Isee2
- Thread starter salmon
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 58,559
Yes, I've seen one! We ordered one at the same time we ordered my stone so I could choose from two. It was a beautiful hearts and arrows stone, but not more beautiful than other excellent cut hearts and arrows stones. It's basically a brand name of H&A just like ACA, Hearts on Fire, Towlkowsky, etc. You probably can pull up my thread...I think it was called "Two beautiful diamonds!" or something close to that. But I chose the other stone because it was larger (and a Towlkowsky stone).
Here (but my pictures aren't all that great):
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/two-beautiful-diamonds.47897/=
I believe Ellen's stone is an Isee2.
Here (but my pictures aren't all that great):
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/two-beautiful-diamonds.47897/=
I believe Ellen's stone is an Isee2.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,748
Davy Lapa runs the company Overseas Diamond - that uses and developed I SEE2.
He is a very tidy snappy dressing Belgian gentleman who cuts and polishes to very high symmetry standards.
He employed some engineers to develop a system that essentially grades symmetry.
He leases the system to stores that sell his diamonds in the hope that they willl sell and therefore buy more of his diamonds because his are very symmetrical.
It is a good honest business model.
Personally I think subtle differences in proportions etc play more of a role than extremely high tolerances of symmetry - but there are those who are into mind perfect sym
He is a very tidy snappy dressing Belgian gentleman who cuts and polishes to very high symmetry standards.
He employed some engineers to develop a system that essentially grades symmetry.
He leases the system to stores that sell his diamonds in the hope that they willl sell and therefore buy more of his diamonds because his are very symmetrical.
It is a good honest business model.
Personally I think subtle differences in proportions etc play more of a role than extremely high tolerances of symmetry - but there are those who are into mind perfect sym
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2000
- Messages
- 6,732
The ISEE2 device seems to grade the ISEE2 diamonds as the best among most diamonds placed on an ISEE2 device. The result is biased becuase the machine and the diamonds were engineered to compliment eachother. Nevertheless, these ISEE2 diamonds are at the top end of appearance along with non-ISEE2 diamonds which also seem to be on the top end of appearance. Its a little bit of trickery along with excellent information. Not bad in the overall and not a poor way to make a reasonable choice.
You wouldn''t want to promote a machine that grades your own diamonds harshly, so the built in bias is understandable. In the end, the bias is reasonable and seemingly not a harmful problem for consumers looking to make a decent selection.
You wouldn''t want to promote a machine that grades your own diamonds harshly, so the built in bias is understandable. In the end, the bias is reasonable and seemingly not a harmful problem for consumers looking to make a decent selection.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
That is not the case.
The GOG classics/specials always have scored well on the ISEE2 machine 9.8 usualy.
Well enough that ISEE2 either changed cutters or their target to the same specs.
They reward tight stones and excellent optical symmetry and its one of the few machines that takes into account minor facets directly.
A tight diamond with excellent optical symmetry without too short an lgf% will score well on the isee2 machine.
A diamond with short lgf%, painting or sloppy minor facets will not score well.
Paul''s infinities from what Iv heard will also score very very well on it.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,748
What about say radiant cuts and other non structured looking diamonds - I suspect they rate ver badly.
Also you know that I ran my 2 CZ''s - the good and the bad - and there was virtually no difference between them. So Dave - I do not think it ''works'' for anything other than symmetry in round diamonds
"Has anyone seen an Isee2 diamond?"
I bought my fiance a ISEE2 stone. When I was looking at diamonds, I brought in an ISEE2 and an ACA from whiteflash to the appraiser. They were both G/VS2, one was 1.33 carats the other was 1.34 carats; $25 dollar price difference. In my opinion, I preferred the ISEE2 (the ACA actually had more "excellent" scores in the HCA ), but to my eyes, the ISEE2 stone was more pleasing to the eye. Now would I say ISEE2 diamonds are alwaysbetter than ACA diamonds, NO...but in this case I thought the ISEE2 was a better choice.
