How significant are the star facets and lower girdles info?

[Richard Sherwood]

Gunfight at OK corral...

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/2/2005 8:50:06 PM
Author: beryl

John Q:
I just saw this thread and scanned it quickly. Thanks for the kind words. This is the first I knew that my picture of 'yaw' had appeared anywhere. It was quite a challenge and I am pleased that it has been seen.

Bruce, you are very welcome.

I have some other drawings you did from that project on machine sightings (parallel to the trace) that could be helpful down the road.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/4/2005 12:47:34 AM
Author: Richard Sherwood

Gunfight at OK corral...

LOL. More like ''Blazing Saddles.''

 

[strmrdr]

This thread is getting on my nerves.

Lets run down a few things:
1> I never said it was better just that is is visible face up. I dont believe Jon did either because when we were discussing it we never came to that conconclusion.

2> Which tells more about the build of a diamond in an easier to see fashion. hears or arrows - Hearts hands down. Is that what you wanted to hear? thats easy because no one has said otherwise.

3> how do people view diamonds. FACE UP

4> Which is the most important view of a diamond - FACE UP
Why? Because that is how people view diamonds. A diamond can have perfect hearts and crappy angles.

5> Would anyone buy a diamond based on just a hearts picture? Or a hearts guarantee? No way. Would someone buy a diamond primarly based on an ideal-scope image? Yep WF ES line is an example.

6> Is yaw visible face up - Yes I think so.

7> which tells you more about yaws effect on performance face up or down? Hearts tell you easily it exists, face up gives you a clue what the performance issues are. Because that is how people view diamonds.

My final thoughts on this:
I think the face up affect of yaw is the next step in figuring out what the performace impact of yaw is on the diamond.
It can not be done face down.

This takes nothing away from Brian's work.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/4/2005 8:09:04 AM
Author: strmrdr
This thread is getting on my nerves.


5> Would anyone buy a diamond based on just a hearts picture? Or a hearts guarantee? No way. Would someone buy a diamond primarly based on an ideal-scope image? Yep WF ES line is an example.

Interesting that you select this argument, Daniel-son, considering that your sensei Rhino has been arguing that people shouldn''t rely on "red reflector" technology....i.e. Idealscope.

Me think-um getting confused.....do you two support red-reflector technology or not?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 9/4/2005 11:11:54 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/4/2005 8:09:04 AM

Author: strmrdr

This thread is getting on my nerves.



5> Would anyone buy a diamond based on just a hearts picture? Or a hearts guarantee? No way. Would someone buy a diamond primarly based on an ideal-scope image? Yep WF ES line is an example.

Interesting that you select this argument, Daniel-son, considering that your sensei Rhino has been arguing that people shouldn't rely on 'red reflector' technology....i.e. Idealscope.


Me think-um getting confused.....do you two support red-reflector technology or not?

I wondered when the cheerleaders were going to show up.
Your post cracked me up.

If your are trying to imply that Rhino is one of my teachers and has taught me a ton of stuff about diamonds which I have then filtered and applied with what I have learned from others.
Well then your right :}

"do you two support red-reflector technology or not?"
You havent read anything Rhino or myself has posted in this thread have you? Because if you had then you wouldnt be asking this question.

Need I quote the great ALJ saying hey this IS image on this ES looks as good as the one on this ACA and its a great deal for the money?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/4/2005 8:09:04 AM
Author: strmrdr

This thread is getting on my nerves.

Lets run down a few things:
1> I never said it was better just that is is visible face up. I dont believe Jon did either because when we were discussing it we never came to that conconclusion.

2> Which tells more about the build of a diamond in an easier to see fashion. hears or arrows - Hearts hands down. Is that what you wanted to hear? thats easy because no one has said otherwise.

I don’t think you have said otherwise Strm, but on page 2 Rhino said that the face view is the ‘primary way’ in which yaw should be analyzed, and that the table gives a ‘clear view to the pavilion with no other facet distraction.’ To some those would indicate better and easier to see – thus the many examples to the contrary.

If we can all agree that the pavilion view shows you more about the build of the diamond in an easier to see fashion we can move on to more enriching conversation. The sticky wicket has been the insistence that it’s simple to read pavilion particulars through the crown. The evidence Brian has presented maintains otherwise.

Brian’s quiz is lighthearted but serves a purpose. No answer is necessary if the point has been made.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 9/4/2005 8:09:04 AM
Author: strmrdr

3> how do people view diamonds. FACE UP

4> Which is the most important view of a diamond - FACE UP
Why? Because that is how people view diamonds. A diamond can have perfect hearts and crappy angles.

