Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos, etc

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

To me it's a little like the choice between a regular size peanut butter sandwhich with a nice amount of peanut butter, and a sandwhich made with the same amount of peanut butter spread out on thinner but larger pieces of bread. It looks better from the outside, but when you bite into it you find something lacking.

KobiD the analogy is close but not really framing the issue. To say one doesn't have as much potential for fire, large flashes or brightness as another is not a matter of taste or "science" its a fact and to call it taste or an opinion is an unsupportable and disingenuous stance to take. To repeat that position in years worth of ps technical threads because a fair part of the audience reading lacks the experience and knowledge to distinguish between a fact an an opinion on advanced topics about "light performance" is even worse.

The personal taste part is does one prefer [greater spread and lower price] vs [great potential fire, brightness and size of flash].
That is a valid taste decision where one is not "better" than the other. That is the choice we should allow people to be informed about and decide for themselves. They will not be able to make that choice though if the cheaper one apparently "sacrifices nothing" and the more expensive one is only arguably "better" not actually better in some areas.

Two one-half of ''Ideal" butter sandwich have same performance( Taste) as full "ideal" sandwich.
Two 0.5 ct AGS0 diamonds have not same Performance as 1ct AGS0 diamond.
AGS grades diamonds as simplest sandwiches.
AGS just checks ratio between butter and bread , and demand same ratio for all sandwiches, same ASET image for all round diamonds.
it can works for simple butter sandwich, but it does not work well even for round diamonds.
Such approach does not work for Fancy sandwiches and Fancy diamonds.

 

[KobiD]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

To me it's a little like the choice between a regular size peanut butter sandwhich with a nice amount of peanut butter, and a sandwhich made with the same amount of peanut butter spread out on thinner but larger pieces of bread. It looks better from the outside, but when you bite into it you find something lacking.

KobiD the analogy is close but not really framing the issue. To say one doesn't have as much potential for fire, large flashes or brightness as another is not a matter of taste or "science" its a fact and to call it taste or an opinion is an unsupportable and disingenuous stance to take. To repeat that position in years worth of ps technical threads because a fair part of the audience reading lacks the experience and knowledge to distinguish between a fact an an opinion on advanced topics about "light performance" is even worse.

The personal taste part is does one prefer [greater spread and lower price] vs [great potential fire, brightness and size of flash].
That is a valid taste decision where one is not "better" than the other. That is the choice we should allow people to be informed about and decide for themselves. They will not be able to make that choice though if the cheaper one apparently "sacrifices nothing" and the more expensive one is only arguably "better" not actually better in some areas.

I'm not disagreeing. A well proportioned stone (confirmed with IS/ASET) definitely has greater potential to return light, although I've asked several times to see some IS/ASET performed on tilted stones and effects of what happens when light is introduced from variable angles as it does in reality, but that is another topic for discussion.

Taste encapsulates all that one interprets as beauty. Its purely speculative, in that what I see may not be what you see, which may vary greatly to what someone else does. Some have a taste for G coloured stones, others prefer J. Judging by cost, one would evaluate the G as being the better stone. For clarity, a VVS is better than an SI1 but many will opt for a lower clarity (some because they can't visually see the difference, others because it adds personality). For cut, the same applies. By giving some more tolerance to the proportions, of course you are making sacrifices in one area. You also gain something somewhere else. Its personal preference and taste which determines how an individual comes to that.

As Bryan has stated, if consumers are adequately informed they will make their own choices. Then at the niche end of the market, you have some who like small tables, some who like larger. Some prefer more fire over brilliance. Some prefer large on/off sintillation where others prefer smaller more fluid changes.

Instead of a sandwich, compare it to a person who has multiple physical attributes, as well as personality traits which show up under certain conditions. We all have this concept of what we want in a significant other, yet the one that steals your heart may be worlds from what you thought you wanted. Beauty is strange like that.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

To me it's a little like the choice between a regular size peanut butter sandwhich with a nice amount of peanut butter, and a sandwhich made with the same amount of peanut butter spread out on thinner but larger pieces of bread. It looks better from the outside, but when you bite into it you find something lacking.

KobiD the analogy is close but not really framing the issue. To say one doesn't have as much potential for fire, large flashes or brightness as another is not a matter of taste or "science" its a fact and to call it taste or an opinion is an unsupportable and disingenuous stance to take. To repeat that position in years worth of ps technical threads because a fair part of the audience reading lacks the experience and knowledge to distinguish between a fact an an opinion on advanced topics about "light performance" is even worse.

The personal taste part is does one prefer [greater spread and lower price] vs [great potential fire, brightness and size of flash].
That is a valid taste decision where one is not "better" than the other. That is the choice we should allow people to be informed about and decide for themselves. They will not be able to make that choice though if the cheaper one apparently "sacrifices nothing" and the more expensive one is only arguably "better" not actually better in some areas.

Two one-half of ''Ideal" butter sandwich have same performance( Taste) as full "ideal" sandwich.
Two 0.5 ct AGS0 diamonds have not same Performance as 1ct AGS0 diamond.
AGS grades diamonds as simplest sandwiches.
AGS just checks ratio between butter and bread , and demand same ratio for all sandwiches, same ASET image for all round diamonds.
it can works for simple butter sandwich, but it does not work well even for round diamonds.
Such approach does not work for Fancy sandwiches and Fancy diamonds.