I bought my fiance a ISEE2 stone. When I was looking at diamonds, I brought in an ISEE2 and an ACA from whiteflash to the appraiser. They were both G/VS2, one was 1.33 carats the other was 1.34 carats; $25 dollar price difference. In my opinion, I preferred the ISEE2 (the ACA actually had more "excellent" scores in the HCA ), but to my eyes, the ISEE2 stone was more pleasing to the eye. Now would I say ISEE2 diamonds are alwaysbetter than ACA diamonds, NO...but in this case I thought the ISEE2 was a better choice.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
As you know Garry it works only on rounds.
I dont consider it the final answer on diamond cut but the types of diamonds I prefere with to me mind clean tightness and symmetry are what score best on it.
That makes it interesting to me but not more valuable than an IS image, heart image and an helium scan.
The helium scanner and h&a scope are the best tools for my ocd about superier workmanship.
Anyway....
Yes I agree with your statement that it rewards highly optical and physical symmetrical rounds but would add further requirements, that they are within a subset of the ideal range that have no painting will get its top score.
I dont consider it the final answer on diamond cut but the types of diamonds I prefere with to me mind clean tightness and symmetry are what score best on it.
That makes it interesting to me but not more valuable than an IS image, heart image and an helium scan.
The helium scanner and h&a scope are the best tools for my ocd about superier workmanship.
Anyway....
Yes I agree with your statement that it rewards highly optical and physical symmetrical rounds but would add further requirements, that they are within a subset of the ideal range that have no painting will get its top score.
Storm,
This is excellent information, particularly the idea that painted stone won''t score the highest scores on the Isee2. There seems to be a lot of discussion about painted stones and their optics. Some suggest that if you tweak a stone a bit (paint a girdle properly), you can achieve superior optics in a diamond, hence there''s nothing wrong with a little painting, in the hands of a skilled cutter. On the other hand, I heard others disagree (painting is painting) and perhaps cheating, some would say (not me as I don''t know enough, just a layman). But I do find it very interesting as a consumer, that the Isee2 technology can weed out and score painted girdles lower. Very interesting stuff. I wonder what my eye would say as compared to the Isee2. Alas, is the human eye and observation that truly determines what constitutes a beautiful diamond. Beauty it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.
This is excellent information, particularly the idea that painted stone won''t score the highest scores on the Isee2. There seems to be a lot of discussion about painted stones and their optics. Some suggest that if you tweak a stone a bit (paint a girdle properly), you can achieve superior optics in a diamond, hence there''s nothing wrong with a little painting, in the hands of a skilled cutter. On the other hand, I heard others disagree (painting is painting) and perhaps cheating, some would say (not me as I don''t know enough, just a layman). But I do find it very interesting as a consumer, that the Isee2 technology can weed out and score painted girdles lower. Very interesting stuff. I wonder what my eye would say as compared to the Isee2. Alas, is the human eye and observation that truly determines what constitutes a beautiful diamond. Beauty it seems, is in the eye of the beholder.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Im not touching the painted diamond issue with a 10 foot poll a search will bring up plenty of fights about it.
The diamond I bought for the wifey2b is a gog classic that scores 9.8 on isee2 and tripple VH on the b-scope and she and I both love it.
Size for size its the most awesome diamond Iv seen.
Your eyeballs and the persons who will wear it (if its not you) make the final decision but the tools will help show you what the diamond is like when properly used.
Combine that with a skilled and trusted vendor who knows high performance diamonds and the results will rock your world :}
The diamond I bought for the wifey2b is a gog classic that scores 9.8 on isee2 and tripple VH on the b-scope and she and I both love it.
Size for size its the most awesome diamond Iv seen.
Your eyeballs and the persons who will wear it (if its not you) make the final decision but the tools will help show you what the diamond is like when properly used.
Combine that with a skilled and trusted vendor who knows high performance diamonds and the results will rock your world :}
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
diamondheart
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2006
- Messages
- 65
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Is A GOG classic a better stone than a AGS 0 or H&A Excellent Ideal cut? What makes it different in particu;ar besides he cutting prameters? Do they time and time again dispaly superior optics (Broad Flash, Pin flash, Scintillation, FIRE). They sound interesting, I would like to hear more from you. Is there a cost attached to this premium diamond? In other words, Do they cost more than normal H&A Ideal cuts? (Like the ACA stones) How much more than average?
