- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Low LGF%? Need advice on this stone
- Thread starter echelon6
- Start date
- Status
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
If it exists it exists, no reason to hide from it or be scared of it.
There are going to be trade offs to any change you make in a diamonds configuration.
Research into how to min. those trade offs and get the result our looking for will be the result of good research and good for consumers and trade alike.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Not hiding from it Storm, but there is currently NO WAY to get the actual number that I can put my hand on. It is certainly miniscule if it is there at all and no where near the huge numbers given as an example and stated as fact in an earlier post in this thread. Those huge numbers simply do NOT exist or the stones would have fallen from AGS 0 to AGS 5 or so.
I will wait until there is an adequate way to determine those numbers, tiny as they may be, but contrary to some others, I have never seen an ugly AGS 0 cut diamond. Must be that I just don't see enough diamonds, but in the thousands of AGS 0's that I have seen there have been many with different flavors, more dispersion, less dispersion, etc, but none that did not warrent the grade by their beauty.
What I fear, is that when there is a way, people who have seen few if any diamonds will suddenly be "expert" enouugh to now declare that this diamond or that diamond is unworthy when the truth is that most of them could not tell it from the diamond deemed worthy with their eyes if their life depended on it. We are paralyzing by analysis when we should be celebrating the beauty.
It is a bad game, and it is getting worse. Just visit the 41 degree thread and see the damage done to a very beautiful stone in response to a general question. I know that my friend Michael disagrees with me, but I agree with cutters like Paul and Brian and Bill Bray who feel like 41 is on the edge, but WHO ACKNOWLEDGE that it can be done. Sometimes being on the edge is good, since being dead bang in the center of the target area does not always make the most beautiful stone, since being on the edge can highlight the contrast that makes the stone pop. PROVIDED that all the rules are followed for the stone to be on the edge and still be worthy of the AGS 0 grade.
Wink
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
I can understand that smaller, more broken up (and longer lgf is one thing that helps do this) have a greater liklihood to be turned *on* (meaning facing the eye) in a greater, more scattered number achieving an overall perception of whiteness, but it is also my experience that any one of those shards that is turned on will deliver less light return. So in a scint sort of situation you are getting a lot more tinkles and possibly more overall light return as they are scattered around the diamond, but when you hit the, albeit less frequent and less pervasive, on facets for the "chunkier" stones you get a much larger pow of light. Kinda like 1+1+1+1+1 vs 0+0+0+0+5. That''s my experience anyway, but it is based on eyes and whatever logic I might posess LOL
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
I was thinking much the same... and for ME at least with my stone even if I''m trading 1+1+1+1+1 for 0+0+0+0+4 (overall less light return) that knock-out blast of 4 kicks serious butt in my book and I would choose that over the other stone. Big facets do amazing things... small facets also do "cute" that are pretty and everything but those big ones really wow me. I know others disagree and would rather have more balance or even tons of pinfire... so yeah I think even if there *is* a difference it is still much much more a matter of taste. And up until now I''ve not seen it debated as anything else. I think the OP is trying to quantify preference!
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
my stone is VERY dispersive and what you said above - people standing a bit back might see color - cracked me up. The big facets on my stone shoot rainbows out easily 6-10 feet and I can see the rainbows on people''s faces and make it flicker across their eyes - hehe - so far its just been on my family but what fun to have a ring that doesn''t just twinkle but sends out flares across the room LOL Almost everything that comes out of my stone is a color of some sort be it reflection or refraction. In a few weeks you''ll see for yourself
As for your theory in the 2nd paragraph, not only would I bet that there is truth to that, but I''d be willing to bet that at least some people would be willing to sacrifice some of the brilliance for increased fire. ::raising hand:: I''d be one of them!
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
WorkingHardforSmallRewards
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,236
First I wanted to say, thanks for explaining why the fire in my diamond was so much more visible when I looked at it in the mirror at a distance than when I held it up near my face and looked at it lol, nice to know, keep it some distance from her when I propose perhaps?
