Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Optical Symmetry Sweetspot...Which AGS000?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
D

delonn

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
29
Last week, I purchased an AGS000 and while the HCA came in at 1.9 (Ex, VG, VG, VG) I wasn''t entirely happy with the cut (thanks to PS, I''ve become fickle). Specifically the optical symmetry was one of the worst that I''ve seen among AGS000s. Although I think it is nearly impossible to be assured of H&A from a cert alone, I believe that most H&A (or near H&A) fall in a specific range of values. While we can argue about how broad this range is, it seems from the ''Search by Cut'' tool in Pricescope that there is a sweet spot range. For example, Garry mentions that most H&A diamonds fall in the upper TIC range (the range looks to be 1.1-1.7 in HCA) and the vast majority of H&A diamonds listed have pavilian angles of 40.6-40.8 - which may preclude them from the ultra-low .4-.7 range. Similarly, I have yet to see a H&A w/ a 40.4 pav. angle or above a 62.3% depth. Given my anecdotal analysis, I am trying to determine which stone might have the best optical symmetry based on Cert data alone.

My hypothesis is that if a stone is within a strict proportion range (e.g., AGA 1A) and meets proven pav/crown combos (from PS ''Search by Cut''), one can predict with near certainty that a stone will have excellent optical symmetry. This may seem intuitive but I have yet to see a robust tool to predict H&A. In other words, would it be fair to say that a diamond w/ a certain H&A combination of pavilion/crown angles coupled with AGA 1A stats is reasonably likely to exhibit excellent H&A?

To test this hypothesis, I am currently evaluating 3 new stones and I would love to hear any expert opinions as to the liklihood of excellent optical symmetry. I will try to provide IS for all these stones to verify.

Original Diamond - I bought this and plan to return it.
1.71 AGS H VS1
7.71-7.78x4.73 - Great spread for 1.71?
Table: 54%
Depth: 61.1%
Crown Angle: 33.7 - Barely made the ideal range?
Pav. Angle: 41.1 - This is getting into Garry''s NGZ?
Girdle .6%-4.4% - Wavy girdle might explain the poor optical symmetry?
HCA: 1.9 (Ex, VG, VG, VG)

Diamond #1
1.71 AGS H VS2
7.63-7.68x4.76
Table: 54.9%
Depth: 62.3% - I don''t think I need to be concerned here as girdle is slightly thick?
Crown Angle: 34.7
Pav. Angle: 40.8
Girdle 1.7%-4.0%
HCA: 1.5 (Ex, Ex, Ex, VG)
Comments: Each of this stone''s specs falls within AGA 1A cut and 40.8 PA and 34.7 CA is common H&A combo. However, I''ve never seen a H&A with this large of depth but I think the depth has minimal impact on symmetry. I''m probably just paying more for the extra weight...right?

Diamond #2
1.70 AGS H VS2
7.62-7.66x4.72
Table: 55.3%
Depth: 61.8%
Crown Angle: 35
Pav. Angle: 40.4 - HCA says this is good but I''m not entirely sure. However, AGA knocks the 42.5% PA% into the 1B cut. My guess is that Garry would say that it might perform better if dirty, etc.?
Girdle 2.0%-2.4% - Is it good to have a this type of girdle consistency?
HCA: .7 (Ex, Ex, Ex, VG)
Comments: At first glance, the .7 HCA raised my eyebrows but I agree w/ some that HCA should not be used to ''split hairs'' between diamonds.

Diamond #3
1.70 AGS H VS2
7.62-7.69x4.72
Table: 55.9%
Depth: 61.6%
Crown Angle: 34.5
Pav. Angle: 41 degrees - 43.3% falls into AGA 1B category
Girdle 1.3%-3.5%
HCA: 1.8 (Ex, VG, VG, VG)

As I mention above, I am leaning towards new stone #1 as it has great HCA score, it has good pav/crown combo, and all proportions fall into AGA 1A. My only concern is the 62.3% depth, which I have never seen in H&A. To this end, what role does girdle % play in optical symmetry...is it bad to have a very consistent girdle as in stone #2 (2%-2.4%)? Aside from paying for extra girdle weight, is there a drawback to stone #1? Is there any reason why someone would prefer Ex, VG, VG, VG over Ex, Ex, Ex, Vg? Based on the specs above, which stone(s) would you select for further examination?