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Hi salmon,
You've been getting excellent input here regarding the Isee2 stones which I would also confirm. I've now seen hundreds of them and I don't think I can point to a single instance wherein I've seen a dud. Just a few things in this thread I'd like to clarify which have been said that aren't entirely on target.
Hi Dave,
A fair assessment for the most part Dave. It is for the reasons you post above that I have entered investigating this technology with more skepticism than any other that we employ. The thing is when I initially went to the very first screening I brought with me diamonds of varying flavors ranging from visible leakers to ultra rare in both light return and optical symmetry. In that initial meeting my rarest stones scored higher than the Isee2 stones that they had with them at that presentation (albeit by only .x) so I knew the technology wasn't biased towards their goods alone. The technology rewards superior optical symmetry (the only digital technology that does so that I am aware of) and is very strict in eliminating steep/deeps with leakage and equally as strict in the shallow angled combos as well.
Considering the tight tolerances of diamonds it rewards with scores => 9.0 I will tell you there are AGS Ideal and GIA Ex stones that do score in the high 7.x and 8.x range which are also beautiful which consumers (and tradesmen alike) may indeed consider equally as beautiful as a 9.x stone as it *sees* leakage that is imperceptible to human vision and is senstive in detecting when pavilioin mains run too dark due to obstruction in shallow angled combos. So while there are beautiful stones that don't necessarily score => 9.0, an Isee2 diamond which must score at least a 9.0 on the technology will be a stunner.
Date: 12/5/2006 9:00:01 PM
Author: strmrdr
The GOG classics/specials always have scored well on the ISEE2 machine 9.8 usualy.
Well enough that ISEE2 either changed cutters or their target to the same specs.
They reward tight stones and excellent optical symmetry and its one of the few machines that takes into account minor facets directly.
A tight diamond with excellent optical symmetry without too short an lgf% will score well on the isee2 machine.
A diamond with short lgf%, painting or sloppy minor facets will not score well.
Paul's infinities from what Iv heard will also score very very well on it.
Just a couple of clarifications strm.
While the Isee2 does look at total facet construction (including the 40 minors) it is a little more liberal in that arena regarding lower half, star and also upper half facets. In fact one of the weakness of the Isee2 technology is it doesn't have the ability to detect painting or digging to the point that it is detectable to human vision. I think this is primarily due to the fact that its doing its analysis in a controlled symmetrical lighting environment when in fact normal observations do not take place in these types of illumination. Since no Isee2 diamonds are cut with any notable degree of painting or digging it's not an issue with their stones in particular but I've seen stones with 7 degrees of painting (visible to the eyes) get a 9.8 on the technology as well as dug out stones greater than 3 degrees (also visible to human vision) get very high scores.
Another good thing about the Isee2 brand diamond is each stone is accompanied with a birth certificate showing point of origin, original rough weight, original sawn weight, the dates it took place etc. A great value added service IMO which few manufacturers provide.
Hope that helps.
Peace,
You've been getting excellent input here regarding the Isee2 stones which I would also confirm. I've now seen hundreds of them and I don't think I can point to a single instance wherein I've seen a dud. Just a few things in this thread I'd like to clarify which have been said that aren't entirely on target.
Hi Dave,
A fair assessment for the most part Dave. It is for the reasons you post above that I have entered investigating this technology with more skepticism than any other that we employ. The thing is when I initially went to the very first screening I brought with me diamonds of varying flavors ranging from visible leakers to ultra rare in both light return and optical symmetry. In that initial meeting my rarest stones scored higher than the Isee2 stones that they had with them at that presentation (albeit by only .x) so I knew the technology wasn't biased towards their goods alone. The technology rewards superior optical symmetry (the only digital technology that does so that I am aware of) and is very strict in eliminating steep/deeps with leakage and equally as strict in the shallow angled combos as well.
Considering the tight tolerances of diamonds it rewards with scores => 9.0 I will tell you there are AGS Ideal and GIA Ex stones that do score in the high 7.x and 8.x range which are also beautiful which consumers (and tradesmen alike) may indeed consider equally as beautiful as a 9.x stone as it *sees* leakage that is imperceptible to human vision and is senstive in detecting when pavilioin mains run too dark due to obstruction in shallow angled combos. So while there are beautiful stones that don't necessarily score => 9.0, an Isee2 diamond which must score at least a 9.0 on the technology will be a stunner.
