pics of AGS 0 princess w/dark center-- advice appreciated

[Oaty]

So which did you like best? The one you purchased, the comparison diamond, or the last minute sourced diamond?

I''ll post the videos later this afternoon and it''ll be interesting to hear folks'' thoughts on the stones. I don''t want to bias anyone''s opinion ahead of time, so I''m not revealing my pick just yet.

 

[Oaty]

Without further ado, here''s a link to the videos:

http://www.vimeo.com/2200825

As always, comments are welcome.

 

[LD]

#3 for me (the one on the far right!). In some lights it looked like the colour grade was a grade below the other two but for sparkleometry it wins for me!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Dear Oaty,

1. stop it with sunlight please - research here the hundreds of discussions as to why

2. you need to face the stones to the camera lens - your study is flawed otherwise

3. you need to put other stones in the center and do the same video with the current center off to the same side view and you will find the other stones go dark too in that poisition.

Overall you have done everything pssible to prove your initial assumption

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

i agree with LD, number 3 is the winner on that race!!!!

 

[diamondringlover]

number 3 looked the best to me as well

 

[jstarfireb]

The differences are pretty subtle, but I like #3 best so far.

 

[goobear78]

Number 3 was where my eye went.

Hey where did you get all the neat equipment to go with your search? You look like you''ve got your own shop going. LOL.

Good luck with your search and let us know what you picked!

 

[girlie-girl]

It seemed to me like #3 was being held at a different angle than the other two. You could tell by the shadow it was throwing. I think the results would be different if each stone was filmed from the center location as Garry said. The way the video was shot certainly favored the stone on the far right.

 

[Sharon101]

I immediately went to no. 3 as it looked more bright.

As for the fairness of the video tests I personally find the poster to be fair and reasonable with no hidden agenda that would cause him to go to so much lengths to try to prove that a diamond is dark when it really isnt.

Maybe the video is done incorrectly, but I believe the poster and his real life wittnesses when they all seem to see the darkness.

 

[Oaty]

1. stop it with sunlight please - research here the hundreds of discussions as to why

Sunlight? None of these videos were shot in direct sunlight, nor have any pictures of the stones been taken in direct sunlight. Please re-read the posts for clarification.

2. you need to face the stones to the camera lens - your study is flawed otherwise

I''ll leave the studies and technology to the industry experts like yourself. It was my heavy reliance on IdealScope and ASET images that got me into this mess in the first place, and as the consumer I take full responsibility for that. These videos are merely a casual, subjective observation-- not a study-- by a consumer and 11 other folks who evaluated beauty with their own two eyes, not by the results of ray-tracing software.

3. you need to put other stones in the center and do the same video with the current center off to the same side view and you will find the other stones go dark too in that poisition.

I spent the entire weekend flipping the position of the stones in the holder when I was showing them to family and friends and it changed nothing. I kept the stones in the same positions in these clips so as to not confuse the viewers. The camera was moved over and around the stones, as was the position of the tray in respect to the lighting source. It seems your assumption is that the camera and light source positions remained static during the filming but watch them again and you''ll clearly see otherwise.

Overall you have done everything pssible to prove your initial assumption

I''m glad to see that an expert in the gemological field sees what the rest of us see in those videos. My initial assumption was that this stone was dark and quite unlike the stones I had observed before it, which is why I went to the trouble of asking questions here in the first place. I didn''t set out to prove anything- the vendor has made it their priority to make me a satisfied customer, however this plays out. In light of this fact, the videos were posted and shared strictly for the sake of observing the differences between three seemingly identical stones, and getting input from anyone who chooses to share their opinion.

As we consumers drive the market by casting our votes with our hard-earned dollars, industry professionals like yourself would be wise to pay attention to our concerns and react accordingly. All the better if you''re able to do it without condescension.

 

[strmrdr]

LED lighting is even more direct than sunlight and is also wave length limited.
It is even worse than sunlight for judging diamonds.

The led lighting is the only lighting I saw a difference that couldn''t be accounted for by lighting angles.
That said if you don''t like it then swap it for one of the other 2.

 

[luvmyhalo]

I would pick #3 also.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/10/2008 5:03:38 PM
Author: Oaty

1. stop it with sunlight please - research here the hundreds of discussions as to why

Sunlight? None of these videos were shot in direct sunlight, nor have any pictures of the stones been taken in direct sunlight. Please re-read the posts for clarification.
in the video you often refer to comparisons in sunlight.