Two 0.5 ct diamonds has +25% spread in compare with 1ct diamond.( bigger bread)
Have two 0.5 ct AGS0 diamonds more Fire than 1 ct diamond? They have more flashes, but which have better Fire appearance:

1) Two 0.5ct AGS0 diamonds or 1ct AGS0 diamond?
2) Two small AGS0 diamonds and one big AGS0 Diamond with same area as 2 small diamonds?

which diamond has more Fire, Brilliancy AGS0 princess or AGS0 Oval?
are its important questions for consumer to do best for them choice? ( if they buy diamond for Performance instead for grading paper)

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

We agree that the stone I posted has a fairly shallow crown, and large table.
You used the term " deficits in fire and other light performance aspects that are measurable"
"Fire" is a unique element, and possibly easier to predict- so let's leave that aside.
Which other light performance aspects are "measurable"?

I usually love analogies- but I fail to get the one about peanut butter...
Maybe a stone that's noticeably larger, yet costs less is getting more peanut butter?

The other key aspects of light performance that are measured are brightness, leakage and contrast. It's hard to say about the other deficits without running it through ray tracing analysis. The numbers on a GIA report are woefully inadequate in terms of providing information that will enable consumers to understand much at all about cut quality and light performance. That is why there is a market full of princesses that are mediocre or worse. And the existence of all that inventory value, owned by so many GIA clients, is one of the reasons that GIA probably won't introduce a cut grade system any time soon. And if they do, it will have to be very forgiving.

To clarify on my analogy, if you take the same amount of peanut butter and the same amount of bread and you construct it to have a bigger footprint, you will lose some richness in the process. But if you don't care about how it tastes, and you want your sandwich to look bigger, well then that is a better sandwich!

Bryan- measurements of the brightness scintillation and contrast can never be done without objective evaluation. This is nothing like measuring the spread of the stone which is a physical measurement.
A stone's measurement will not change based on where the light is hitting it what type of light is hitting it or how you were viewing it. Stereoscopic vision will not change a stone's measurement.
All of these aspects will affect how one perceives brilliance scintillation and contrast.

luddite?? Wow it's been years since I've been called that name.
Welcome back whoever you are

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Bryan- measurements of the brightness scintillation and contrast can never be done without objective evaluation.

Sorry – I meant subjective evaluation

 

[Rhino]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

We can never quantify taste based issues and selecting the most beautiful diamond cut is 100% taste based.
Of course convincing people that something is "scientifically better" influences how they view the stones.
We sell CBI diamonds and a wide range of other diamonds- we never advertise using science as a lever to influence the buyers.
Those who have purchased CBI stones have been thrilled. But such buyers represent a small percentage of people who are shopping.
Using totally blind methods when showing the diamonds results in drastically different results.

Someone suggested Gog video to compare- except the GOG videos are designed to show the stones the way Jon sees them.
To get a true educational video we would need someone to produce it with no commercial interests.

Just catching up in this thread. My apologies for my delay as I'm still on page 3.

Dave ... the videos are not designed to show diamonds the way I personally see them although they most certainly do. Any comparison we shoot, all the diamonds are under the same illumination, evenly distributed lighting without any particular one receiving better illumination than others. These are the best conditions for unbiased observation. I've selected the environments I do for good reason but not to attempt to persuade anyone towards my personal opinion. I've shot many clips for people who have selected what pleases their eyes and not mine. I'll also, upon request completely leave out any audio commentary by myself so people can view without any outside influence from me.

Peace,
Jon

 

[Rhino]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

+1 for this thread.

There are some physical measurement devices out there that are able to quantify light symmetry and other metrics, do you think they are part of the future of quantification of performance nuances?

Hi Josh,

It depends on what technology you're talking about. I have worked intimately with just about every technology out there from ASET, Bscope, Isee2, Sarine, sophisticated versions of IdealScope, Octonus Raytrace, OGI ray trace, etc. as well as correlating those results with real world observation. All of them have their strengths and all of them also have their limitations. We take the approach of "test all things, hold fast to that which is good". Technologies are great for communicating strengths and weakness of certain products but it is important that consumers know the limitations of them as well.

Regards,
Rhino

Hi Rhino,

Lets use the Sarine Light as an example - it is calibrated to measure optical performance and light symmetry. I believe its the only device that actually measures light symmetry physically.

Joshua

Hi Josh,

I had Sarine Light here and tested numerous diamonds on it whose results I have saved. It is what was formerly the Isee2 technology which I had used for roughly a decade but wanted to test the new algorithms. As an advocate of online technologies and one who was eager to re-employ the technology ... after seeing the results I had to pass. To rely upon it as any form of "grading system" no less ... not a good idea.

Regards,
Rhino

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

We can never quantify taste based issues and selecting the most beautiful diamond cut is 100% taste based.
Of course convincing people that something is "scientifically better" influences how they view the stones.
We sell CBI diamonds and a wide range of other diamonds- we never advertise using science as a lever to influence the buyers.
Those who have purchased CBI stones have been thrilled. But such buyers represent a small percentage of people who are shopping.
Using totally blind methods when showing the diamonds results in drastically different results.

Someone suggested Gog video to compare- except the GOG videos are designed to show the stones the way Jon sees them.
To get a true educational video we would need someone to produce it with no commercial interests.

Just catching up in this thread. My apologies for my delay as I'm still on page 3.

Dave ... the videos are not designed to show diamonds the way I personally see them although they most certainly do. Any comparison we shoot, all the diamonds are under the same illumination, evenly distributed lighting without any particular one receiving better illumination than others. These are the best conditions for unbiased observation. I've selected the environments I do for good reason but not to attempt to persuade anyone towards my personal opinion. I've shot many clips for people who have selected what pleases their eyes and not mine. I'll also, upon request completely leave out any audio commentary by myself so people can view without any outside influence from me.