My apologies for all the questions...
 
Delonn it is possible to have H&A''s at 34.5C and 41.1 pavilion trhu a range of table sizes from below 50% to at least 65% table size.

Crown angles can go way under 30 degrees.
 
Delonn:

I would not worry too much on the smaller nuances of grading which you seem to be focusing on the numbers. Optical symmetry is important, but more important is leakage.

The Australian Cut Crusader has an idealscope you can view to check the leakage of a stone. Some leakage in certain areas provides contrast which is a good thing. It is not bad to have a consistent girdle. When searching a prospective stone I would worry about too much of a variance as is evident in your first stone. I would take a look at these stones in person to see if they speak to you. The HCA Computerized tool is good to root out lemons. I would focus more on the leakage, and than optical symmetry. Leakage being the most important aspect. There are plenty non-traditional Hearts and Aroows with crazy optical symmetry which perform well. THe 3 stones you have listed look good. I would take a look at all 3 in Person with an idealscope for leakage and Hearts & Arrows Viewer if you want to be a stickler on optical symmetry.
35.gif
 
The only way to tell Optical Symmetry for sure is a heart image.
period.
Its all in the hearts as Brian is fond of saying.

edit: Brian's company WF instead of showing heart images for every ACA offers a guarantee that the hearts meet his standards. His standards are high.
He evauluates the hearts himself as part of his acceptance rules that allow the stone to be an ACA.
 
Thank you for VERY MUCH for your feedback. I had no idea that H&A were possible in extreme ranges. First, I agree that the only way to be sure of leakage is IS and the only the way to be sure of H&A is a H&A viewer. Second, I concur that leakage is parament and optical symmetry is secondary. I am simply thinking that there has to be a better way of determining the likelyhood (probability) of optical symmetry without actually viewing a stone in person. The above stones are all great stones. However, because I will be purchasing online, it is difficult to compare all three side by side. Further, the expert IS seems to still be on backorder. To this end, I am trying to determine a way of PRIORITIZING in the event that the online vendor cannot provide ideal-scope images, etc. (Is hand ASET as good or better than beginner-IS?).

Are you all saying that the based on the numbers, each stone would have an equal chance of having excellent optical symmetry despite most H&A stones having a 1.1-1.7 HCA score, medium-slightly thick girdles, and paviliion angles of 40.6-40.8? If GOG or WF was selling a H&A stone with the same proportions, would it be reasonable to assume that a stone w/ matching angles would also have optical symmetry?

Note that my hypothesis assumes that each stone is cut with the same ''ideal'' standard in mind (resulting in equal probability of ascertaining various angles, etc.), which we know is not the case.

Naturally, the best way to view these diamonds is thru my own eyes but in the event that I cannot do it at the same time, how should I go about prioritizing? Additionally, am I correct in thinking that the 62.3% depth will not have a material impact on optical symmetry of Stone #1 given the slightly thick girdle?
 
Umm, all you have to do is call Good Old Gold and ask Tim or Jon to look at the stones for you. I don''t think he even keeps too many in stock that don''t meet the qualifications you are looking for. It is a little harder to get someone to give you visual feedback at WF, but if you''re patient, you can get it there, too.
 
the beginner scope is fine. unless you want to buy fancies in the future, you don''t really need the ASET.

Proportions and optical symmetry have nothing to do with each other. Not directly or indirectly related. Nada. Null and void.
 
the only way to 'priotize' what you may want to see in a stone is to compare and see a bunch of H&A's in person and then figure out what your OWN sweet spot is. it doesn't matter what my sweet spot is, or garry's sweet spot or anyone else's because your eyes are your own.

for me i would not buy any of those stones you posted IF there was something else that fit my criteria (which i already know i visually love having had 3 stones that all fit the bill) available. but if there is not something available, then i would have to figure out what i would want to see knowing my own eyes.

but for less picky people a 62.3% depth or a 35 crown angle or whatever is perfectly appropriaate and i am sure their stone looks very lovely, we see all sorts of amazing stones on here that look exceptional that are slightly out of what i might consider my ideal range.

PS makes it very easy for people to focus on super tiny nuances but then we're not happy unless we have everything inside of all the details that make these stones mind clean for us. welcome! hehee.
 