2. you need to face the stones to the camera lens - your study is flawed otherwise

I''ll leave the studies and technology to the industry experts like yourself. It was my heavy reliance on IdealScope and ASET images that got me into this mess in the first place, and as the consumer I take full responsibility for that. These videos are merely a casual, subjective observation-- not a study-- by a consumer and 11 other folks who evaluated beauty with their own two eyes, not by the results of ray-tracing software.the camera is very close to the diamonds and as such you should face each stone directly to the camera lens - not to where you are looking from with your two eyes in order to get close to a reasonable representation.
I do not deny that there may be something wrong with this diamond or that the others are all right - I simply say your tests on the video are not useful at all and are indeed misleading

3. you need to put other stones in the center and do the same video with the current center off to the same side view and you will find the other stones go dark too in that poisition.

I spent the entire weekend flipping the position of the stones in the holder when I was showing them to family and friends and it changed nothing. I kept the stones in the same positions in these clips so as to not confuse the viewers. The camera was moved over and around the stones, as was the position of the tray in respect to the lighting source. It seems your assumption is that the camera and light source positions remained static during the filming but watch them again and you''ll clearly see otherwise. you rock back and forward, but not to the left and the right, and you do not move the camera over each stone individually

Overall you have done everything pssible to prove your initial assumption

I''m glad to see that an expert in the gemological field sees what the rest of us see in those videos. My initial assumption was that this stone was dark and quite unlike the stones I had observed before it, which is why I went to the trouble of asking questions here in the first place. I didn''t set out to prove anything- the vendor has made it their priority to make me a satisfied customer, however this plays out. In light of this fact, the videos were posted and shared strictly for the sake of observing the differences between three seemingly identical stones, and getting input from anyone who chooses to share their opinion.

As we consumers drive the market by casting our votes with our hard-earned dollars, industry professionals like yourself would be wise to pay attention to our concerns and react accordingly. All the better if you''re able to do it without condescension. With the greatest of respect, I am known as someone who types slowly and abruptly, but I am not know as ignorant or unaware of what others think. My entire professional life has been more about finding out why consumers like what they like and then changing the long held flawed industry doctrines.

 

[onvacation]

Date: 11/10/2008 6:30:35 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 11/10/2008 5:03:38 PM
Author: Oaty

1. stop it with sunlight please - research here the hundreds of discussions as to why

Sunlight? None of these videos were shot in direct sunlight, nor have any pictures of the stones been taken in direct sunlight. Please re-read the posts for clarification.
in the video you often refer to comparisons in sunlight.

2. you need to face the stones to the camera lens - your study is flawed otherwise

I''ll leave the studies and technology to the industry experts like yourself. It was my heavy reliance on IdealScope and ASET images that got me into this mess in the first place, and as the consumer I take full responsibility for that. These videos are merely a casual, subjective observation-- not a study-- by a consumer and 11 other folks who evaluated beauty with their own two eyes, not by the results of ray-tracing software.the camera is very close to the diamonds and as such you should face each stone directly to the camera lens - not to where you are looking from with your two eyes in order to get close to a reasonable representation.
I do not deny that there may be something wrong with this diamond or that the others are all right - I simply say your tests on the video are not useful at all and are indeed misleading

3. you need to put other stones in the center and do the same video with the current center off to the same side view and you will find the other stones go dark too in that poisition.

I spent the entire weekend flipping the position of the stones in the holder when I was showing them to family and friends and it changed nothing. I kept the stones in the same positions in these clips so as to not confuse the viewers. The camera was moved over and around the stones, as was the position of the tray in respect to the lighting source. It seems your assumption is that the camera and light source positions remained static during the filming but watch them again and you''ll clearly see otherwise. you rock back and forward, but not to the left and the right, and you do not move the camera over each stone individually

Overall you have done everything pssible to prove your initial assumption

I''m glad to see that an expert in the gemological field sees what the rest of us see in those videos. My initial assumption was that this stone was dark and quite unlike the stones I had observed before it, which is why I went to the trouble of asking questions here in the first place. I didn''t set out to prove anything- the vendor has made it their priority to make me a satisfied customer, however this plays out. In light of this fact, the videos were posted and shared strictly for the sake of observing the differences between three seemingly identical stones, and getting input from anyone who chooses to share their opinion.

As we consumers drive the market by casting our votes with our hard-earned dollars, industry professionals like yourself would be wise to pay attention to our concerns and react accordingly. All the better if you''re able to do it without condescension. With the greatest of respect, I am known as someone who types slowly and abruptly, but I am not know as ignorant or unaware of what others think. My entire professional life has been more about finding out why consumers like what they like and then changing the long held flawed industry doctrines.

I''m confused with some of your remarks, Garry. You said that the camera is too close to the diamonds, but the video style does not appear to be too different from that found on the GOG website. One big difference is that he moves the camera AND the tray where as I believe GOG''s camera is (almost always, could be wrong) fixed. GOG usually doesn''t rock/tilt to the left or right either (at least not in most of the ones that I''ve seen). That''s a pet peeve of mine when I watch their clips, so I hear ya on that one. Sure, his videos are not the most professional-looking videos out there, but he does try to cover many angles and distances by moving the camera instead so that we can at least get some idea of what he''s talking about. He also moves over each one of the rings from the top, so light is sometimes blocked and sometimes isn''t, but it''s done for all three rings, especially in video #3. Can you clarify what you meant in your comments, please?