Peace,
Jon

HI Jon,
I believe you have used the terms like "slushy, and watery" as a knock on diamonds you do not prefer.
It certainly seems like you're pushing your own opinion.

About the best conditions for an unbiased observation:
Not all stones react to light in the same manner.
Personally I find the diamond dock to be a very poor choice, even for round brilliant diamonds. Even worse for stones that use leakage as part of their recipe for beauty.
The different lighting setups I've seen in your videos don't seem to equate to any real life lighting I've seen.

Having said this- any video is a compromise. Including mine.
The Vibox is amazing- and IMO far better than putting a diamond in a diamond dock.
But even the VIbox forces certain compromises.
The methods you use Jon- they are compromised in ways I find that make them far less useful for comparison.
Add in the commentary, and they are advertising, pure and simple.
Nice ads for sure, but ads.

 

[Rhino]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I do not think that would be collusion Bryan. I think it is "doable" and it would be an excellent way to test and possibly even put much of this debate to bed. Sergey and I have been discussing running a survey at the PS GTG in Vegas and also online with ViBox video's of real diamonds. Would it make sense to test just two stones, or a larger number?
Should there be a new thread?

Garry, how could such a survey account for the following?

1. The human physiology of individual eyesight.

Some people have a refined visual palate, others develop one, others don’t. One person may detect more in a diamond’s scintillation than others. That goes for color and clarity too. Some people are crazy color-sensitive while others are not. It’s the same with cut. Furthermore, palates like listening, tasting and seeing rely on live, hot cognition. I don't know if you have perfect pitch, a nose for wine or an eye for diamond nuances. Some people do. Some don’t. Some have one palate that’s more refined than their others... What’s certain is that one person cannot possibly determine the subtle nuances of what another will see (or hear or taste) based on his own palate. To that end, the in-store experiences of our showroom clients is in-keeping with this. Many decisively see and want our specific look. Others see it but have a different priority. Others may say “meh,” or don’t see it at all.

2. Longer exposure.

There’s the “immediate” reaction (as in showrooms). The “2-week rule” (per Karl_K) and then the “30-day-test” per some e-tailers. Going even farther, in the different time frames it would also be interesting to classify the background and mindset of people who not only perceived, but also those who valued a technical difference. As an example, engineers and architects are regularly attracted, but that makes sense from a left-brained precision perspective. On the other side, pro musicians are also regularly attracted, and speak of the visual aesthetics, which would seem right-brained.

Karl made it more succinct.

As always 2weeks plus in your own environment and life is the real exam for any diamond.

Many diamond buyers are investing a significant sum of money in this purchase. Time and again we are told it's not a judgment of a moment. In any "taste-test," how would you propose to overcome the above?

Excellent points John.

It is true that consumers can see differences at the point of presentation and also others that develop their palate over time. Particularly those who get educated.

So far, for the most part what you are all talking about is something I've been doing here in our store on a daily basis with both local and foreign clients who fly in ever since we've been featuring our Superior line (starting back in 2000). Over the course of this time we have featured various personalities of precision cut round brilliants ranging from ...

1. Precision Cut H&A's with notable painting (an old brand we used to feature)...
2. """"""""""""" """ """"""""" """"" notable digging
3. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' minimal painting/digging typical of today's H&A's
4. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" notably longer lower halves closer to 85% (cut them on demand)
5. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' notably shorter lower halves closer to or at 75%
6. GIA Ex/AGS Ideal's that are not precision cut but with confirmed light performance that falls in the zenith of both.
7. GIA Ex with AGS 1-4 light performance.
8. AGS Ideal's that do not make GIA Ex but are VG for various reasons.
9. GIA VG down to Poor.
10. Not to mention the other proprietary cuts like Solasfera, August Vintage, Star129 etc.

When it comes to consumers comparing precision cut 57 facet round brilliant H&A's (#3 above) to GIA Ex's of whatever variety I can tell you this. There are consumers who do and don't see the differences immediately. There is so much that goes into account as to the "why's". Ie. There are GIA Ex round brilliants that have AGS Ideal optics where consumers see the difference because of the precise Optical Symmetry of the H&A's and some who don't. Then as John mentioned there are those who develop their palate and do appreciate moreso as time goes on. There are also individuals who prefer chaotic optical symmetry and are fine with that.

As each one of us has our differences that make up our particular personalities. There are individuals and couples who want it even if they can't see it immediately or ever see it and there are those who don't.

I personally take the approach I have since I've been selling online. I err on the side of caution, make sure I'm getting the value I'm paying for and if Optical Symmetry ever begins getting graded with any major lab we are already one step ahead of the game when it comes to value. Many pros here realize the inherent value in the labor that goes into producing such rare products. It would be nice to see a major lab recognize these efforts in a grading system although it is really unlikely as most diamonds would not receive the top grade.

Bottom line and what I recommend to the consumer ... Educate yourself. Determine what it is that is important to you. Is it simply a GIA Ex? Is it simply an AGS Ideal? Is it one that has optics which fall in the zenith of both? How about taking that to a level of precision which represents less than 1% of diamonds in the world ... more rare than Tiffany, Cartier etc for a small fraction more? Garner as much information as you can about what it is you want and get it.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

We can never quantify taste based issues and selecting the most beautiful diamond cut is 100% taste based.
Of course convincing people that something is "scientifically better" influences how they view the stones.
We sell CBI diamonds and a wide range of other diamonds- we never advertise using science as a lever to influence the buyers.
Those who have purchased CBI stones have been thrilled. But such buyers represent a small percentage of people who are shopping.
Using totally blind methods when showing the diamonds results in drastically different results.