. They made the right decision not to display that information. The real reason I asked is because mine is all zeros, as I mentioned in another thread (one of the documents where it actually has the all listed) and I was trying to mooch my way in to this thread to determine what percentage AGS0 actually do carry with them some decimal value deductions, as it seemed like you might know how common some small deductions are.
the other reason I asked was because my understanding is that, for example, since I am not sure about exact numbers, AGS0 diamonds return 91%+ of light. Then some would return 96% and some would return 91%
In your prevoius post you mentioned that a difference of 1 to 2% would not be observable but it makes sense to me, at least, that, perhaps, since you felt it neccesary to point out that 1-2 wouldn't be observable, that 5% might be somewhat observable. Thus if the AGS 0 contained % differences but were still small enough deductions so as not to affect the actual cut grade then those % performance differences could only be reflected via decimal value deductions.
thus if you then rounded those off as zero's then the actual percentage difference would not be displayed and it would appear to be purely a matter of preference over one of performance, and it thus requires us to trust that AGS0's have no visual differences even when performance differences do infact exist. Also, if the decimal values are not considered then there doesn't seem to be any need to actual write out all 11 properties as you did,because the AGS 0 by defintion defines each of the 11 properties as 0 --which means that by rounding no new informatoin was been given right?
Mostly though, I don't know enough to keep up with you guys, probably for the rest of this year, at least, so I was just trying to mooch my way in to find out a general impression of how many AGS0's carry that joked about 00000000000 down to the last decimal value.
but not to in anyway deter anyone else from any AGS0 purchase but just be super proud of my own
lol, nice to know, keep it some distance from her when I propose perhaps?Oh don't worry about that, i def understand. I wouldn't think anybody should turn down a diamond based on decimal points within the AGS0, and I can tell you from experience AGS isn't going to tell us as consumers what tiny deductions might be present anyway
the other reason I asked was because my understanding is that, for example, since I am not sure about exact numbers, AGS0 diamonds return 91%+ of light. Then some would return 96% and some would return 91%
In your prevoius post you mentioned that a difference of 1 to 2% would not be observable but it makes sense to me, at least, that, perhaps, since you felt it neccesary to point out that 1-2 wouldn't be observable, that 5% might be somewhat observable. Thus if the AGS 0 contained % differences but were still small enough deductions so as not to affect the actual cut grade then those % performance differences could only be reflected via decimal value deductions.
thus if you then rounded those off as zero's then the actual percentage difference would not be displayed and it would appear to be purely a matter of preference over one of performance, and it thus requires us to trust that AGS0's have no visual differences even when performance differences do infact exist. Also, if the decimal values are not considered then there doesn't seem to be any need to actual write out all 11 properties as you did,because the AGS 0 by defintion defines each of the 11 properties as 0 --which means that by rounding no new informatoin was been given right?
Mostly though, I don't know enough to keep up with you guys, probably for the rest of this year, at least, so I was just trying to mooch my way in to find out a general impression of how many AGS0's carry that joked about 00000000000 down to the last decimal value.
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
the thing is, WH - the goal isn''t necessarily to have a diamond that is at 99.99%. Wink was explaining to you that other stones can be equally and even MORE beautiful to an individual. This isn''t a racecar, it is a piece of art. Nuance can be everything and numbers can mean nothing.Date: 7/16/2007 7:51:23 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
First I wanted to say, thanks for explaining why the fire in my diamond was so much more visible when I looked at it in the mirror at a distance than when I held it up near my face and looked at it
Oh don''t worry about that, i def understand. I wouldn''t think anybody should turn down a diamond based on decimal points within the AGS0, and I can tell you from experience AGS isn''t going to tell us as consumers what tiny deductions might be present anyway. They made the right decision not to display that information. The real reason I asked is because mine is all zeros, as I mentioned in another thread (one of the documents where it actually has the all listed) and I was trying to mooch my way in to this thread to determine what percentage AGS0 actually do carry with them some decimal value deductions, as it seemed like you might know how common some small deductions are.
the other reason I asked was because my understanding is that, for example, since I am not sure about exact numbers, AGS0 diamonds return 91%+ of light. Then some would return 96% and some would return 91%
In your prevoius post you mentioned that a difference of 1 to 2% would not be observable but it makes sense to me, at least, that, perhaps, since you felt it neccesary to point out that 1-2 wouldn''t be observable, that 5% might be somewhat observable. Thus if the AGS 0 contained % differences but were still small enough deductions so as not to affect the actual cut grade then those % performance differences could only be reflected via decimal value deductions.
thus if you then rounded those off as zero''s then the actual percentage difference would not be displayed and it would appear to be purely a matter of preference over one of performance, and it thus requires us to trust that AGS0''s have no visual differences even when performance differences do infact exist. Also, if the decimal values are not considered then there doesn''t seem to be any need to actual write out all 11 properties as you did,because the AGS 0 by defintion defines each of the 11 properties as 0 --which means that by rounding no new informatoin was been given right?