Also, unless I missed out, I don''t understand why you would mention direct sunlight in your first post on this thread when the OP was explicit about the light source in the original post:

please do not look at diamonds in very bright and diretc sunlight.
search the many threads here about it and stop panicing. (sic)

 

[AprilBaby]

My eye caught #3.

 

[luvmyhalo]

Hey Oaty! Which one do YOU like? Does #3 look as good in person as we all think it does?

 

[Lisa Loves Shiny]

Number 3 for me also.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/10/2008 9:43:56 PM
Author: onvacation

I''m confused with some of your remarks, Garry. You said that the camera is too close to the diamonds, but the video style does not appear to be too different from that found on the GOG website. I have issues with GOG video''s too - but the closeness issue is simply that the stones should face to the lens - not be lined up vertically - it will amaze you how they should point in strange angles to all be face on to the camera One big difference is that he moves the camera AND the tray where as I believe GOG''s camera is (almost always, could be wrong) fixed. GOG usually doesn''t rock/tilt to the left or right either (at least not in most of the ones that I''ve seen). That''s a pet peeve of mine when I watch their clips, so I hear ya on that one. the move movement thru a range like a chess move - the better - we agree Sure, his videos are not the most professional-looking videos out there, but he does try to cover many angles and distances by moving the camera instead so that we can at least get some idea of what he''s talking about. He also moves over each one of the rings from the top, so light is sometimes blocked and sometimes isn''t, but it''s done for all three rings, especially in video #3. Can you clarify what you meant in your comments, please?

Also, unless I missed out, I don''t understand why you would mention direct sunlight in your first post on this thread when the OP was explicit about the light source in the original post: oaty took his first photo''s in a very bright directional light source - some of us suggested he use a more diffused light source because anything like direct small distance light (eg the sun) makes all well cut diamonds look dark - especially when they are on a light background.

please do not look at diamonds in very bright and diretc sunlight.
search the many threads here about it and stop panicing. (sic) thanks - that is exactly what i wrote in my first post- yet on each video he mentions that sadly the sun has gone down and he cant film them in sunlight.

Oaty you might not know it but I am here to help (I am from the Gov''t

) but if you want to prove me wrong that is your perfect right.

 

[marcy]

in the video I liked number 3

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 11/10/2008 9:43:56 PM
Author: onvacation
. One big difference is that he moves the camera AND the tray where as I believe GOG''s camera is (almost always, could be wrong) fixed. GOG usually doesn''t rock/tilt to the left or right either (at least not in most of the ones that I''ve seen).

There is a technology limit that is the reason for that. When your shooting one stone at a time you can move them anyway and it doesnt come into play.

The issue is limited DOF or depth of field.
In english it is the area that is in focus.
At close range a video camera has a very narrow range of focus and cant focus on 2 spots at the same time unless they are close together in a vertical distance.
tilting diamonds left and right any great amount moves the diamonds unequally in and out of the focus zone and gives false readings.
Where tilting them up and down keeps them all in the same focus zone.

One fix is move the camera but unless you have the camera on a track so it moves in the same path over each diamond that also throws a monkey wrench into the picture and makes comparisons across videos impossible.

 

[strmrdr]

This picture shows it.
See how tilting them left and right would move them unequally in and out of the focus zone?

 

[strmrdr]

Woops excuse the typo its 1215am, hope you get the general idea.

 

[Oaty]

It's been a busy and interesting 7 1/2 days since I last posted, and it makes for an interesting update.

First, thanks to all of you following this thread who took the time to check out the videos and leave your comments last week. Yep-- this includes Garry, who has done his best to convince me I'm biased, paranoid, delusional, or possibly some combination of all three.

I don't know much, but what I do know is that the beauty of a natural resource which is shaped by the human hand (whether a diamond or a piece of wood furniture), is a highly subjective thing. The whole purpose of my first post was to solicit opinions on a specific characteristic of a diamond and the perceived effect on its overall beauty, and it's not surprising that I got an earful along the way.

I haven't specifically named the vendor I've been working with up until now because their service has been excellent and I respect the time and effort it takes to build a good name in the marketplace. But not only am I proud to say I've been working with Whiteflash (pretty obvious to the regulars all along due to the unique ASET images), I've got a story of amazing customer service that includes their accommodation of a new center stone (in my next post I'll reveal which of the diamonds in the videos I chose). But first things first...