Delonn,

Sorry, seems like, by way of analogy, you''re looking for a pair of pants that have pleats, and are determining the likihood of them being pleated, by way of a pair''s association with other qualities, i.e, are they also cuffed, or have buttons or snaps. Why not just look for pleated pants, straight out (while not forgetting to still look for good performance otherwise, as Josh points out, since H&A is not reported to be a guarantee of good crown & pavillion combinations). Seems like without doing that, the likehood that a diamond will specifically have the high optical symmetry you''re looking for are not high. Several vendors and diamond cutters on this board specialize in diamonds with this feature, and alternately, will...if not exhibiting optical symmetry to their standards, will report the degree to which they feel it comes close. And of course, vendors elsewhere frequently report the presence of H&A when it''s available.

In fact, referring to the price stats table under the category of Prices above, to see H&A, you''ll really need to go specifically better than what''s referred to as 1A, referring back to the AGA charts.
 
The reason I am not looking for branded H&A is because there are a lot of non-H&A stones that still have really good optical symmetry. You can notice some resemblance of arrows in the orginal diamond but nearly all other AGS000 (in different size ranges) that I have seen in person have had much better optical symmetry...although not labeled as H&A.

So why do H&A tend to score in certain upper HCA scores and trend toward certain angle combinations. Is this purelely coincidence, correlation, or causation. My guess is correlation w/o the causation. Thoughts?

Actually, one of the stones above is a GOG stone. To diamondseeker''s point above, I had trouble getting consistent information from WF and I have been THOROUGHLY impressed w/ GOG. ALL else being equal, I would go w/ a GOG stone...

DSC01373.GIF
 
Date: 7/9/2006 4:38:52 PM
Author: delonn
So why do H&A tend to score in certain upper HCA scores and trend toward certain angle combinations. Is this purelely coincidence, correlation, or causation. My guess is correlation w/o the causation. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
neither coincidence, correlation, OR causation. certain angle combinations are what the market wants. that's it.
 
from your comments, I was expecting something with really messed up symmetry. but contrast is part of the AGS grade, so I didn't think it could be that bad. (what you expect and what you think can be different.) from your picture, your stone looks fine. if you are happy with the /performance/ of the stone, I suggest you get a grip on your Diamond Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
 
lol julie i didn''t know if it was just me drinking too much coffee or what, but i thought that close up looked pretty nice as well....well formed arrows for sure.
 
Delonn, you've received great input here. You're correct in deducing that diamonds crafted within top diamontaires' agreed-upon ideal ranges will display a nominal level of optical symmetry as a by-product of the cut precision required to land in that 'bullseye.'

For crown patterning (arrows): When you view a precise arrow in the crown of a diamond you are merely seeing 1 pavilion main aligned and reflecting off of 1 other. If the pavilion mains are indexed consistently and close in angle a decent set of arrows can result without much refinement.

Pavilion patterning (hearts) is much more complex and difficult to achieve: Each heart in the pavilion requires the precise alignment and reflection of 6 facets. 8 hearts total = 8 occassions where 6 facets must align correctly. It's a pretty high level of physical craftsmanship.

If you're interested, the 4th and 5th posts in this thread have graphics illustrating the above:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/hearts-arrows-cut-branded-non-branded-standards.21569/


Date: 7/9/2006 4:38:52 PM
Author: delonn

I had trouble getting consistent information from WF
Click to expand...
I hope you'll accept our apologies for any trouble you had. I also hope the information provided here is useful to you. If you can let me know what the trouble was - either here or privately - we would appreciate the feedback. This is a great place for us to learn as we evolve our processes.

Best regards,
 
John,

Since delonn referenced my earlier post, I''ll just explain from my experience that when one asks for visual comparison of two or three stones, the answer has been, "I''ll get someone to look at that (or take pictures, etc.), but it''ll probably be a couple of days." It seems that the salesperson does not have access to pulling the diamonds and discussing them with the customer or providing additional pictures. I do not in any way blame the salesperson (mine has been very nice)...this is just how things work at WF. I am not sure if all your sales staff are gemologists or not. You guys are obviously super busy and can''t necessarily provide extra customer service quickly. From our viewpoint, though, a diamond is a very big purchase, and some of us cannot just choose a stone with no further info and click the order button. But for those who can, it''s pretty easy...just wire the money and the stone will be delivered! I know of no way to improve this situation other than to hire more staff, and be sure they are gemologists who can pull and discuss stones with customers rather than waiting for poor Brian to answer all the diamond questions. You have a fine product and all the publicity has probably resulted in more email than can be comfortably handled.
 