Someone suggested Gog video to compare- except the GOG videos are designed to show the stones the way Jon sees them.
To get a true educational video we would need someone to produce it with no commercial interests.

Just catching up in this thread. My apologies for my delay as I'm still on page 3.

Dave ... the videos are not designed to show diamonds the way I personally see them although they most certainly do. Any comparison we shoot, all the diamonds are under the same illumination, evenly distributed lighting without any particular one receiving better illumination than others. These are the best conditions for unbiased observation. I've selected the environments I do for good reason but not to attempt to persuade anyone towards my personal opinion. I've shot many clips for people who have selected what pleases their eyes and not mine. I'll also, upon request completely leave out any audio commentary by myself so people can view without any outside influence from me.

Peace,
Jon

HI Jon,
I believe you have used the terms like "slushy, and watery" as a knock on diamonds you do not prefer.
It certainly seems like you're pushing your own opinion.

I thought those were nicer words that what was actually going through my head. But yes ... Extraneous light leakage in a diamond causes it to receive lower grades in AGS and GIA which are quite frankly I think are butt ugly and receive those lower grades for good reason. I respect personal preference and if someone does in fact prefer diamonds like that I never criticize a person's personal preference. It may interest you to know that a cushion we kept here as an example of this "watery/slushy crushed ice effect" we actually sold when the client said ... hey I actually prefer that! When we are showing diamonds however that does represent an extreme minority. To each their own.

About the best conditions for an unbiased observation:
Not all stones react to light in the same manner.
Personally I find the diamond dock to be a very poor choice, even for round brilliant diamonds. Even worse for stones that use leakage as part of their recipe for beauty.
The different lighting setups I've seen in your videos don't seem to equate to any real life lighting I've seen.

I know a vast army of people who would tell you otherwise. What would you suggest? Backlighting?

Having said this- any video is a compromise. Including mine.
The Vibox is amazing- and IMO far better than putting a diamond in a diamond dock.
But even the VIbox forces certain compromises.
The methods you use Jon- they are compromised in ways I find that make them far less useful for comparison.
Add in the commentary, and they are advertising, pure and simple.
Nice ads for sure, but ads.

I don't limit videos to GIA's DiamondDock but contrary to what you are saying it does accurately portray what we see in that lighting and can also point out the ill effects of light leakage, head/body obstruction, painting, digging etc. I generally always include natural daylight as well as various spot lighting as well. Does monoscopic video replace stereoscopic human observation? Nope. Never will but when a person wants to see a relative comparison under even illumination in various lighting environments .. Dave I do what I do for good reason and it's not just "advertising". It is educational whether you want to admit it or not however I'm not here to debate you on that. I already know you are not a proponent of cut innovation, light performance or probably even cut grading in general so no use in beating a dead horse.

Peace,
Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I would want the stones cut to similar "ideal" proportions.

Rhino sells diamonds that perform well in the GIA diamond dock(where most of his videos are shot) and may not want to present information that highlights the weaknesses of how he chooses to do comparisons(sell) diamonds.

Just for clarification tmorrow I'd shoot in any environment a person asked as long as it is not too inconvenient. Ie. How do these diamonds look atop of the Empire State building? What is most important is that whatever environment they are shot in that no diamond is receiving "special" lighting but all equal lighting and illumination.

All the best,
Rhino

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Vendors ask me all them time to review videos and what makes for a good video.
My answer number one is consistency and not deceptive.
By deceptive I explain I mean mean no back lighting, no floating in the air and as relevant as possible.
No video lighting is ever going to be able to perfectly mimic even one lighting environment that a consumer lives with much less many.
However with consistent and not deceptive lighting and technique a viewer can learn the videos over time and they become more useful.
Videos that are majorly different every time are not useful.

Consistency is the key.
Vibox does a good job of being consistent, it is its greatest strength.
Some vendors are very good at it some need a lot of work or buy a vibox.

 

[JoshuaNiamehr]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

+1 for this thread.

There are some physical measurement devices out there that are able to quantify light symmetry and other metrics, do you think they are part of the future of quantification of performance nuances?

Hi Josh,

It depends on what technology you're talking about. I have worked intimately with just about every technology out there from ASET, Bscope, Isee2, Sarine, sophisticated versions of IdealScope, Octonus Raytrace, OGI ray trace, etc. as well as correlating those results with real world observation. All of them have their strengths and all of them also have their limitations. We take the approach of "test all things, hold fast to that which is good". Technologies are great for communicating strengths and weakness of certain products but it is important that consumers know the limitations of them as well.

Regards,
Rhino

Hi Rhino,

Lets use the Sarine Light as an example - it is calibrated to measure optical performance and light symmetry. I believe its the only device that actually measures light symmetry physically.

Joshua

Hi Josh,

I had Sarine Light here and tested numerous diamonds on it whose results I have saved. It is what was formerly the Isee2 technology which I had used for roughly a decade but wanted to test the new algorithms. As an advocate of online technologies and one who was eager to re-employ the technology ... after seeing the results I had to pass. To rely upon it as any form of "grading system" no less ... not a good idea.

Regards,
Rhino

Hi Rhino,

Would you disagree that its light symmetry grade is accurate? Its calibrated and a physical measurement unlike Hearts and Arrows.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I do not think that would be collusion Bryan. I think it is "doable" and it would be an excellent way to test and possibly even put much of this debate to bed. Sergey and I have been discussing running a survey at the PS GTG in Vegas and also online with ViBox video's of real diamonds. Would it make sense to test just two stones, or a larger number?
Should there be a new thread?

Garry, how could such a survey account for the following?