Last Monday Whiteflash offered to take back the stone & setting, but it was decided that since we had only 9 days before I left for Hawaii, there wasn't time to modify or re-make a setting with the new center stone. Out of options, we had no choice but to cut our losses and go our separate ways. I spent the day exploring local options and had my worst fears confirmed: not only was I not going to find a 3 stone trellis setting to my liking, I was going to play a game called Who Let the Dogs Out on My Wallet. And on top of that I was now faced with the very real possibility of being the guy who proposes to his dream girl with nothing but a gold ribbon and the letters "IOU" scribbled on it.

Tuesday morning Vera called to tell me some great news: Allison Dewey had gone to bat for me the day before. I've never once spoken to Allison, but after hearing about the situation, she saw to it that my new center stone will be mounted in a temporary solitaire setting and shipped to me on the 18th so I'll have something to propose with in Hawaii. And in the meantime, an entirely new ring will be re-cast and ready to have the new center stone mounted in it when we get back. Incredible. Whiteflash's customer service folks haven't just stepped up to accommodate and retain a customer, they have literally saved my entire vacation. As a guy who also works in an end-user retail business, I'm humbled by their effort and commitment. Here's a huge collective thank you to Brian Gavin, James Ramey, Vera Wages and Allison Dewey. To all those who value doing business with people who understand the importance of doing the right thing every time, look no further than Whiteflash. They have made a customer for life.

 

[Lorelei]

I have had the privilege of knowing Allison - or Alj as I still so fondly call her - a long time now as have many of us. She is a wonderful person and a great friend, and this is yet another example of why we all rate her so highly!

As indeed the rest of the WF team, and I am so glad this is all working out for you now!!

Best of luck with the proposal Oaty!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 11/18/2008 3:58:29 AM
Author: Oaty
It''s been a busy and interesting 7 1/2 days since I last posted, and it makes for an interesting update.

First, thanks to all of you following this thread who took the time to check out the videos and leave your comments last week. Yep-- this includes Garry, who has done his best to convince me I''m biased, paranoid, delusional, or possibly some combination of all three.

I don''t know much, but what I do know is that the beauty of a natural resource which is shaped by the human hand (whether a diamond or a piece of wood furniture), is a highly subjective thing. The whole purpose of my first post was to solicit opinions on a specific characteristic of a diamond and the perceived effect on its overall beauty, and it''s not surprising that I got an earful along the way.

I haven''t specifically named the vendor I''ve been working with up until now because their service has been excellent and I respect the time and effort it takes to build a good name in the marketplace. But not only am I proud to say I''ve been working with Whiteflash (pretty obvious to the regulars all along due to the unique ASET images), I''ve got a story of amazing customer service that includes their accommodation of a new center stone (in my next post I''ll reveal which of the diamonds in the videos I chose). But first things first...

Last Monday Whiteflash offered to take back the stone & setting, but it was decided that since we had only 9 days before I left for Hawaii, there wasn''t time to modify or re-make a setting with the new center stone. Out of options, we had no choice but to cut our losses and go our separate ways. I spent the day exploring local options and had my worst fears confirmed: not only was I not going to find a 3 stone trellis setting to my liking, I was going to play a game called Who Let the Dogs Out on My Wallet. And on top of that I was now faced with the very real possibility of being the guy who proposes to his dream girl with nothing but a gold ribbon and the letters ''IOU'' scribbled on it.

Tuesday morning Vera called to tell me some great news: Allison Dewey had gone to bat for me the day before. I''ve never once spoken to Allison, but after hearing about the situation, she saw to it that my new center stone will be mounted in a temporary solitaire setting and shipped to me on the 18th so I''ll have something to propose with in Hawaii. And in the meantime, an entirely new ring will be re-cast and ready to have the new center stone mounted in it when we get back. Incredible. Whiteflash''s customer service folks haven''t just stepped up to accommodate and retain a customer, they have literally saved my entire vacation. As a guy who also works in an end-user retail business, I''m humbled by their effort and commitment. Here''s a huge collective thank you to Brian Gavin, James Ramey, Vera Wages and Allison Dewey. To all those who value doing business with people who understand the importance of doing the right thing every time, look no further than Whiteflash. They have made a customer for life.

Oaty I am very happy for you.
And for your fiancee

However I think in regards to:
I''m biased, paranoid, delusional, or possibly some combination of all three

It would be fair to say that the lighting you took those initial photo''s in, and the suggestion that anyone could make a rational judgement based on your video''s, would indicate that if you decided to become a vendor of diamonds that you would need to improve your methods of lighting and of photography.

Which given you are a guy head over heels in love, does not worry me in the least. where as if you ended up with a diamond you did not like, and did not represent the feelings in your heart, then that would worry me more. Mine was a pure rational POV

wishing you

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 11/18/2008 5:13:39 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)


Which given you are a guy head over heels in love, does not worry me in the least. where as if you ended up with a diamond you did not like, and did not represent the feelings in your heart, then that would worry me more. Mine was a pure rational POV

wishing you

Absolutely Garry!