Delonn the ASET will do everything that Idealscope does, and more i.e.- it is best for fancy shaped stones.
But ideal-scope is much easier to interpret and is all you ever need with round stones
 
John,

Simliar to Diamondseaker, I requested additional information about the inclusion in a diamond that I was considering. Although I thought the inclusion was obvious in the photo, the DC mentioned that it could be a reflection from the camera. To this end, she said she would send additional shots. When I didn''t received the photos, I called and Leslie said what many Diamond Consultants say, "The stone is totally eye clean. What else do you need?" A couple days later, I received an e-mail from a new DC that said that the inclusion could be seen by the naked eye with really good vision, which contradicted Leslie. To make matters worse, I inadvertently received an unprofessional e-mail from the original DC intended for another DC, which subsequently ended my relationship w/ WF. If I could offer one suggestion, I would recommend that ALL of your DCs spend some serious time on PS (Adv. Tutorial, etc.). To their credit, it has to be hard discerning between a person that just wants a stone and someone looking for an AGS000 with 40.6 pav angles, etc. At the end of the day, I think WF has outstanding stones and I think you have a first-rate organization.

To Julie''s point, I have probably taken my search to another level - DOCD - but I''m actually enjoying the diamond search and LEARNING process. Regarding the picture above, the arrows are definately noticeable but that is really as good as it gets. Several arrows don''t come to a point and a couple are relatively out of line. Similarly, the hearts do not look like hearts at all. Maybe the AGS000s that I''ve seen have just been really good but I was thinking I could do a little better. As it''s hard for to compare diamonds w/o an IS image, I was thinking that a diamond w/ AGA 1A proportions, less variable girdle, and common H&A proportions would be a great contendor. I realize that the 3 Ex''s vs. 1 Ex in HCA could be a ''mental'' icing on the cake.

My plan is to buy the IS tomorrow and evaluate my current stone. Assuming a fair amount of leakage, I was going to return it for stone #1. To put me out of my misery, can someone tell me what impact a larger spread has on peformance or optical symmetry? The orginal stone is considerably wider for the same carat size and I wonder if this is good or bad? Also, will a 62.3% depth have a material impact on the visual performane or optical symmetry?

Thanks everyone!
 
AGS''s stance is that no one should find an AGS-0 stone to be displeasing.

A BIC will have more spread than a FIC. Different personalities, but both perform well. Not a good thing or a bad thing. Nothing to do with optical symmetry.

62.3 depth will have no effect on optical symmetry.

Excuse me while I jump off a cliff.
 
Date: 7/10/2006 2:28:25 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
...ideal-scope is much easier to interpret and is all you ever need with round stones
Click to expand...

Not sure I am in total agreement with that. Yes, the idealscope is easier to interpret until you spend an hour or less learning what the ASET is telling you, then the ASET tells you so much instantly. Personally I almost never use my idealscope any more accept for taking pictures of the hearts.

I might never NEED more than what the idealscope tells me, but I sure like the more that I get with the ASET.

Wink
 
Wink you needed 1 hour after XX years experiance.

Rember Peter saying how sadenned he is by the folder arms and closing eyelids during his presentations to other experianced jewellers?

I think unless an uninitiated consumer asks that question the answer I gave is the corect answer.

I am happy to show customers the ASET - if I think it would help them with a fancy shape - but with a round - what is it they will see that they would miss with an ideal-scope?

(BTW - I make a $25 IS sale or a $50 ASET slae - so I aint got no ulterior motif here - nod nod, Wink wink_
 
Date: 7/10/2006 8:43:19 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Wink you needed 1 hour after XX years experiance.

Rember Peter saying how sadenned he is by the folder arms and closing eyelids during his presentations to other experianced jewellers?

I think unless an uninitiated consumer asks that question the answer I gave is the corect answer.

I am happy to show customers the ASET - if I think it would help them with a fancy shape - but with a round - what is it they will see that they would miss with an ideal-scope?

