Pick the round you like best

[AprilBaby]

3,2,4,1

 

[vespergirl]

4, 1, 3, 2

 

[pradeep]

3, 1, 4, 2

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Dear all,
I am very sorry that I messed up the posting of the movies.
Bill Gates is helping me again so this should work now:

Small movie in daylight
Small movie with LED''s

Large movie in daylight
Large movie with LED''s

You need quick time download it here from apple

The small movies download almost instantly. The large ones can take a minute or two.

Thanks everyone for your opinions so far. I think we are seeing that some Pricescopers have a preference for diamonds that have some big facets.
I should add to that these stones are around 3/4ct.

 

[yssie]

2,4,3,1

 

[Cehrabehra]

I like the top right the best, those chunks do it for me - though I admit on the small video it was easy to see that it had less brightness than the other 3.

The other 3 it''s negligible. I would spend the same amount of time in bed with any of them

Top left seems like the brightest, but it seemed very 2 dimensional to me and I although I think bottom left may be a steep deep, I enjoyed the depth of looking down into the diamond and having the illusion of 3D going on. Bottom right seemed like it was between the others but I would be hard pressed to truly decide which of those 3 I wanted to own without having them in person. I am not certain the upper right was THE best cut of that type, but the patterning was the hands down winner for me, even at the cost of some brilliance and scint.

 

[MatchMadeInCarbon]

2, 3, 4, 1

Like the others have said the OEC look distinguishes 2 from the others & earns my favor

MMIC

 

[Regular Guy]

Now I pick 4 draws.

Anyone know of any sites where they review motor boats?

Maybe...where they compare men''s shirts for durability, and no needing for ironing?



Oh well...

 

[jolar]

1, 4, 3, 2.
Well rounded contast, fire, and scintillation in 1 and 4 to me.

 

[Skippy123]

Okay I watched the videos again and 1 and 4 have sharp flashes of pin fire.

 

[Lord Summerisle]

1&4 then 3 then 2 for me.

4 maybe slightly edging it for me.

 

[princesss]

2*********huge gap*********4,1,3

I love the chunkier facets on 2. The other three get muddled for me, but that''s the best ranking I can give them.

I am not a big RB fan. I adore chunky facets and find their patterns more interesting than I do the smaller, almost (comparitively) splintered facets of the modern round.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Garry - are you going to be sharing the info on those stones with us?

 

[Skippy123]

Date: 11/21/2009 12:30:21 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
Garry - are you going to be sharing the info on those stones with us?

hehe that is what I was wondering; I keep checking this thread each day

 

[plethora23]

1, 3...........2 (oec looking) and 4.

Clearly I''m not a convert yet as far as preferring the oec facets. Lucky for me, I think my diamond looks most like #1!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 11/21/2009 4:14:30 PM
Author: Skippy123

Date: 11/21/2009 12:30:21 PM

Author: Cehrabehra

Garry - are you going to be sharing the info on those stones with us?

hehe that is what I was wondering; I keep checking this thread each day

I would also like to know if he was surprised by the results at all or if they''re what he expected.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

OK folks - here they are the stones in order are:
1=13 near tolkowsky T57% C 34 pav 41 degrees
2=16 short lower girdle facet T57% Crown 37.3 pav 40.6 degrees
3=17 61% table Crown 39 pavilion 40 degrees
4=18 57% table Crown 37.5 pavilion 40.4

They are part of the Master Stone Set that the Cut Group have been building.
You can see a lot more info here

Any surprises?

Now I would love a volunteer please to add up or pop in a table all the votes up to this point please?

Knoiwing the proportions - if anyone wants to have another vote or continue to play - feel free

 

[Karl_K]

no surprises, somewhat unrealistic lighting and environment.
The lighting is very busy compared to the real world.
That gave the oec an advantage and penalized #1 unfairly.
The oec would have been close to the top anyway as PSers are into larger VF's as a whole.
The one with led lighting is much worse than without.

Let me clarify further:
in the ones without the led you can see it catch the different light sources and they are closer to each other than they would be in the real world.

The led ones it is like getting hit with 20 spot lights at once.

 

[stone-cold11]

Stone\rank
------1-----2-----3-----4
1-----5-----6-----3-----9
2----11-----4-----3-----6
3-----5-----7-----6-----4
4-----4-----5----10-----4
Not in tally 11 due to no ranking/too much interpretation.

 

[Jelly]

1, 2, 4, 3

But they are a magnificent!

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/21/2009 9:34:13 PM
Author: Karl_K
no surprises, somewhat unrealistic lighting and environment.

The lighting is very busy compared to the real world.

That gave the oec an advantage and penalized #1 unfairly.