1. The human physiology of individual eyesight.

Some people have a refined visual palate, others develop one, others don’t. One person may detect more in a diamond’s scintillation than others. That goes for color and clarity too. Some people are crazy color-sensitive while others are not. It’s the same with cut. Furthermore, palates like listening, tasting and seeing rely on live, hot cognition. I don't know if you have perfect pitch, a nose for wine or an eye for diamond nuances. Some people do. Some don’t. Some have one palate that’s more refined than their others... What’s certain is that one person cannot possibly determine the subtle nuances of what another will see (or hear or taste) based on his own palate. To that end, the in-store experiences of our showroom clients is in-keeping with this. Many decisively see and want our specific look. Others see it but have a different priority. Others may say “meh,” or don’t see it at all.

2. Longer exposure.

There’s the “immediate” reaction (as in showrooms). The “2-week rule” (per Karl_K) and then the “30-day-test” per some e-tailers. Going even farther, in the different time frames it would also be interesting to classify the background and mindset of people who not only perceived, but also those who valued a technical difference. As an example, engineers and architects are regularly attracted, but that makes sense from a left-brained precision perspective. On the other side, pro musicians are also regularly attracted, and speak of the visual aesthetics, which would seem right-brained.

Karl made it more succinct.

As always 2weeks plus in your own environment and life is the real exam for any diamond.

Many diamond buyers are investing a significant sum of money in this purchase. Time and again we are told it's not a judgment of a moment. In any "taste-test," how would you propose to overcome the above?

Excellent points John.

It is true that consumers can see differences at the point of presentation and also others that develop their palate over time. Particularly those who get educated.

So far, for the most part what you are all talking about is something I've been doing here in our store on a daily basis with both local and foreign clients who fly in ever since we've been featuring our Superior line (starting back in 2000). Over the course of this time we have featured various personalities of precision cut round brilliants ranging from ...

1. Precision Cut H&A's with notable painting (an old brand we used to feature)...
2. """"""""""""" """ """"""""" """"" notable digging
3. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' minimal painting/digging typical of today's H&A's
4. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" notably longer lower halves closer to 85% (cut them on demand)
5. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' notably shorter lower halves closer to or at 75%
6. GIA Ex/AGS Ideal's that are not precision cut but with confirmed light performance that falls in the zenith of both.
7. GIA Ex with AGS 1-4 light performance.
8. AGS Ideal's that do not make GIA Ex but are VG for various reasons.
9. GIA VG down to Poor.
10. Not to mention the other proprietary cuts like Solasfera, August Vintage, Star129 etc.

When it comes to consumers comparing precision cut 57 facet round brilliant H&A's (#3 above) to GIA Ex's of whatever variety I can tell you this. There are consumers who do and don't see the differences immediately. There is so much that goes into account as to the "why's". Ie. There are GIA Ex round brilliants that have AGS Ideal optics where consumers see the difference because of the precise Optical Symmetry of the H&A's and some who don't. Then as John mentioned there are those who develop their palate and do appreciate moreso as time goes on. There are also individuals who prefer chaotic optical symmetry and are fine with that.

As each one of us has our differences that make up our particular personalities. There are individuals and couples who want it even if they can't see it immediately or ever see it and there are those who don't.

I personally take the approach I have since I've been selling online. I err on the side of caution, make sure I'm getting the value I'm paying for and if Optical Symmetry ever begins getting graded with any major lab we are already one step ahead of the game when it comes to value. Many pros here realize the inherent value in the labor that goes into producing such rare products. It would be nice to see a major lab recognize these efforts in a grading system although it is really unlikely as most diamonds would not receive the top grade.

Bottom line and what I recommend to the consumer ... Educate yourself. Determine what it is that is important to you. Is it simply a GIA Ex? Is it simply an AGS Ideal? Is it one that has optics which fall in the zenith of both? How about taking that to a level of precision which represents less than 1% of diamonds in the world ... more rare than Tiffany, Cartier etc for a small fraction more? Garner as much information as you can about what it is you want and get it.

Peace,
Rhino

Jon,
The entire point of the thread and the questions posed is to help consumers do exactly what you tell them to do in your last paragraph: educate themselves. If consumers have a better idea on the differences they can expect, they are more likely to make a better decision on what it is they want. If a consumer is buying online without a chance to see the diamonds prior to a purchase, how are they supposed to know what it is they want if they don't have a good idea of how the stones may differ as a result of superior optical symmetry? You see it asked often on here: what do I stand to give up if I don't get h&a? What will the visual difference be? Will I see a difference? No one can answer those questions accurately because you just don't know. But so many are happy to say "the h&a is cut BETTER". When you couple this with the maserati vs nice chevy type analogies that you hear from both consumers and vendors here, consumers begin to feel like the differences will be anything but subtle. Add in the constant criticism of the GIA excellent grade and you have more and more consumers pushed towards AGS 000. Then you have vendors advertising AGS 000 is even too wide and that the superideals represent the pinnacle of cut performance. Yet there is no measurement to support such claims as far as I can tell?

This is another quote from CBI.

"Infinity Diamonds exceed every performance metric on earth, achieving levels yet unmeasured and ungraded by any diamond laboratory. In short, no laboratory matches our own standards." I'm not sure I even get what this means. Acheiving levels yet unmeasured and ungraded... Perhaps you can let us know what is meant by this John? What "levels" are being acheived and how are you measuring them? Which things are being measured that the labs aren't measuring?

I think that if optical symmetry has such a large impact on visual perception ,an effort should be made to try to quantify that difference. If that means additional grading metrics, great. If it means having a lot of consumers look at diamonds to see how many are drawn to those with superior optical symmetry, that's great too. I just think it would be nice if consumers who are buying sight unseen had more concrete evidence to go by as opposed to marketing.