(BTW - I make a $25 IS sale or a $50 ASET slae - so I aint got no ulterior motif here - nod nod, Wink wink_
Click to expand...
I wont go as far to say that I never need an aset on a round but in general I think Garry is right.
The IS is easier to say pass/fail with on rounds. With expert help or time spent online learning the ASET there is no question that there is more info there but the IS will seperate the good from the great and make it easy to reject the bad.
 
Date: 7/10/2006 3:17:33 AM
Author: delonn
John,

Simliar to Diamondseaker, I requested additional information about the inclusion in a diamond that I was considering. Although I thought the inclusion was obvious in the photo, the DC mentioned that it could be a reflection from the camera. To this end, she said she would send additional shots. When I didn''t received the photos, I called and Leslie said what many Diamond Consultants say, ''The stone is totally eye clean. What else do you need?'' A couple days later, I received an e-mail from a new DC that said that the inclusion could be seen by the naked eye with really good vision, which contradicted Leslie. To make matters worse, I inadvertently received an unprofessional e-mail from the original DC intended for another DC, which subsequently ended my relationship w/ WF. If I could offer one suggestion, I would recommend that ALL of your DCs spend some serious time on PS (Adv. Tutorial, etc.). To their credit, it has to be hard discerning between a person that just wants a stone and someone looking for an AGS000 with 40.6 pav angles, etc. At the end of the day, I think WF has outstanding stones and I think you have a first-rate organization.

To Julie''s point, I have probably taken my search to another level - DOCD - but I''m actually enjoying the diamond search and LEARNING process. Regarding the picture above, the arrows are definately noticeable but that is really as good as it gets. Several arrows don''t come to a point and a couple are relatively out of line. Similarly, the hearts do not look like hearts at all. Maybe the AGS000s that I''ve seen have just been really good but I was thinking I could do a little better. As it''s hard for to compare diamonds w/o an IS image, I was thinking that a diamond w/ AGA 1A proportions, less variable girdle, and common H&A proportions would be a great contendor. I realize that the 3 Ex''s vs. 1 Ex in HCA could be a ''mental'' icing on the cake.

My plan is to buy the IS tomorrow and evaluate my current stone. Assuming a fair amount of leakage, I was going to return it for stone #1. To put me out of my misery, can someone tell me what impact a larger spread has on peformance or optical symmetry? The orginal stone is considerably wider for the same carat size and I wonder if this is good or bad? Also, will a 62.3% depth have a material impact on the visual performane or optical symmetry?

Thanks everyone!
Click to expand...
Good luck on your hunt :)
there is the perfect stone out there that will make your heart sing.
Every client is not a good match with every vendor the kewl thing is that there are a few great vendors around here who carry kicken diamonds so if one dont mesh another likely will.
I am sorry to hear about the unprofessional email and im positive that they are very very interested in finding out about it and fixing the problem.
That isnt the kind of service that WF strives for they are a good outfit. We have out disagreements and sometimes major ones but at the end of the day the happy customers mean they are doing it right most of the time and try too all the time.
They do have a certain way of doing things and some clients mesh into that and some dont.

As far as the eyeclean issue WF I believe has the definition they use for eyeclean on thier website and by that definition a diamond could be eyeclean but have a visible inclusion with the right eyesight, some angles and lighting. Its pretty much the standard definition used around here.
Iv got to get ready for work but im sure someone will link it for you later today.
 
Delonn, I just wanted to tell you that I care about inclusions as well. I decided to limit my search to VS1 so that I don''t have to worry about them. I like to know more than someone''s casual definition of eye-clean (which may or may not be true).
 
Date: 7/9/2006 9:37:41 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
John,

