JAMES ALLEN admits lousy ASET machinery

[sunkissedx3]

Hello everyone! So I've been searching for a cushion cut with optimal light return and found some on JA that looked great based on the HD videos. So I proceeded in requesting ASET images for them and to my disappointment none of the stones I picked were good contenders. They showed mostly green, and very little red on the ASET. JA of course told me how beautiful all the stones I picked were, but based on the ASETs I told them they did not meet my expectations. A month later, I found an 8 main cushion that looked promising, so I asked if they could honor another ASET image for me. They said they would but wanted to know what I found unsatisfactory about the other ones. I explained that I was looking for mostly red, some blue and green is okay, and attached some ASETs of other great performing stones as a reference. This was JA's reply:

"Thank you for the reply. My assumption is that your decision would be based mostly on the ASET images. While the gemologist will certainly be able to give us insight on the diamond's clarity and overall appearance, our equipment will not produce the kind of images you are looking for. Throughout the industry, different equipment is used and can be calibrated differently. I can say this because while in this position, I've seen our gemologists go through four different ASET cameras. The images changed each time the camera changed. While thousands of our diamonds will perform the same as the images you've included would indicate, our images will not produce that much red. Would you like to proceed, knowing that you'll find our images unsatisfactory?

On a separate note, I'd like to thank you for including those images. There was a time when our equipment did provide images much the like the ones you've included. I'll be forwarding the images to our gemological team, letting them know that myself and some of our customers would prefer to see images more like this."

I SUGGEST THEY GET SOME NEW EQUIPMENT!!!

It seems to me that many of their cushion diamonds just simply don't perform well... which is fine I'll just look elsewhere... I rely on ASET because since it's online and I can't see the stone it's a good indicator of performance. Anyways, I'm just disappointed they blamed it on their lousy equipment, which really doesn't make it any better. And I HAVE seen nice ASETs from them before, so they could have just admitted the particular stones I chose were not ideal.

These are some of the ASETs I got back:

 

[kaoms352]

The best ASET image of a cushion cut diamond I have seen has been from Brian Gavin's signature line of cushions. They are perfect! That example looks like it would not give the best light performance.

 

[leoshraeder]

I would guess that if you chose 3 diamonds with clear lousy optics, they would still recommend one and say it has good optics blah blah blah to attempt to close the deal. After all, they are a business entity. If you think they can't give you what you need, just move on to another vendor.

 

[TC1987]

ROTFL at the title. I suppose if they lose enough business, they might decide to upgrade or calibrate orrepair this suspicious camera equipment. They started as DirtCheapDiamonds back in the day. I tried to deal with them back in 2004 or so, and I gave up and bought my 1ct locally. They just seem to be hit-or-miss on whether they will be easy or difficult to work with. I bought from GOG and BGD after that. Thanks for the giggle. Sorry you are having a frustrating experience, though.

 

[ChristineRose]

Actually I think they are kind of implying that ASET machines in general aren't very good and that ASETs are not useful. Don't know if this is true but I could be convinced.

 

[sunkissedx3]

I think many people depend on ASETs especially when buying online. I wouldn't offer a service If I knew my service was inferior and would yield less than satisfactory results.

 

[sunkissedx3]

leoshraeder: I agree the ones I chose had lousy optics, which was my bad, that's why I decided to keep looking with them because they have so many and thought I might have found a promising one to which JA just told me I wasn't going to find what I was looking for. Sucks to be them because I'm not the only one looking for a good ASET in a stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Two issues here
1) quality of equipment: since there is no standardized ASET setup it's hard to find fault with any vendor based on this aspect.
I'm fact AGSL uses computer generated ASET images - most likely for this reason.
2) interpretIon of images: it seems to me that many consumers on this board draw conclusions based on ASET that may not hold true in real life.
Is green "bad" in a cushion?
If so, why?
In fact it might be indicating an aspect that many observers will find attractive. Let's remember that taste plays a big role here.
If someone is very familiar with the type of look they want and how it correlates with ASET it might prove helpful.
Personally I think photos are far better at conveying a diamond's "light personality"

 

[yssie]

If someone is very familiar with the type of look they want and how it correlates with ASET it might prove helpful.