John (and any others who wish to voice an opinion): do you think it would be helpful for consumers to have a blinded study to see how many consumers are detecting differences due to optical symmetry, EVEN IF it can't account for differences in eyesight between viewers and is done in a single observation throughout different types of lighting? Or do you think such a study is of limited use to consumers and should not be pursued? If you think it is of limited use, how would you propose improving it to make such a study more useful for consumers?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi Jon
GIA does not penalize fancy shapes for leakage. As we both know GIA does not grade fancy shapes for cut, therefore cannot penalize any cut for leakage aside from round. In general round diamonds are the most consistent in terms of appearance therefore far easier to develop photographic methods for. If a round diamond exhibited a lot of leakage we'd all agree that it would not look as we expect a well cut round to look.
The same can not be said for fancy shapes.
You may prefer fancy shapes designed to avoid green in ASET and I've got an army of folks who disagree with that tact.


Let's talk about " backlighting"
The Vibox- and I'm sure every other effective lighting system on the market puts lights behind a diamond.
Other than the vibox pictures we publish I can not get lights effectively behind the diamond nor have I ever tried.

Part of what you have written today is informative- then you go into total advertising mode and talk about people who want the "top 1% of of diamonds in the world"
Honestly that statement immediately taints everything else you write as an ad.
My point again- advertising something one loves is appropriate.
You're of course totally welcome to hate radiants cut in the manner their creator envisioned- call them slushy watery, leaky. whatever you want
If you find that helps to sell your type of stones, there's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion.
The issue is that passing off promotional material as informational is misleading.

I'm sure we will need to agree to disagree on some points but I do appreciate you taking the time to respond

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

pfunk,
When you quote a vendors website you limit who can reply.
Per the forum rules we are not allowed to discuss another vendors website except in the very narrow exception of correcting inaccurate information or commenting on misinformation.
Several posts in this thread have already pushed the boundaries but you will get better and more answers by keeping it vendor neutral.

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Thanks for the heads up Karl. I was unaware of that. I suppose only someone from CBI can and should address the questions specific to CBI anyway. But I hope you are still allowed to respond to other questions in my post that are not specific to CBI.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Pfunk- any sort of survey would be interesting from an academic standpoint.
Whatever the result would generate a lot of discussions here- which is a great goal in itself.

For me, from a practical standpoint any results are meaningless to any given individual.


I think a worthy goal is a system of cut grading that rewards a variety of different optical signatures for different reasons.
Finding well cut "crushed ice" stones is a difficult task as much as finding well cut step cuts.
I find that one needs to keep an open mind as the the methods that a fancy shape uses to achieve its goal. Like a spready princess with a shallow crown that manages to have a uniform brilliance and great scintillation.
It would score low for fire - but many stones that score well for fire score poorly for spread.
So which should be placed as the priority? Fire or spread?
If both stones are well cut don't see either choice as a sacrifice.
A grading system that somehow impartially identifies the optical signature would be great.

 

[Medical]

Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos, etc

Pfunk- any sort of survey would be interesting from an academic standpoint.
Whatever the result would generate a lot of discussions here- which is a great goal in itself.

For me, from a practical standpoint any results are meaningless to any given individual.


I think a worthy goal is a system of cut grading that rewards a variety of different optical signatures for different reasons.
Finding well cut "crushed ice" stones is a difficult task as much as finding well cut step cuts.
I find that one needs to keep an open mind as the the methods that a fancy shape uses to achieve its goal. Like a spready princess with a shallow crown that manages to have a uniform brilliance and great scintillation.
It would score low for fire - but many stones that score well for fire score poorly for spread.
So which should be placed as the priority? Fire or spread?
If both stones are well cut don't see either choice as a sacrifice.
A grading system that somehow impartially identifies the optical signature would be great.

So I guess one of the things that confuses me as a result of being from another field is the idea that if I can measure something as tiny as the concentration of a specific RNA for a specific protein inside a population of blood cells accurately- what are the technical limitations on designing a system that measures both the intensity and wavelength of light that comes off of a diamond? We have machines that measure light intensity at different wavelengths/colors in our labs and use them frequently for various enzyme activity assays. Why not apply this kind of technology to measure intensity and wavelength of light coming off a rock from various angles? Wouldn't this provide precisely the impartial measurements mentioned above?

It's my understanding that physicists have tech nowadays able to measure down to the level of photons (though my physics background is a few years behind me so correct me if I'm wrong)- why not take a Vibox type setup and integrate it with such a spectrometer type device- then have it take measurements in a grid pattern over the stone creating a sort of heat map for various wavelengths. We do a similar thing with fluorescent antibody staining on tissue in mass specs.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

So I guess one of the things that confuses me as a result of being from another field is the idea that if I can measure something as tiny as the concentration of a specific RNA for a specific protein inside a population of blood cells accurately- what are the technical limitations on designing a system that measures both the intensity and wavelength of light that comes off of a diamond? We have machines that measure light intensity at different wavelengths/colors in our labs and use them frequently for various enzyme activity assays. Why not apply this kind of technology to measure intensity and wavelength of light coming off a rock from various angles? Wouldn't this provide precisely the impartial measurements mentioned above?

It's my understanding that physicists have tech nowadays able to measure down to the level of photons (though my physics background is a few years behind me so correct me if I'm wrong)- why not take a Vibox type setup and integrate it with such a spectrometer type device- then have it take measurements in a grid pattern over the stone creating a sort of heat map for various wavelengths. We do a similar thing with fluorescent antibody staining on tissue in mass specs.