Mostly though, I don''t know enough to keep up with you guys, probably for the rest of this year, at least, so I was just trying to mooch my way in to find out a general impression of how many AGS0''s carry that joked about 00000000000 down to the last decimal value.but not to in anyway deter anyone else from any AGS0 purchase but just be super proud of my own
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
Now that was laughing out loud funny, and it is 90 degrees in my office, so I needed that!Date: 7/16/2007 7:51:23 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
First I wanted to say, thanks for explaining why the fire in my diamond was so much more visible when I looked at it in the mirror at a distance than when I held it up near my face and looked at it
Wink
WorkingHardforSmallRewards
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,236
I do what I canDate: 7/16/2007 7:59:14 PM
Author: Wink
Now that was laughing out loud funny, and it is 90 degrees in my office, so I needed that!Date: 7/16/2007 7:51:23 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
First I wanted to say, thanks for explaining why the fire in my diamond was so much more visible when I looked at it in the mirror at a distance than when I held it up near my face and looked at it
Wink
WorkingHardforSmallRewards
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,236
Oh I know that. I don't really care overly much about brightness for a diamond of my own so much as I do about fire. For my own diamond when the time comes, I may actually try to go check out a few of those old cuts...see how those fair to my eyes. But at the same time, I have purchased what I have purchased and rarity is one of the main reasons for a diamond's value. Then here on PS we spend alot of time analyzing light performance and aiming for those ridiculously high % marks--so it would be nice to know anyway
Also, I thought that my points on rounding and performance actually being displayed were valid, but perhaps not. I have too much to learn to really get too involved in these recent threads.
- Joined
- May 3, 2001
- Messages
- 7,516
As for the rest of your post, I will admitt that I do not know, what the decimals are and what the variances are, I am much more a look see guy than hey, my paper is better than your paper guy. I have been forced to learn much of this "stuff" but I do not memorize it, and would have to go look up the answers you ask for and I don''t have the time, nor the inclination to do so.
Even if I knew them, I am not sure that I would be doing the public a favor to dispense them, as I see more and more people becoming paralized instead of empowered.
As I have said before, I can readily see different flavors of AGS 0''s, but I have never seen an ugly one and I do not believe that I could line up twelve stones from the top of the grade to the bottom of the grade in the correct order to save my life. Maybe Brian or Paul could, but even then I would not want to take that side of the bet, but would rather bet against them if they had to do it only with their eyes and not mix up a any of the stones in the correct order. (That concept by the way, comes from a discussion I had with John Pollard earlier today, I can not claim it as my own.) In fact, because of the strictness of the polish and symmetry factors, you could easily have some AGS 1''s and maybe some 2''s that would be difficult to separate with only the unaided eye from the AGS 0''s.
Wink
Even if I knew them, I am not sure that I would be doing the public a favor to dispense them, as I see more and more people becoming paralized instead of empowered.
As I have said before, I can readily see different flavors of AGS 0''s, but I have never seen an ugly one and I do not believe that I could line up twelve stones from the top of the grade to the bottom of the grade in the correct order to save my life. Maybe Brian or Paul could, but even then I would not want to take that side of the bet, but would rather bet against them if they had to do it only with their eyes and not mix up a any of the stones in the correct order. (That concept by the way, comes from a discussion I had with John Pollard earlier today, I can not claim it as my own.) In fact, because of the strictness of the polish and symmetry factors, you could easily have some AGS 1''s and maybe some 2''s that would be difficult to separate with only the unaided eye from the AGS 0''s.
Wink
WorkingHardforSmallRewards
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,236
echelon6
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 264
Wow I go to sleep and this morning I find another page on my thread. Thanks to all, it was a great read.
I think I''ll accept the tradeoff of total light for extra fire because a) it''s not noticeable as Wink repeatedly points out, and b) I prefer fire to white light anyway. I mean, if I wanted brilliance, I''d get her a mirror.