Date: 12/5/2006 9:00:01 PM
Author: strmrdr
The GOG classics/specials always have scored well on the ISEE2 machine 9.8 usualy.
Well enough that ISEE2 either changed cutters or their target to the same specs.
They reward tight stones and excellent optical symmetry and its one of the few machines that takes into account minor facets directly.
A tight diamond with excellent optical symmetry without too short an lgf% will score well on the isee2 machine.
A diamond with short lgf%, painting or sloppy minor facets will not score well.
Paul's infinities from what Iv heard will also score very very well on it.
Just a couple of clarifications strm.
While the Isee2 does look at total facet construction (including the 40 minors) it is a little more liberal in that arena regarding lower half, star and also upper half facets. In fact one of the weakness of the Isee2 technology is it doesn't have the ability to detect painting or digging to the point that it is detectable to human vision. I think this is primarily due to the fact that its doing its analysis in a controlled symmetrical lighting environment when in fact normal observations do not take place in these types of illumination. Since no Isee2 diamonds are cut with any notable degree of painting or digging it's not an issue with their stones in particular but I've seen stones with 7 degrees of painting (visible to the eyes) get a 9.8 on the technology as well as dug out stones greater than 3 degrees (also visible to human vision) get very high scores.
Another good thing about the Isee2 brand diamond is each stone is accompanied with a birth certificate showing point of origin, original rough weight, original sawn weight, the dates it took place etc. A great value added service IMO which few manufacturers provide.
Hope that helps.
Peace,
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Hey Garry,
Yea ... non structured stones do rate bad on it. We can actually run other shapes on it but the technology is not calibrated for fancies except for one. Octagonal shapes. Of course only an octagonal H&A will get a score => 9.0 on it and guess who cuts H&A octagonal's.
I happen to have your 2 cz's (if they are the comparison stones I think they are) if you'd like I can show you the scores I get.
Rhino,
Thnaks for all the clarifications. I''ve learned more than I ever imagined on your website. I go back often, it''s like an oline course, particularly the cut section. Everytime I learn something new, or absorb more info than the previous time I visited. Thank you so much for taking all the time to put it together. Your honesty and integrity is a breath of fresh air (In any business). I would love nothing more than to come to youe store and pick out my own stunner. we''ll see I''m getting closer and closer to purchase time. If I have one request, it would to make your Ipod videos downloadable on my Mac. Are you Pc bias?
Kudos to you and your family for rendering such a spectacular service to customers, partcularly the investment in top notch scanning equipment, research, and customer service. You''re an ACE in my book.
Thnaks for all the clarifications. I''ve learned more than I ever imagined on your website. I go back often, it''s like an oline course, particularly the cut section. Everytime I learn something new, or absorb more info than the previous time I visited. Thank you so much for taking all the time to put it together. Your honesty and integrity is a breath of fresh air (In any business). I would love nothing more than to come to youe store and pick out my own stunner. we''ll see I''m getting closer and closer to purchase time. If I have one request, it would to make your Ipod videos downloadable on my Mac. Are you Pc bias?
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
hey Jon,
I have noticed a relationship between visible minor facet variation in the LS and ISEE2 score.
If they are visible to me on the LS image the ISEE2 score reflected it.
Often they would just drop it to the low to mid 9s for minor variations but they wouldnt hit 9.8.
Have you seen some that would make that not a valid observation?
Yes there have been some painted 9.8s but most of them Iv seen the isee2 score for where in the lows 9s tops.
comments?
I have noticed a relationship between visible minor facet variation in the LS and ISEE2 score.
If they are visible to me on the LS image the ISEE2 score reflected it.
Often they would just drop it to the low to mid 9s for minor variations but they wouldnt hit 9.8.
Have you seen some that would make that not a valid observation?
Yes there have been some painted 9.8s but most of them Iv seen the isee2 score for where in the lows 9s tops.
comments?
- Status
300x240.png)