Since delonn referenced my earlier post, I'll just explain from my experience that when one asks for visual comparison of two or three stones, the answer has been, 'I'll get someone to look at that (or take pictures, etc.), but it'll probably be a couple of days.' It seems that the salesperson does not have access to pulling the diamonds and discussing them with the customer or providing additional pictures. I do not in any way blame the salesperson (mine has been very nice)...this is just how things work at WF. I am not sure if all your sales staff are gemologists or not. You guys are obviously super busy and can't necessarily provide extra customer service quickly. From our viewpoint, though, a diamond is a very big purchase, and some of us cannot just choose a stone with no further info and click the order button. But for those who can, it's pretty easy...just wire the money and the stone will be delivered! I know of no way to improve this situation other than to hire more staff, and be sure they are gemologists who can pull and discuss stones with customers rather than waiting for poor Brian to answer all the diamond questions. You have a fine product and all the publicity has probably resulted in more email than can be comfortably handled.
Click to expand...
Thanks for explaining your situation DS. You’re correct about our growth, and it’s not practical for a line of diamond consultants to go pulling inventory away from the processing side of our operation. Believe me, the analysts, photographers and jewelers are already fighting for time.
face19.gif
We post as much up-front info & photography as we can considering the size of our inventory and the volume we’re doing: Sometimes goods move before we can even get their components posted!

I don’t know any company with more on-site expertise than we have. Clients trust our authority & reputability and are comfortable purchasing based on the information provided and our strong history. Of course we’d like to help the ‘DOCD’ people too and we’re sorry we did not get you those extras in time. Smaller operations have better ability to provide clients with extra TLC, and are a practical option for the obsessed. That doesn’t mean we won’t try though!
1.gif
It’s a good exercise for consumers to find the level of size and service that fits them best, and it’s always good for those of us in business to examine and improve our practices. We appreciate the input.
 
Date: 7/10/2006 3:17:33 AM
Author: delonn
John,

Simliar to Diamondseaker, I requested additional information about the inclusion in a diamond that I was considering. Although I thought the inclusion was obvious in the photo, the DC mentioned that it could be a reflection from the camera. To this end, she said she would send additional shots. When I didn't received the photos, I called and Leslie said what many Diamond Consultants say, 'The stone is totally eye clean. What else do you need?' A couple days later, I received an e-mail from a new DC that said that the inclusion could be seen by the naked eye with really good vision, which contradicted Leslie. To make matters worse, I inadvertently received an unprofessional e-mail from the original DC intended for another DC, which subsequently ended my relationship w/ WF. If I could offer one suggestion, I would recommend that ALL of your DCs spend some serious time on PS (Adv. Tutorial, etc.). To their credit, it has to be hard discerning between a person that just wants a stone and someone looking for an AGS000 with 40.6 pav angles, etc. At the end of the day, I think WF has outstanding stones and I think you have a first-rate organization.

To Julie's point, I have probably taken my search to another level - DOCD - but I'm actually enjoying the diamond search and LEARNING process. Regarding the picture above, the arrows are definately noticeable but that is really as good as it gets. Several arrows don't come to a point and a couple are relatively out of line. Similarly, the hearts do not look like hearts at all. Maybe the AGS000s that I've seen have just been really good but I was thinking I could do a little better. As it's hard for to compare diamonds w/o an IS image, I was thinking that a diamond w/ AGA 1A proportions, less variable girdle, and common H&A proportions would be a great contendor. I realize that the 3 Ex's vs. 1 Ex in HCA could be a 'mental' icing on the cake.

My plan is to buy the IS tomorrow and evaluate my current stone. Assuming a fair amount of leakage, I was going to return it for stone #1. To put me out of my misery, can someone tell me what impact a larger spread has on peformance or optical symmetry? The orginal stone is considerably wider for the same carat size and I wonder if this is good or bad? Also, will a 62.3% depth have a material impact on the visual performane or optical symmetry?

Thanks everyone!
Click to expand...
DeLonn, thanks for the reply. I looked into this and saw you were included in an email from Katie to another consultant as she worked to get her clients covered while on vacation. It may help to know our sales staff does not work on commission; she was offering to hand your account to Jamie because she would not be there. Nothing unprofessional was intended.

There is no excuse on our part for promising to deliver extra photos and not doing it.

Our apologies for any of the above that troubled you, and for any confusion resulting from vacation schedule adjustments. We appreciate the kind words regarding our product and organization. I hope the information I linked above on H&A was helpful.