David, you buried that little nugget entirely too well. Think if I make it bigger and bolder it will get the attention it deserves?

Red is NOT "always better".
Green does NOT "always indicate inferior performance".
Whether or not an ASET photo indicates "desirable performance" depends entirely on how one defines "desirable" - what the consumer wants to see, what the goals of cutting were and whether those goals matter to that consumer...
And... yes, people really DO define "desirable" differently.

Like the output of any other tool in the world, an ASET photo is absolutely meaningless unless the consumer understands what those colours say about appearance and light return in the real world and how he/she feels about that real-world translation. Many people who come to PS are looking for the same aesthetic but some aren't, and IMO it's lamentably blinkered to fail to consider that possibility.

Me, I've seen and owned (and still own) too many stones with "poor ASETs" that I absolutely adore to blindly espouse the Red Is Best philosophy. Sometimes patterning and history is just more important to me. Sometimes the stone with barely any red under the ASET scope is the little pot of glitter I can't take my eyes off of. Heck, my briolette looks absolutely dead under IS/ASET and it's one of my all-time favourite stones


On another note: I am trying and failing to understand how ASET equipment can be calibrated differently. The heights of colours down the scope corresponding to angles of incident light are static. The bottom of the scope should always rest on the girdle plane. We can expect issues with photographing very large or very small stones. But if the scopes are manufactured in exactly the same way and the same directions for use are followed, the amount of red/green/blue/black/white should be exactly the same... if I'm misunderstanding and AGSL manufacturers pre-calibrated "ASET cameras" that produce different images, well, that's something that should be addressed but nothing to do with JA. If the 'differences' imply changes to post-photography processing, well, that's a whole different problem, but that's not what I took from that response.
Can someone in the trade elaborate on the problems light reflector technology setups pose?

 

[YoungPapa]

On another note: I am trying and failing to understand how ASET equipment can be calibrated differently. The heights of colours down the scope corresponding to angles of incident light are static. The bottom of the scope should always rest on the girdle plane. We can expect issues with photographing very large or very small stones. But if the scopes are manufactured in exactly the same way and the same directions for use are followed, the amount of red/green/blue/black/white should be exactly the same... if I'm misunderstanding and AGSL manufacturers pre-calibrated "ASET cameras" that produce different images, well, that's something that should be addressed but nothing to do with JA. If the 'differences' imply changes to post-photography processing, well, that's a whole different problem, but that's not what I took from that response.
Can someone in the trade elaborate on the problems light reflector technology setups pose?

Yssie - I fail to understand as well. We have worked with AGS over the years to "fix" their ASET machines multiple times. The last machine we received (about six months ago) gave us far better images than we had before (in regard to overall image quality and focus), but we've still suspected we are getting green where there should be red and black where there should be blue.

I took an AGS0 "True Hearts" round and put it in the machine this morning. Below you can see the image produced by the ASET machine (which is manufactured by AGS and has been calibrated by them as well), compared to the computer generated image on the AGS report.

We're really at a loss what to do and a bit befuddled when we see images from other vendors that are completely saturated in red. I think that's what the CSR was trying to say when they responded to the OP.

Regardless, every time one of these threads pop-up we go and take another look at the setup. Who knows - maybe the 5th time is a charm

edited to add: I was just informed AGS no longer sells the camera setup. I think it's time to build our own...

 

[smilligan]

Is it possible that other vendors are using computer generated images and/or altering them in some way? There is a huge discrepancy between the two photos you've posted and, to be honest, it's a little disturbing. However, I've seen beautiful stones under a "real" ASET that look washed out and unappealing. For a "proven" model, there should be a lot more standardization.

 

[Rockdiamond]

If someone is very familiar with the type of look they want and how it correlates with ASET it might prove helpful.

David, you buried that little nugget entirely too well. Think if I make it bigger and bolder it will get the attention it deserves?

Red is NOT "always better".
Green does NOT "always indicate inferior performance".
Whether or not an ASET photo indicates "desirable performance" depends entirely on how one defines "desirable" - what the consumer wants to see, what the goals of cutting were and whether those goals matter to that consumer...
And... yes, people really DO define "desirable" differently.