There have been some very crude attempts to do so but nothing without serious flaws.
The biggest thing holding back that kind of thing is money.
There are no real commercial advantages in today's market to taking it to that level.
Its a niche market that even cares at this point but is growing.
Time will tell if it gets big enough to get to the point where there is that kind of money in it.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

So I guess one of the things that confuses me as a result of being from another field is the idea that if I can measure something as tiny as the concentration of a specific RNA for a specific protein inside a population of blood cells accurately- what are the technical limitations on designing a system that measures both the intensity and wavelength of light that comes off of a diamond? We have machines that measure light intensity at different wavelengths/colors in our labs and use them frequently for various enzyme activity assays. Why not apply this kind of technology to measure intensity and wavelength of light coming off a rock from various angles? Wouldn't this provide precisely the impartial measurements mentioned above?

It's my understanding that physicists have tech nowadays able to measure down to the level of photons (though my physics background is a few years behind me so correct me if I'm wrong)- why not take a Vibox type setup and integrate it with such a spectrometer type device- then have it take measurements in a grid pattern over the stone creating a sort of heat map for various wavelengths. We do a similar thing with fluorescent antibody staining on tissue in mass specs.

There have been some very crude attempts to do so but nothing without serious flaws.
The biggest thing holding back that kind of thing is money.
There are no real commercial advantages in today's market to taking it to that level.
Its a niche market that even cares at this point but is growing.
Time will tell if it gets big enough to get to the point where there is that kind of money in it.

No. Reason is different. you can not measure Fire, Brilliancy by spectrometer .
for example such measurements do not give difference between 2 small flashes and one big flash. Such measurements do not see difference between number of static photos and movie, between mono and stereo, etc.
anybody who use just spectrometer for diamond LP measurements, just spoil money. without "Human Brain model" objective measurements are far away from Human perception .
Brilliancy is the Illusion , spectrometer can not measure a illusions.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Hi Jon
GIA does not penalize fancy shapes for leakage. As we both know GIA does not grade fancy shapes for cut, therefore cannot penalize any cut for leakage aside from round. In general round diamonds are the most consistent in terms of appearance therefore far easier to develop photographic methods for. If a round diamond exhibited a lot of leakage we'd all agree that it would not look as we expect a well cut round to look.
The same can not be said for fancy shapes.
You may prefer fancy shapes designed to avoid green in ASET and I've got an army of folks who disagree with that tact.


Let's talk about " backlighting"
The Vibox- and I'm sure every other effective lighting system on the market puts lights behind a diamond.
Other than the vibox pictures we publish I can not get lights effectively behind the diamond nor have I ever tried.

Part of what you have written today is informative- then you go into total advertising mode and talk about people who want the "top 1% of of diamonds in the world"
Honestly that statement immediately taints everything else you write as an ad.
My point again- advertising something one loves is appropriate.
You're of course totally welcome to hate radiants cut in the manner their creator envisioned- call them slushy watery, leaky. whatever you want
If you find that helps to sell your type of stones, there's nothing wrong with expressing your opinion.
The issue is that passing off promotional material as informational is misleading.

I'm sure we will need to agree to disagree on some points but I do appreciate you taking the time to respond

David,
Vibox has 3 mechanics for different tasks.
1) Figure 8( tilting around table direction) to Show Brilliancy, Fire in colourless diamonds. It has black background without any back light
2) Girdle360( vertical rotation axis, 360 degree) to Show inclusions. It has bright background
3) Pavilion360 or Pavilion swing ( rotation axis has slope, diamond rests on pavilion, background is usually grey ) . it is mainly either for jewellery or fancy colour diamonds.

for Fancy colour diamonds light grey background is important in mono movies, because:
1) appearance Fancy colour diamonds on light grey background in mono movies are more similar to appearance of real diamond by Human than mono movie on black background. Stereo movie with black background gives more correct appliance for fancy colour diamonds , but few buyers can use stereo movie yet( we are planing to do it more simple in few months).
2) Labs use grey light background to grade colour for fancy colour diamonds
There is not any good solution in mono( with or without backlight) for fancy colour diamonds and any crushed ice diamonds.
In Stereo I always prefer black background without any backlight .

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Pfunk- any sort of survey would be interesting from an academic standpoint.
Whatever the result would generate a lot of discussions here- which is a great goal in itself.

For me, from a practical standpoint any results are meaningless to any given individual.


I think a worthy goal is a system of cut grading that rewards a variety of different optical signatures for different reasons.
Finding well cut "crushed ice" stones is a difficult task as much as finding well cut step cuts.
I find that one needs to keep an open mind as the the methods that a fancy shape uses to achieve its goal. Like a spready princess with a shallow crown that manages to have a uniform brilliance and great scintillation.
It would score low for fire - but many stones that score well for fire score poorly for spread.
So which should be placed as the priority? Fire or spread?
If both stones are well cut don't see either choice as a sacrifice.
A grading system that somehow impartially identifies the optical signature would be great.

So I guess one of the things that confuses me as a result of being from another field is the idea that if I can measure something as tiny as the concentration of a specific RNA for a specific protein inside a population of blood cells accurately- what are the technical limitations on designing a system that measures both the intensity and wavelength of light that comes off of a diamond? We have machines that measure light intensity at different wavelengths/colors in our labs and use them frequently for various enzyme activity assays. Why not apply this kind of technology to measure intensity and wavelength of light coming off a rock from various angles? Wouldn't this provide precisely the impartial measurements mentioned above?