Sara, your analogy is great. I too would be willing to trade 1+1+1+1+1 for 0+0+0+0+4.85 (not 4
)
Now, can someone please explain to me what all this AGS 0000000000 is? Is there a 0 applied to each criteria? Are those 0s the same 0s next to each criteria on a Sarin report?
Thanks
I think I''ll accept the tradeoff of total light for extra fire because a) it''s not noticeable as Wink repeatedly points out, and b) I prefer fire to white light anyway. I mean, if I wanted brilliance, I''d get her a mirror.
Sara, your analogy is great. I too would be willing to trade 1+1+1+1+1 for 0+0+0+0+4.85 (not 4
Now, can someone please explain to me what all this AGS 0000000000 is? Is there a 0 applied to each criteria? Are those 0s the same 0s next to each criteria on a Sarin report?
Thanks
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
dude, if you got her a mirror you might see some f(ire) in another way!! LOLDate: 7/16/2007 8:41:18 PM
Author: echelon6
Wow I go to sleep and this morning I find another page on my thread. Thanks to all, it was a great read.
I think I''ll accept the tradeoff of total light for extra fire because a) it''s not noticeable as Wink repeatedly points out, and b) I prefer fire to white light anyway. I mean, if I wanted brilliance, I''d get her a mirror.
Sara, your analogy is great. I too would be willing to trade 1+1+1+1+1 for 0+0+0+0+4.85 (not 4)
Now, can someone please explain to me what all this AGS 0000000000 is? Is there a 0 applied to each criteria? Are those 0s the same 0s next to each criteria on a Sarin report?
Thanks
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Better get the kickenist oec then to hit 0+0+0+0+4.85Date: 7/16/2007 8:41:18 PM
Author: echelon6
Sara, your analogy is great. I too would be willing to trade 1+1+1+1+1 for 0+0+0+0+4.85 (not 4)
Thanks
Even an 8 star wouldnt hit that.
more like 1+1.85+2+0+0 on the chera scale.
In RB the B stands for Brilliant.
Maybe someone will take the new tech and invent a super-ideal RF.
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
Setting hot tubs aside for a moment…
The top AGS grade does represents a range of equal performance. Like the HCA, there are different taste factors within the same grade which is why people compare the overall merits of one AGS 0 vs another AGS 0 on PS.
To that end 0.00 in all 4 performance factors may suit Susie''s taste but greater dispersion relative to brightness may suit Billy''s taste, if they can perceive the differences (insert Cehra’s good example). This is the reason AGS made the decision not to include the deductions on the DQDiamonds able to achieve AGS Ideal are commensurate.Within that the lab doesn’t wish to give false “nano-spec” impressions with x.xx values that (a) may not be perceivable because cut perception varies and (b) at the point they become perceivable they’re matters of taste.
Some of our veteran posters dread any “nano-spec” discussions.Others dissect wavelengths and azimuth shift.For the consumers coming here for info there’s a happy place in-between (maybe it has hot tubs?).
The top AGS grade does represents a range of equal performance. Like the HCA, there are different taste factors within the same grade which is why people compare the overall merits of one AGS 0 vs another AGS 0 on PS.
To that end 0.00 in all 4 performance factors may suit Susie''s taste but greater dispersion relative to brightness may suit Billy''s taste, if they can perceive the differences (insert Cehra’s good example). This is the reason AGS made the decision not to include the deductions on the DQD
iamonds able to achieve AGS Ideal are commensurate.Within that the lab doesn’t wish to give false “nano-spec” impressions with x.xx values that (a) may not be perceivable because cut perception varies and (b) at the point they become perceivable they’re matters of taste.Some of our veteran posters dread any “nano-spec” discussions.Others dissect wavelengths and azimuth shift.For the consumers coming here for info there’s a happy place in-between (maybe it has hot tubs?).
JohnQuixote
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2004
- Messages
- 5,212
More about that: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ags-to-introduce-new-dqd-report-format.59690/
Timely question as there''s similar discussion.
strmrdr
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2003
- Messages
- 23,295
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
I *love* being in over my head with my personal opinions trying to stay afloat with the big boys - I love gnawing the minutia.... but yeah, there is something about using all of that when choosing a diamond. I seriously don''t think I''d even go that deep choosing a round LOL But it''s fun to talk about... and the more I understand the details about rounds, the more I store info in my head to formulate questions and ideas about cushions....Date: 7/16/2007 9:35:41 PM
Author: JohnQuixote
Setting hot tubs aside for a moment…
The top AGS grade does represents a range of equal performance. Like the HCA, there are different taste factors within the same grade which is why people compare the overall merits of one AGS 0 vs another AGS 0 on PS.