Like the output of any other tool in the world, an ASET photo is absolutely meaningless unless the consumer understands what those colours say about appearance and light return in the real world and how he/she feels about that real-world translation. Many people who come to PS are looking for the same aesthetic but some aren't, and IMO it's lamentably blinkered to fail to consider that possibility.

Me, I've seen and owned (and still own) too many stones with "poor ASETs" that I absolutely adore to blindly espouse the Red Is Best philosophy. Sometimes patterning and history is just more important to me. Sometimes the stone with barely any red under the ASET scope is the little pot of glitter I can't take my eyes off of. Heck, my briolette looks absolutely dead under IS/ASET and it's one of my all-time favourite stones


On another note: I am trying and failing to understand how ASET equipment can be calibrated differently. The heights of colours down the scope corresponding to angles of incident light are static. The bottom of the scope should always rest on the girdle plane. We can expect issues with photographing very large or very small stones. But if the scopes are manufactured in exactly the same way and the same directions for use are followed, the amount of red/green/blue/black/white should be exactly the same... if I'm misunderstanding and AGSL manufacturers pre-calibrated "ASET cameras" that produce different images, well, that's something that should be addressed but nothing to do with JA. If the 'differences' imply changes to post-photography processing, well, that's a whole different problem, but that's not what I took from that response.
Can someone in the trade elaborate on the problems light reflector technology setups pose?

Great post Yssie!
About the first part (in red)- speaking a a diamond buyer myself, I truly feel that ASET interpretation is an issue. Look at it this way- if it was true that red was better, it would make diamond buying easier- taking it from the subjective to the realm of simply choosing red.
But of course red is not "better", it's just a different type of light personality.
I agree that this puts many PS readers that take the "standard" ASET interpretaion as gospel at a disadvantage- or at least in the position of buying what someone else deems desirable, without having had the opportunity to choose for themselves.

About the part in blue- and smilligan's post: There's simply no standardized manner in which to take an ASET photo- any more than there' a standardized manner of taking any photo.
To me, it seems vendors offering ASET photos are forced into a position of having to find ways to correct them. My setup is rudimentary- the ASET cone, and a light with a detent built into it where you put the diamond. it's incredibly difficult to get consistent results.
How would one make sure the table of the diamond is parallel to the lens? The suggestion: Tap the light in which it's sitting.
Not exactly a "calibrated methodology". If the stone is not sitting perfectly level,the results will be different.
And we've not even gotten into differences in cameras, white balance, lenses.

So what we're left with is a mishmash of different types of methods, and results.
I've been participating here for many years and thousands of posts- I respect the Prcescope community. But the frequent recommendation to ask for ASET photos is an issue that does not always assist the buyers.
All the weaknesses in the methodology of ASET photos are one of the reasons that the technology finds such limited acceptance- practically non existent outside Pricescope.

If Jim, or any seller, is successful in finding a consistent methodology, it would make no sense at all to share that- it would be proprietary.
I don't see a level "ASET playing field" emerging anytime soon.....

 

[woofmama]

I'm most likely a bit over my head on this topic but here goes: I have purchased from JA a couple of times. Extremely satisfied each time.

This is the first diamond I ever requested an ASET on. It was last summer in July. I bought this one. Gemologist gave it a wonderful review. ASET is very Red.


Then I found this cool asscher and requested an ASET. I did a thread on here and the folks who responded, like me, loved the shape.
We all thought it would be stunning. It wasn't. And the gemologist said it was not recommended. Dead center.


A couple of months later I found this diamond and again did a thread. I was considering it for a pendant stone. Requested an ASET.
Gemologist gave it an okay review. Nowhere near as good as my first one. I was curious so I bought it. I ended up returning it.


Then I found this cool radiant. I didn't do a thread, but the video of the diamond was stunning. Gemologist said it was gorgeous.
Something else came up, budget wise so I had to pass on it. Still kicking myself. I'm sure someone is loving it right now.


So my dealings with JA, gemologist reviews and ASETs: I feel that the ASETs were helpful, the gemologist reviews were extremely honest and I was given outstanding customer service. I really wanted diamond number two-the octagon asscher to be gorgeous, but I was told it wasn't and I think that shows JA has integrity. All of the ASETs posted above were taken in the last 14 months. The recommended diamonds had good results in the ASET pics. I believe it has been mentioned on here multiple times and from many vendors ei: Jon @ GOG, David @ Rockdiamond, etc that review trumps ASET. It is a tool, but nothing beats a trained set of eyes to tell you if a diamond is worth considering.

