of Taste and practice
IS has better "durability in selection" ( for RBC)
Black ASET is misleading sometimes

there are many AGS Bias on PS who don't even try to understand tools limitations

it is become more and more uncomfortable to Bring new ideas , opinions and knowledge to PS.

RE: <<Black ASET help hide cut disadvantages>>

There is definitely more information with backlighting. It requires more effort to setup and photograph, for sure, but that should not stop those who wish to provide full information. Especially since it's the foundation of a cut grading system that it well-known and often sought-after; for rounds as well as fancies.

RE: <<Nobody in this thread gives clear example when ASET is more helpful in selection "classical" RBC than IS>>

Here are some examples for consideration. The implications become stronger as the numbers increase.



Corresponding ASET images.