Best regards,
 
Date: 7/10/2006 9:04:26 AM
Author: strmrdr

As far as the eyeclean issue WF I believe has the definition they use for eyeclean on thier website and by that definition a diamond could be eyeclean but have a visible inclusion with the right eyesight, some angles and lighting. Its pretty much the standard definition used around here.
Iv got to get ready for work but im sure someone will link it for you later today.
Click to expand...
Thanks Strm. Here is the link: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/clarity-eye-clean-definition-interpretation-and-taste.30483/

We have a well-established history of accurate eye-clean judgments. For consistency they are made in a single, neutral environment and in each case we go even farther than our published definition. This benefits clients because if something can be seen from only an inch away we likely have it documented (in addition to our standard judgment). This may have been the confusion, above: Eye-clean from a normal viewing distance and eye-clean while kissing the diamond are two different things.
2.gif


I always say, when searching for the ''eye-clean SI deal,'' know that every SI diamond varies, as do ''eye-clean'' definitions. Ultimately the shopper''s interpretation is the one that matters. When purchasing without having seen the diamond, know both your interp and the seller''s interp. It also helps to keep the grade in perspective. Bargains may be found, but remember that ultimately there''s a reason it was graded SI and not VS. Someone who wants the diamond to pass every distance, eyesight and study test offered should probably focus on VS goods or better to be certain it meets his/her own ''eye-clean'' interpretation.
 
Date: 7/10/2006 8:43:19 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Wink you needed 1 hour after XX years experiance.

Rember Peter saying how sadenned he is by the folder arms and closing eyelids during his presentations to other experianced jewellers?

I think unless an uninitiated consumer asks that question the answer I gave is the corect answer.

I am happy to show customers the ASET - if I think it would help them with a fancy shape - but with a round - what is it they will see that they would miss with an ideal-scope?

(BTW - I make a $25 IS sale or a $50 ASET slae - so I aint got no ulterior motif here - nod nod, Wink wink_
Click to expand...

LOL! I know you have motives, just not ulterior ones!

What your client will see is where the light is coming from, which you do not see in the idealscope. This way she will be comfortable that most of the diamond is coming from the brighter overhead lighting and not the more ambient side lighting and that there is a good, but not too heavy contrast pattern. (Assuming that this is the case for this stone) Of course it is up to you to make that information seem as important to them as it actually is. I have seen a few (very few thankfully) stones with excellent IS images that were sort of less than I expected from a stone with such an image. When seen on the ASET it was quickly apparent that most of the light returning to the eye was ambient, less intense lighting rather than the overhead brighter lighting.

With the idealscope she will see only the pattern, but not if the light is coming from the correct places.

My in house clients go ga ga over the ASET image in a way that they never did/do over the idealscope image. Poor Peter is often saddened by the typical jeweler''s reactions as they so often just don''t get it. When I get them by the stacking swivel and explain to them in earthier language than Peter does their eyes unglaze in a hurry. (I am a former Marine and sometimes have a more direct method of explaination than Peter must use!)

I think John Quixote has a picture of me at the AGS booth making sure that some blokes from England actually got it while Jim was explaining the technical "stuff" to another. I don''t care about technical, I care about can my clients understand and will they GET IT when I show it to them. In my experience here in Boise, my clients GET IT more with the ASET than with any other tool I have ever used!

Wink

P.S. For our supplicant, I think any stone under a 2 is going to be a beauty, and although I have heard of a few people who do not like stones under 1.0, I have sold many of them and they ROCK too. I think the average person will have a great deal of problem visually distinguishing a 1.2 from a 0.7 without the use of instrumentation.
 
Wink many people suspect my motives with good reason. Fortunately I am now happily married.

Rather than ex-pend your efforts on the ASET crusade - I hear that Billy G. is looking for an apprentice crusader (LOL)

Seriously - I agree with you - but the number of times those of us selling nice stones will get any meaningful or better info from ASET over IS makes it not woth the exercise. But i personally look at any DiamCalc files of stones I am buying unseen with the digital aSET before making a decision.
 
Date: 7/10/2006 6:42:00 PM
Author: Wink

I think the average person will have a great deal of problem visually distinguishing a 1.2 from a 0.7 without the use of instrumentation.
Click to expand...
That''s been our experience. It''s easy to get addicted to the numbers-crunching. As a sometimes-addict I''m not complaining, just confirming.
1.gif




I think John Quixote has a picture of me at the AGS booth making sure that some blokes from England actually got it while Jim was explaining the technical ''stuff'' to another.
Click to expand...
No argy-bargy there - Wink sold ''em sharpish. He''s right swotty, eh?

WinkSchoolsBlokes.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top