 

[WinkHPD]

I have never owned an ASET camera, but I have one of the first ASET machines built, and in my opinion, one of the best. The diamond table lays on the glass of the ASET and the image is seen through an eyepiece using mirrors to turn the image from the diamond back up to the viewer. The diamond table is ALWAYS perfectly perpendicular to the eye since it is laying on the glass rather than in a detente.

It is difficult to get pictures through, but possible.

I think it is more important that the purpose of the ASET be understood. I see talk of "red being better than green" etc. That is an incorrect interpretation of the purpose of the ASET in my opinion.

The ASET is a tool that will tell you where the light that you are seeing in a diamond is coming from.

The following degrees are from the horizon as 0 degrees to straight up as 90 degrees. The degrees also specify from where the light is coming in relation to the stone. There is no attempt to measure light that comes from below the horizon of the stone, since the importance of that light to the brilliance of the stone is minuscule.

From 0 degrees to 45 degrees the light that you are seeing in the ASET is depicted as green. In the older cuts you will see a LOT of green as they were cut to detect light from the walls and the lamps on them in the olden days.

From 45 degrees to 75 degrees, the light that you are seeing in the ASET is depicted as red. This light is often stronger than the light detected from the sides, especially indoors since we now have our lighting set in the ceilings of our rooms rather than on the sides. Thus strong presence of red indicates that the stone will be quite brilliant. However, if the stone were completely red with no contrast, you might as well be looking in a mirror, which would be quite boring as well as potentially embarrassing if it revealed a new pimple in its flawless return of the light.

From 75 to 90 degrees the light that you are seeing in the ASET is depicted as blue. This is in fact the obstruction that is caused by the very act of you turning the diamond so that you can observe the diamond perpendicularly to the table. It is very important as this is what provides the contrast. The Dark Blue are normally facets that are "turned off" since your head is blocking the light that is attempting to get to them. Even the beating of your heart is enough to cause the diamond to minutely move, turning on some of the facets that are off and on some off some of the facets that are on. It is this sparkling, or scintillation as it is called that makes diamonds exciting. (If you have a big head or a bouffant hairdo you might actually obscure up to 40 degrees instead of the 30 degrees that is shown in the ASET. This is also why so many close up pictures of diamonds look so horrible, as the lens is blocking too many degrees of light making the diamond look dark when at a normal viewing distance it is incredible.)

When a dark background is used, black is the color that is depicted where there is no reflection of light from that position of the stone. A little black around the edges can be an additional contrast that is not all bad. Excessive black is telling the tale on a lifeless lump of crystallized carbon that very few people will ever want to own. If no background is used, the areas that are black will appear as clear areas.

As has been said, green is not bad, it is merely light that is coming in from the sides of the diamond, and since it is less brilliant usually than light coming in from overhead, it too can add a touch of extra contrast to your diamond. Too much green in a stone that should be cut to grab most of its light from overhead is not good though. It is very common to see much more green in a princess or cushion cut than we would accept in a modern round brilliant as the physics of light science decree that light in a square stone reacts differently than in a round stone.

Long story short. None of the colors is inherently good or bad, it is the combination of them that makes a stone desirable. Those combinations will also be different in different shaped diamonds.

Sad short story. Most retail jewelers will not have a clue what you are talking about when you ask about an ASET image. That says too many volumes about the educational level of most retail jewelers.

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

It can take several hundred hours to calibrate an ASET photo setup to show what you see when looking into the scope in a repeatable manner. Then once it is set up it has to be left alone. Very few vendors are willing to put the time, effort, space and $$$ into it to get a repeatable accurate setup. Once you have the setup there is significant training involved for the people using it.

The camera setup from AGS is basically useless.
The scope that sets the diamonds table on a glass plate can only be calibrated to one crown height.
It gives inaccurate results on diamonds with higher or lower crowns than the calibration stone.
The ideal-light type setup with single sized holes also only works with a small size range of stones.
The strip with different size holes AGS provided with one of their viewers is a step up.
The multi-sized hole clear plates that Garry used to sell are as close to ideal as it gets.
Using the right size hole to properly position the girdle gives the best results.
This also helps when leveling the stone. The right fit stabilizes the stone in the plate.