The oec would have been close to the top anyway as PSers are into larger VF''s as a whole.

The one with led lighting is much worse than without.


Let me clarify further:

in the ones without the led you can see it catch the different light sources and they are closer to each other than they would be in the real world.


The led ones it is like getting hit with 20 spot lights at once.

re: somewhat unrealistic lighting and environment. penalized #1 unfairly.

Karl, Could you proof it?

Do you want say what we designed light conditions to penalty P40.7Cr34.5 cut?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/21/2009 10:07:14 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
Stone ank
------1-----2-----3-----4
1-----5-----6-----3-----9
2----11-----4-----3-----6
3-----5-----7-----6-----4
4-----4-----5----10-----4
Not in tally 11 due to no ranking/too much interpretation.

Stone I do not understand your report?

 

[stone-cold11]

row is the stone number, column is the number of times the stone is in the given ranking.
For example,

1st row, 1st column, means stone 1 was rank 1st place by 5 participants.
4th row, 3rd column, means stone 3 was rank 3rd place by 10 participants.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I am no statition (can not even spell the word) - but something like this?

 

[stone-cold11]

yap, something like this.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/22/2009 5:16:40 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
yap, something like this.

Thanks Stone - for doing the work - Anyone with a stats background like to suggest a better way to rank the observations?

 

[Karl_K]

Date: 11/22/2009 2:07:03 AM
Author: Serg


re: somewhat unrealistic lighting and environment. penalized #1 unfairly.


Karl, Could you proof it?


Do you want say what we designed light conditions to penalty P40.7Cr34.5 cut?

No, I would not say you intentionally designed it that way.
but the lighting is busy which will tend to show stones with larger VF''s in a better light.
If the goal was a neutral lighting system this one isn''t perfect yet in my opinion.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/22/2009 12:36:49 PM
Author: Karl_K

Date: 11/22/2009 2:07:03 AM

Author: Serg



re: somewhat unrealistic lighting and environment. penalized #1 unfairly.



Karl, Could you proof it?



Do you want say what we designed light conditions to penalty P40.7Cr34.5 cut?

No, I would not say you intentionally designed it that way.

but the lighting is busy which will tend to show stones with larger VF's in a better light.

If the goal was a neutral lighting system this one isn't perfect yet in my opinion.

1) I do not know any "neutral lighting system". I am happy see any concrete suggestions for such Light model
2) I do not see any reason why stones with large VF's have any benefits in our light systems ( specially in light mode with LEDs.) Please explain you comment.
3) LEDs give advantages for stones with small VF's

I think, If 2 diamonds have same DETAS/ETAS , consumer will prefer diamond with bigger VF's in any REAL light conditions.( ASET/IS do not even try to model any real light conditions)

Diamond with small VF's could have worse DETAS than diamond with bigger VF's
diamond with good DETAS ( and with good ETAS distribution ) will win in any light from diamond with higher LR but with worse DETAS , if you tilt both diamonds.

It is big issue about right combinationS between LR and DETAS(Life), between Brightness and Fire.

Big VF's is much better for Fire, than small VF's. Some consumers prefer Brightness, other consumer prefer Fire.
Both Taste are valid , but in last 10 years a lot of Professionals( in Diamond industry ) are bias for high LR( specially if we speak about PS. Why did optimize CUTs for Fire in last 10 years?

for Wrong proportions big LGF is good solution, may be it is main reason why modern RBC has LGF 80-82%( small VF's, which fix bugs in cut)
But diamonds with right proportions and pattern don need small VF's, specially if you do not use IS, ASET to grade Beauty

Of course if you use ASET to grade Beauty, small VF's is very helpful to reduce zone with Leakage , to increase LR( what is not same to increase Beauty )

 

[Karl_K]

Serg I don''t disagree with much of what you said.

Let me put it another way:
Lighting that is busier than real world lighting makes diamonds look busier than they really are.

 

[Serg]

Date: 11/22/2009 1:46:56 PM
Author: Karl_K
Serg I don''t disagree with much of what you said.


Let me put it another way:

Lighting that is busier than real world lighting makes diamonds look busier than they really are.

Karl, I can not translate what is Busier. I think you mean what diamonds has more flashes in our light conditions than in real world

I am agree, We did it specially to do comparison more easy and to receive more consistency results

In real world Diamond could has less than 1 flash per second, so observer needs calculate number flashes per 10 seconds to receive comparison between two cuts( sometimes cut has 2-3 flashes , sometime cut has not any flashes 2-3 seconds. it is very difficult conditions for human comparison )
we increased number of flashes in several times to receive more stable comparison results.( we did it for All diamonds in same way)
And we use same diamonds( as Ideal) in all our movies. So such comparison is correct.