5> Would anyone buy a diamond based on just a hearts picture? Or a hearts guarantee? No way. Would someone buy a diamond primarly based on an ideal-scope image? Yep WF ES line is an example.

Good points.

This thread, though laborious (happy Labor Day) is serving an important purpose.

It highlights the divergence between (1) the design and construction of a fine-make diamond, where focus on the pavilion is as crucial as the crown, and (2) the seller’s approach, where focus tends toward the crown only. The conversation is showing the distinctions between those who started as sellers/analysts, with expertise in end-use - and those who started with rough in their hands, learning ground-up expertise in design and construction as well as end-use.

To cutters the pavilion view is all-important, especially to the ones Wink mentioned who are fanatically committed to optical symmetry. It is not a new concept, just as the table reflection (presented on the last page) is a crucial construction view that’s not discussed much. These assessments have been relied on by diamond fashioners since the birth of reflectors. They are not new – they are just not common parlance in the end-user world of sellers and buyers.

I would suggest that experts who want to split the wee hairs we’re splitting should concern themselves as much with the fundamentals of the pavilion as with the crown. Set aside sales strategies for a minute. If you’re a puritanical optical symmetry pundit you should recognize the hearts view as the superior one for assessing pavilion construction (I think you do, Strm). Is it required for end-use? No, but as you said it is the easiest way to see what’s really going on in the pavilion.

As for ‘buying,’ Wink made an important point: These are not distinctions we should concern consumers with. What we’re discussing is nuance that a small percentage of hard corps people get into. Strm, I know you’re as excited as I am about Marty Haske’s work relative to this. It won’t matter a hill of beans to most consumers, but the more we understand about it the more we can make improvements to pass on. The goal here should be to best serve all clients as they are, not convert them into measurement analysts. Those with expertise will work to safeguard consumers against things they know nothing about - without numbers bombardment.

It brings full-circle something Brian set out to do, as a designer and crafter, from the beginning: His guarantee of standards for patterning. Of course the crown assessment of ACA is a given. Everyone looks to crown assessment for end-use, us included. But Brian has never lost sight of what is most important at the BIRTH of his diamonds (“It’s all in the hearts”). That is why he put forth the guarantee.

6> Is yaw visible face up - Yes I think so.

7> which tells you more about yaws effect on performance face up or down? Hearts tell you easily it exists, face up gives you a clue what the performance issues are. Because that is how people view diamonds.

My final thoughts on this:
I think the face up affect of yaw is the next step in figuring out what the performace impact of yaw is on the diamond.
It can not be done face down.

This takes nothing away from Brian's work.

Agreed.

And yes, we agree completely that crown analysis is an important test-drive for sellers. We place emphasis on it as a final check, but failure to recognize the importance of the pavilion view is the reason no one gained understanding of Gavin’s yaw before Brian identified it.

 

[strmrdr]

John if the cost of this thread in terms of relationships, feelings and manhours wasnt so high 6 pages of posts and thousands of words based on something that:
"To some those would indicate better and easier to see"
Would be funny but is just sad.

Rhino will have to speak for himself but if im understanding him currectly thats not what he meant by it.

 

[strmrdr]

You know on second thought everything wasnt a waste.
Brian laid out an awesome example of what yaw is.
Brian actualy posted here which is something that does not happen too often and would be nice if he did more but everyone understands he is busy (thats not a dig)
It forced me to study up a storm on more than a few things.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 9/4/2005 2:28:09 PM
Author: strmrdr


I wondered when the cheerleaders were going to show up.
Your post cracked me up.

If your are trying to imply that Rhino is one of my teachers and has taught me a ton of stuff about diamonds which I have then filtered and applied with what I have learned from others.
Well then your right :}

'do you two support red-reflector technology or not?'
You havent read anything Rhino or myself has posted in this thread have you? Because if you had then you wouldnt be asking this question.

Need I quote the great ALJ saying hey this IS image on this ES looks as good as the one on this ACA and its a great deal for the money?

Storm, sorry, but this isn't the cheerleader section at all.....all this stuff is WAY over my head. All I know is that yaw happens when a stone is polished east/west instead of north/south. That's the equivalent of saying "I know how to tell time, but I can't tell you how the watch mechanisms work."

Incidentally, "cheerleader" would suggest that I'm taking a side on this.....and I'm most definitively not. I don't know enough about this topic to even PICK sides; I'm not learned enough to contest Jonathan on anything, nor Brian, nor Paul, nor anyone else. What I will say: it's sad you see it as a "we vs. them" proposition with "sides". That's not horribly conducive to exchange of ideas and mutual benefit, is it?

But I will say this: it takes a cheerleader to think he knows one. Pot? This is the kettle calling.