 

[Karl_K]

re: usefulness of ASET images.
They are one of many tools for accessing diamonds remotely.
Sometimes I think too much weight is given to them others not enough.
Live view of diamonds both with and without the ASET scope is much better but not always possible.
Video when done right under controlled, repeatable and real world relative conditions blows it away.
When those are not possible the ASET image can be one of many bits of information to take into account.
Using ASET/IS in person can give someone a head start on selecting a decent performance stone over looking at it with no tools.
If after looking at it in ASET someone likes the one that looks worse in ASET view then so be it.

Anyone that makes the blanket statement that more red is always better does not understand diamond optics.
A diamond with more red may be better in some cases but it can also be a sign of a poor cut in an EC and maybe some other cuts.
The obstruction model in any scope is a serious departure from the real world and can cause false positives and false negatives.
I like ASET images because I feel even badly taken ones can tell me things about a diamond but they are never the final world.

 

[Karl_K]

The final word has been and always will be the owner wearing the diamond in their environment over an extended period of time.

 

[Rhino]

re: usefulness of ASET images.
They are one of many tools for accessing diamonds remotely.
Sometimes I think too much weight is given to them others not enough.
Live view of diamonds both with and without the ASET scope is much better but not always possible.
Video when done right under controlled, repeatable and real world relative conditions blows it away.
When those are not possible the ASET image can be one of many bits of information to take into account.
Using ASET/IS in person can give someone a head start on selecting a decent performance stone over looking at it with no tools.
If after looking at it in ASET someone likes the one that looks worse in ASET view then so be it.

Anyone that makes the blanket statement that more red is always better does not understand diamond optics.
A diamond with more red may be better in some cases but it can also be a sign of a poor cut in an EC and maybe some other cuts.
The obstruction model in any scope is a serious departure from the real world and can cause false positives and false negatives.
I like ASET images because I feel even badly taken ones can tell me things about a diamond but they are never the final world.

Preach it brother. I particularly like your comment ... "The obstruction model in any scope is a serious departure from the real world and can cause false positives and false negatives."

I've seen diamonds with seemingly great ASET's and seemingly bad ASET's due to what you are talking about here. Reason is, it is not taking into account the dynamics of each individual's focal length.

 

[WinkHPD]

Rhino,

You remind me of when I first entered the business back in the mid 70's.

I worked at a store and we sold a lot of "Ideal" cut stones, back before there was an ASET.

Often I would call pull out an incredible stone and the boyfriend and I would absolutely love it and the lady would tell me that it was so dark.

Those ladies would always fall in love with a stone that was to me completely inferior in cut. After I studied the ASET and what it told us about a diamonds cut and thought back about those ladies, I realized that they were wearing bouffant hair styles and were thus obstucting from 40 to 50 percent of the light and if I could go back and do an ASET on the stones they chose, I am guessing that they would all have a lot of green to them. As a diamond vendor, I am very happy that bouffant styles are no longer in vogue!

Wink

 

[Roxy]

If someone is very familiar with the type of look they want and how it correlates with ASET it might prove helpful.

David, you buried that little nugget entirely too well. Think if I make it bigger and bolder it will get the attention it deserves?

Red is NOT "always better".
Green does NOT "always indicate inferior performance".
Whether or not an ASET photo indicates "desirable performance" depends entirely on how one defines "desirable" - what the consumer wants to see, what the goals of cutting were and whether those goals matter to that consumer...
And... yes, people really DO define "desirable" differently.

Like the output of any other tool in the world, an ASET photo is absolutely meaningless unless the consumer understands what those colours say about appearance and light return in the real world and how he/she feels about that real-world translation. Many people who come to PS are looking for the same aesthetic but some aren't, and IMO it's lamentably blinkered to fail to consider that possibility.