To that end 0.00 in all 4 performance factors may suit Susie''s taste but greater dispersion relative to brightness may suit Billy''s taste, if they can perceive the differences (insert Cehra’s good example). This is the reason AGS made the decision not to include the deductions on the DQD
Some of our veteran posters dread any “nano-spec” discussions.Others dissect wavelengths and azimuth shift.For the consumers coming here for info there’s a happy place in-between (maybe it has hot tubs?).
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,887
Wink I believe AGS 0.0000 light return does not mean best of best, and certainly the contrast is greatly effected by a 74 lgf - so it would seem the same is true there. It is one of the problems with AGS''s system. There must be a chance the scale starts at say -1.5 or something for rounds and -4 for some other fancy cuts.
echelon6
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 264
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2000
- Messages
- 18,887
Little theory needed if you understand ideal-scope - the dark is from a normal sized head at about 14 inches.
The top is 90% lower girdle length and 50% star
The lower is 60% lgl and 50% star.
The light return and contrast all take a serious hit in DiamCalc ETAS for light return and contrast etc.
Earlier Ech you asked about the diamond without observer - ever heard of Shrodinger''s Cat? (spelling? Link anyone?)
echelon6
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2007
- Messages
- 264
Haha drawing an analogy from quantum physics.
I know this debate is getting academic, and I don''t mind the 74 LGF anymore, now I''m just interested in the theory behind this.
So you''re saying that all light performance methodology takes into account head obstruction, because thats how we will ever be able to view diamonds and its an immutable fact. But imagine for the sake of theory that, barring head obstruction, LGF should not have an effect on total light return, correct?
Also I wonder how techniques based on counting pixels work. Im sure the human eyes can detect intensities of light much greater than the maximum of digital cameras. (e.g. look at the Sun and the moon, both of which occupy the same amount of white pixel space, but the Sun''s 10^25 times brighter)
Therefore a diamond whose flares are more concentrated (unlike pinfire) should in theory be penalised by computer analysis by virtue of there being less pixel area? Or is current technology able to compensate for that somehow?
I know this debate is getting academic, and I don''t mind the 74 LGF anymore, now I''m just interested in the theory behind this.
So you''re saying that all light performance methodology takes into account head obstruction, because thats how we will ever be able to view diamonds and its an immutable fact. But imagine for the sake of theory that, barring head obstruction, LGF should not have an effect on total light return, correct?
Also I wonder how techniques based on counting pixels work. Im sure the human eyes can detect intensities of light much greater than the maximum of digital cameras. (e.g. look at the Sun and the moon, both of which occupy the same amount of white pixel space, but the Sun''s 10^25 times brighter)
Therefore a diamond whose flares are more concentrated (unlike pinfire) should in theory be penalised by computer analysis by virtue of there being less pixel area? Or is current technology able to compensate for that somehow?
Cehrabehra
Super_Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 11,071
I love your questions hereDate: 7/17/2007 3:28:08 AM
Author: echelon6
Haha drawing an analogy from quantum physics.
I know this debate is getting academic, and I don''t mind the 74 LGF anymore, now I''m just interested in the theory behind this.
So you''re saying that all light performance methodology takes into account head obstruction, because thats how we will ever be able to view diamonds and its an immutable fact. But imagine for the sake of theory that, barring head obstruction, LGF should not have an effect on total light return, correct?
Also I wonder how techniques based on counting pixels work. Im sure the human eyes can detect intensities of light much greater than the maximum of digital cameras. (e.g. look at the Sun and the moon, both of which occupy the same amount of white pixel space, but the Sun''s 10^25 times brighter)
Therefore a diamond whose flares are more concentrated (unlike pinfire) should in theory be penalised by computer analysis by virtue of there being less pixel area? Or is current technology able to compensate for that somehow?
and I''m glad you''ve forgiven short lower halves - Status
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings
Past, Present, Future: The Meaning of Three-Stone Engagement Rings - 04/14
300x240.png)