The suggestion that I'm "implying" anything is laughable, especially from you. You've been here more than long enough to know that I don't imply anything.....I just come out and say it if I think it. I have the chutzpah to SAY what I think, not just imply it.

I've actually read every single post in this thread. I'm asking the question because Jon has been quite vocal in several other threads that he feels red-reflector technology and idealscopes can't tell enough information about a diamond. Now you make a comment saying "look at the Idealscope"? So I'm left wondering if there has been some discovery about the Idealscope now that has changed the perceived usefulness of it, and I asked the question. If you can't answer it, that's cool. Maybe Jon will.

The great Alj saying "hey this I/scope image....."? Really? Who called me the "great Alj"? Wasn't me. I can always tell when you're getting frustrated when you turn snide, though.

And yes, I said "hey, Idealscope image is great on that"....but then again, *I* wasn't the one saying a few weeks ago something along the lines of "the Idealscope isn't a meaningful representation of a diamond...." (approximation of what was said), so then at least I haven't changed my tune.

No need for reply, though......you guys can just go back to your slugfest and I'll just muddle along looking at my silly IS images.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/3/2005 10:21:42 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Road #2: Disagreement about whether one can assess pavilion construction from the crown view. THIS is the road less traveled by, and it is where we need to come to resolution.

Amen brother. I think you will enjoy my response. I''ve prepared the first portion of it which I think would best be served in a new thread.

Date: 9/3/2005 10:21:42 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

All of the assessment Brian did on your images was completely without numbers or stats. The simple challenge is - can you do the same on his images without numbers and stats?

Sir John,

I have been studying the optical design of diamonds for 5 years now. I have been seeing and noting north/south east/west orientation since 2001. Up until last week I have only been able to correllate how north/south orientation (or slope angles) impact the optical design of a diamond and I hope you would agree that there are few gemologists in this country who are familiar with what crown/pavilion combinations AS WELL AS lower half, star and upper half measurements impact the optical design. I HAVE NOT been able to correllate azimuth angles/yaw with optical design in the face up view simply because we never had a device to measure this with. One question I would put forth to you and Brian is this (to further help in all of our understanding of the subject is)

"If azimuth angles deviate from ideal, does yaw *always* result or must the azimuth angle reach a certain point?"

As stated earlier I do not pretend to know about all of these things since I am
a. Not a cutter and
b. Never had the means with which to measure azimuth angles.

The correllation of azimuth angles to optical design, while I have been observing this for years, is really very new to me since we only just received Helium.

Date: 9/3/2005 10:21:42 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


Rhino, what good are the numbers if you can''t be sure of what you''re seeing in the crown due to the other jambalaya? Take off le gadget hat for a minute and just look at the reflector images Brian posted. The point he makes is that you should be able to assess what is what WITHOUT having to scan it ‘to death.’ We should be able to read pavilion construction with a single simple, elegant image. We have it. It is the hearts, or pavilion view.

If you have to ASK whether the crown has tilt or not...if you have to ask whether the image was centered or not...if you have to ask if the diamond is out of round...what good is the image? Heck yes - then you might as well have all the numbers from helium, the lab report, a DiamCalc model and a fortune cookie.

LOL... John I completely understand the point. I KNOW there are numerous features that can alter the optical design of a diamond (tilt, unroundedness, deviations in slope angles, variations in the measurements etc.) but I still maintain my claim. I have to run now as wifey is giving me the eye

but Lord willing, by tonight or perhaps sometime tomorrow I''ll post the first of my formal responses.

Thanks for your kind response.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 9/4/2005 11:11:54 AM
Author: aljdewey

Date: 9/4/2005 8:09:04 AM
Author: strmrdr
This thread is getting on my nerves.


5> Would anyone buy a diamond based on just a hearts picture? Or a hearts guarantee? No way. Would someone buy a diamond primarly based on an ideal-scope image? Yep WF ES line is an example.

Interesting that you select this argument, Daniel-son, considering that your sensei Rhino has been arguing that people shouldn''t rely on ''red reflector'' technology....i.e. Idealscope.

Me think-um getting confused.....do you two support red-reflector technology or not?

Hi Alj,

For clarification ...

I am a staunch defender of reflector technologies. However at the same time I believe people should be aware of its limitations as well as its strengths just as I would point out with any technology that is consulted in a purchasing decision including B''scope, Isee2, HCA, Sarin/OGI, etc. Too much emphasis placed on any ONE device is wrong however each give valuable information in the entire spectrum of information that can be attained. I would emphasize that understanding a technologies limitations is equally as important as understanding its strengths. That''s all.