Me, I've seen and owned (and still own) too many stones with "poor ASETs" that I absolutely adore to blindly espouse the Red Is Best philosophy. Sometimes patterning and history is just more important to me. Sometimes the stone with barely any red under the ASET scope is the little pot of glitter I can't take my eyes off of. Heck, my briolette looks absolutely dead under IS/ASET and it's one of my all-time favourite stones

On another note: I am trying and failing to understand how ASET equipment can be calibrated differently. The heights of colours down the scope corresponding to angles of incident light are static. The bottom of the scope should always rest on the girdle plane. We can expect issues with photographing very large or very small stones. But if the scopes are manufactured in exactly the same way and the same directions for use are followed, the amount of red/green/blue/black/white should be exactly the same... if I'm misunderstanding and AGSL manufacturers pre-calibrated "ASET cameras" that produce different images, well, that's something that should be addressed but nothing to do with JA. If the 'differences' imply changes to post-photography processing, well, that's a whole different problem, but that's not what I took from that response.
Can someone in the trade elaborate on the problems light reflector technology setups pose?

I have never owned an ASET camera, but I have one of the first ASET machines built, and in my opinion, one of the best. The diamond table lays on the glass of the ASET and the image is seen through an eyepiece using mirrors to turn the image from the diamond back up to the viewer. The diamond table is ALWAYS perfectly perpendicular to the eye since it is laying on the glass rather than in a detente.

It is difficult to get pictures through, but possible.

I think it is more important that the purpose of the ASET be understood. I see talk of "red being better than green" etc. That is an incorrect interpretation of the purpose of the ASET in my opinion.

The ASET is a tool that will tell you where the light that you are seeing in a diamond is coming from.

The following degrees are from the horizon as 0 degrees to straight up as 90 degrees. The degrees also specify from where the light is coming in relation to the stone. There is no attempt to measure light that comes from below the horizon of the stone, since the importance of that light to the brilliance of the stone is minuscule.

From 0 degrees to 45 degrees the light that you are seeing in the ASET is depicted as green. In the older cuts you will see a LOT of green as they were cut to detect light from the walls and the lamps on them in the olden days.

From 45 degrees to 75 degrees, the light that you are seeing in the ASET is depicted as red. This light is often stronger than the light detected from the sides, especially indoors since we now have our lighting set in the ceilings of our rooms rather than on the sides. Thus strong presence of red indicates that the stone will be quite brilliant. However, if the stone were completely red with no contrast, you might as well be looking in a mirror, which would be quite boring as well as potentially embarrassing if it revealed a new pimple in its flawless return of the light.

From 75 to 90 degrees the light that you are seeing in the ASET is depicted as blue. This is in fact the obstruction that is caused by the very act of you turning the diamond so that you can observe the diamond perpendicularly to the table. It is very important as this is what provides the contrast. The Dark Blue are normally facets that are "turned off" since your head is blocking the light that is attempting to get to them. Even the beating of your heart is enough to cause the diamond to minutely move, turning on some of the facets that are off and on some off some of the facets that are on. It is this sparkling, or scintillation as it is called that makes diamonds exciting. (If you have a big head or a bouffant hairdo you might actually obscure up to 40 degrees instead of the 30 degrees that is shown in the ASET. This is also why so many close up pictures of diamonds look so horrible, as the lens is blocking too many degrees of light making the diamond look dark when at a normal viewing distance it is incredible.)

When a dark background is used, black is the color that is depicted where there is no reflection of light from that position of the stone. A little black around the edges can be an additional contrast that is not all bad. Excessive black is telling the tale on a lifeless lump of crystallized carbon that very few people will ever want to own. If no background is used, the areas that are black will appear as clear areas.

As has been said, green is not bad, it is merely light that is coming in from the sides of the diamond, and since it is less brilliant usually than light coming in from overhead, it too can add a touch of extra contrast to your diamond. Too much green in a stone that should be cut to grab most of its light from overhead is not good though. It is very common to see much more green in a princess or cushion cut than we would accept in a modern round brilliant as the physics of light science decree that light in a square stone reacts differently than in a round stone.

Long story short. None of the colors is inherently good or bad, it is the combination of them that makes a stone desirable. Those combinations will also be different in different shaped diamonds.

Sad short story. Most retail jewelers will not have a clue what you are talking about when you ask about an ASET image. That says too many volumes about the educational level of most retail jewelers.

Wink

The final word has been and always will be the owner wearing the diamond in their environment over an extended period of time.

+100 . Yssie, Wink, Karl: I hope you don't mind my quoting and coloring your words, but having just responded to someone who is trying to choose between two ASETs for oval shaped stones, your explanations are perfect!

When I was shopping for an oval, one of the best pieces of advice I read here on PS was to focus on the patterning of the facets that I saw in the ASET images vs specific amounts of each color. Then to work with the vendor to get more info wrt the stone's actual light performance, etc. This may be most applicable to fancy shapes (I don't know), but it was extremely helpful to me in wading through all of the data out there.

In my case the vendor was willing to make a video where they pointed out the "real-life" aspects of the stone as compared to its ASET image (e.g., although you want a minimum bowtie, you'll get some brilliant bursts of light from the facets located across the belly of the stone). I liked the symmetry of the patterning that I'd seen in the ASET image and thought it would be a beautiful diamond, and sure enough when I saw the video I was dazzled by the stone.

I just wanted to highlight this in hopes of helping others like me who are just trying to learn as we go through the process of choosing our "perfect sparkly" .

 

[WinkHPD]

Sounds like you were working with a good vendor who took excellent care of you.

Thank you for your kind words and also for sharing your experience with us.

Wink

 

[Rhino]

Rhino,

You remind me of when I first entered the business back in the mid 70's.

I worked at a store and we sold a lot of "Ideal" cut stones, back before there was an ASET.

Often I would call pull out an incredible stone and the boyfriend and I would absolutely love it and the lady would tell me that it was so dark.

Those ladies would always fall in love with a stone that was to me completely inferior in cut. After I studied the ASET and what it told us about a diamonds cut and thought back about those ladies, I realized that they were wearing bouffant hair styles and were thus obstucting from 40 to 50 percent of the light and if I could go back and do an ASET on the stones they chose, I am guessing that they would all have a lot of green to them. As a diamond vendor, I am very happy that bouffant styles are no longer in vogue!

Wink

BOUFFANT HAIRDOS!!! Yep ... that'd do it every time and your spot on about the darkness. You know what though ... couple that amount of obscuration with the fact they were likely observing the diamond in spot lighting and you have a double whammy. Not to mention the fact that even though afros were on their way out in the 70's both African American as well as Caucasian friends of mine still sported them adding to the obscuration equation along with those bouffant hairdo's. White boy afros' ... my how times have changed.

And Roxy, yes fancy shapes are and can be very tricky. Photographs are good but never can tell the whole story. They are good for facet patterning as you point out but not to be confused with patterning of bright/dark reflections which is a function of light performance.

Warm regards,
Jonathan

 

[Serg]

On another note: I am trying and failing to understand how ASET equipment can be calibrated differently. The heights of colours down the scope corresponding to angles of incident light are static. The bottom of the scope should always rest on the girdle plane. We can expect issues with photographing very large or very small stones. But if the scopes are manufactured in exactly the same way and the same directions for use are followed, the amount of red/green/blue/black/white should be exactly the same... if I'm misunderstanding and AGSL manufacturers pre-calibrated "ASET cameras" that produce different images, well, that's something that should be addressed but nothing to do with JA. If the 'differences' imply changes to post-photography processing, well, that's a whole different problem, but that's not what I took from that response.
Can someone in the trade elaborate on the problems light reflector technology setups pose?

Yssie - I fail to understand as well. We have worked with AGS over the years to "fix" their ASET machines multiple times. The last machine we received (about six months ago) gave us far better images than we had before (in regard to overall image quality and focus), but we've still suspected we are getting green where there should be red and black where there should be blue.

I took an AGS0 "True Hearts" round and put it in the machine this morning. Below you can see the image produced by the ASET machine (which is manufactured by AGS and has been calibrated by them as well), compared to the computer generated image on the AGS report.

We're really at a loss what to do and a bit befuddled when we see images from other vendors that are completely saturated in red. I think that's what the CSR was trying to say when they responded to the OP.

Regardless, every time one of these threads pop-up we go and take another look at the setup. Who knows - maybe the 5th time is a charm

edited to add: I was just informed AGS no longer sells the camera setup. I think it's time to build our own...

Hi James,

please check below images.

Is it good enough correlation between ASET Photo and AGS PGS image?

 

[Serg]

comparison images for Cushion

 

[diagem]

comparison images for Cushion

Hi Sergey,

I remember Garry once mentioned point & shoot delivers the most efficient ASET images.
I am exploring with more complicated equipment let see how this turns out...
I notice on your ASET images a reflective mirror image on one side only.
Are these images generated on DiBox?

As Karl mentioned, the table top ASET (which Wink also mentioned where you could place the Diamond face-down) could have been the perfect device if the dome was distance (from Diamond) adjustable. AGS should explore this option further as it could be a solution to this issue.

ETA, it looks to me as JA is using the AGS table top device as well. Due to the fact that Cushions vary in crown & pavilion configurations (e.g. facets, angles, azimuths & PD/CH) the ASET results lean towards the green color. This device was created for Rounds mainly or models with similar facet configurations.

 

[Serg]

comparison images for Cushion

Hi Sergey,

I remember Garry once mentioned point & shoot delivers the most efficient ASET images.
I am exploring with more complicated equipment let see how this turns out...
I notice on your ASET images a reflective mirror image on one side only.
Are these images generated on DiBox?

As Karl mentioned, the table top ASET (which Wink also mentioned where you could place the Diamond face-down) could have been the perfect device if the dome was distance (from Diamond) adjustable. AGS should explore this option further as it could be a solution to this issue.

ETA, it looks to me as JA is using the AGS table top device as well. Due to the fact that Cushions vary in crown & pavilion configurations (e.g. facets, angles, azimuths & PD/CH) the ASET results lean towards the green color. This device was created for Rounds mainly or models with similar facet configurations.

Hi Yoram,

Yes, its are Dibox images.
reflection is fake( had been added by software)

We do not use "Table Top, Diamond face-down on glass " method because it creates Newton Rings( colorful stripes ) sometimes
see example below

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Another issue with Glass tops with the stone facing down is that the glass affects the low angle green.
My hand held device (that is also the component in the AGS desk top viewer) are relatively small and so the results from identically proportioned 5mm diamond are different to that for a 10mm diamond.

 

[diagem]

comparison images for Cushion

Hi Sergey,

I remember Garry once mentioned point & shoot delivers the most efficient ASET images.
I am exploring with more complicated equipment let see how this turns out...
I notice on your ASET images a reflective mirror image on one side only.
Are these images generated on DiBox?

As Karl mentioned, the table top ASET (which Wink also mentioned where you could place the Diamond face-down) could have been the perfect device if the dome was distance (from Diamond) adjustable. AGS should explore this option further as it could be a solution to this issue.

ETA, it looks to me as JA is using the AGS table top device as well. Due to the fact that Cushions vary in crown & pavilion configurations (e.g. facets, angles, azimuths & PD/CH) the ASET results lean towards the green color. This device was created for Rounds mainly or models with similar facet configurations.

Hi Yoram,

Yes, its are Dibox images.
reflection is fake( had been added by software)

We do not use "Table Top, Diamond face-down on glass " method because it creates Newton Rings( colorful stripes ) sometimes
see example below

Thank you Sergey, that is good to know although I personaly didn't experience this phenomena. I bet now I will start to notice.

 

[diagem]

Another issue with Glass tops with the stone facing down is that the glass affects the low angle green.
My hand held device (that is also the component in the AGS desk top viewer) are relatively small and so the results from identically proportioned 5mm diamond are different to that for a 10mm diamond.

Good point Garry, so most devices/viewers are aimed towards the smaller sizes, what happens if someone needs it for a 10mm+ size?
Important question (to you and/or Sergey)..., does DiBox take this limitation into account? What will be the max size effectiveness with DiBox?

 

[Serg]

Another issue with Glass tops with the stone facing down is that the glass affects the low angle green.
My hand held device (that is also the component in the AGS desk top viewer) are relatively small and so the results from identically proportioned 5mm diamond are different to that for a 10mm diamond.

Good point Garry, so most devices/viewers are aimed towards the smaller sizes, what happens if someone needs it for a 10mm+ size?
Important question (to you and/or Sergey)..., does DiBox take this limitation into account? What will be the max size effectiveness with DiBox?

Yoram,

we use very big Hemisphere for ASET light in Dibox . So diamonds with diameters in range 5-10 mm give quite similar Dibox photos.