It's my understanding that physicists have tech nowadays able to measure down to the level of photons (though my physics background is a few years behind me so correct me if I'm wrong)- why not take a Vibox type setup and integrate it with such a spectrometer type device- then have it take measurements in a grid pattern over the stone creating a sort of heat map for various wavelengths. We do a similar thing with fluorescent antibody staining on tissue in mass specs.

Medical this is a rather long and complex article, but it underpins the difficulties Serge mentions. With your background you might have more chance of comprehending the difficulties around the approach you suggested. Simply, or mind gets in the way, and no device can 'measure' what you want to measure (yet).
http://www.gem.org.au/ckfinder/userfiles/files/GAA_Journal_V25_No3_web2(1).pdf

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Pfunk- any sort of survey would be interesting from an academic standpoint.
Whatever the result would generate a lot of discussions here- which is a great goal in itself.

For me, from a practical standpoint any results are meaningless to any given individual.


I think a worthy goal is a system of cut grading that rewards a variety of different optical signatures for different reasons.
Finding well cut "crushed ice" stones is a difficult task as much as finding well cut step cuts.
I find that one needs to keep an open mind as the the methods that a fancy shape uses to achieve its goal. Like a spready princess with a shallow crown that manages to have a uniform brilliance and great scintillation.
It would score low for fire - but many stones that score well for fire score poorly for spread.
So which should be placed as the priority? Fire or spread?
If both stones are well cut don't see either choice as a sacrifice.
A grading system that somehow impartially identifies the optical signature would be great.

So I guess one of the things that confuses me as a result of being from another field is the idea that if I can measure something as tiny as the concentration of a specific RNA for a specific protein inside a population of blood cells accurately- what are the technical limitations on designing a system that measures both the intensity and wavelength of light that comes off of a diamond? We have machines that measure light intensity at different wavelengths/colors in our labs and use them frequently for various enzyme activity assays. Why not apply this kind of technology to measure intensity and wavelength of light coming off a rock from various angles? Wouldn't this provide precisely the impartial measurements mentioned above?

It's my understanding that physicists have tech nowadays able to measure down to the level of photons (though my physics background is a few years behind me so correct me if I'm wrong)- why not take a Vibox type setup and integrate it with such a spectrometer type device- then have it take measurements in a grid pattern over the stone creating a sort of heat map for various wavelengths. We do a similar thing with fluorescent antibody staining on tissue in mass specs.

These are very logical conclusions Medical.
They are not practical but that does not stop sellers from using the logic to convince buyers there is a way to produce meaningful light return calibrations.
The important thing to remember is that we are grading the appearance of a diamond. More light return is not "better'
If we want maximum light return we would use a mirror.
It's a matter of balancing a number of characteristics in a way the human eye finds pleasing. But not all humans will perceive things the same way.
This is completely different than the type of measurement you are referring to.

 

[SandyinAnaheim]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Tmorrow....You posts show you had been on PS in long time( before 2 April ). who are you and why do you use new PS registration?

I am glad someone finally asked what others of us have been thinking. Frankly, this and the other two new resident "experts" that both joined within two days of each other in December elicit suspicions, especially in light of their very pointed criticism/questioning of CBI in particular, when I would bet they haven't actually seen one IRL.

I am no expert, but I am an experienced consumer. I bought an expensive GIA XXX I VS2 from Costco that was gray in all lighting situations. I thought its pedigree would guarantee my satisfaction. I could not possibly have been more wrong. That's how I found this site and started educating myself. I learned that between like stones in size, color and clarity, the biggest distinguishing factor in light return, fire and brilliance is cut. Armed with this information, I went to at least 15 jewelers looking for that something that neared perfection that I couldn't quantify, but thought I would recognize once I saw. I looked at hundreds of stones and listened to dozens of biased and uneducated sales pitches, some of which were too much fun not to counter and shred. I did visit one jeweler who had a lovely stone that I liked more than anything else I saw. It was a GIA XXX E VS2. She took me outside with it and it was the whitest stone I had ever seen, but it had a carbon freckle smack dab in the middle of the table that bothered me. She told me I couldn't possibly see that, until she pulled out the GIA report and saw that there indeed was an inclusion right where I was pointing.

The more I learned, the further away attainment of my goal seemed to get. I never asked for any help from the residents here as the majority seemed like shills for one vendor or another and I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the payroll for some of these vendors. I contacted at least 6 of the major vendors on this website. A couple were out of my price range for the setting I desired. Some admitted they didn't have any stones to meet my criteria, some tried to sell me an inferior stone thereby losing my trust forevermore by lying. And a couple were too busy to attend to my $20k+ budget. I could name names, but I don't think that would be helpful to this topic. I even looked at some Tiffany stones and there is something about their dimensions that made the HCA unable to return values for them. They may be popular, but I think that's more the blue box marketing than actual quality of the stones, but what do I know....

Aside from the beauty and performance of the stone I would eventually choose, there really are a myriad of other factors that should come into play for intelligent consumers who are making a purchase of this size imho. Diamonds, I have been taught, are a poor investment vehicle. However, in reviewing the options offered by various vendors on this site, a 100% trade in value towards upgrade and 80% buy back policy is an incredibly powerful consideration. If you have not seen what happens to consumers who purchase the "oohh pretty shiny" without knowing what they're buying, and then try to resell it, I can tell you it is disheartening. Some lose 70-90% of their purchase value. I see it on ebay every day. I did not want that to happen to me and my husband.

Because of HPD's return policy, I knew I would be safe in purchasing that stone and returning it if it wasn't up to snuff. When we received the rings, both my husband and I were left speechless. The CBI, sitting in its box untouched, was picking up and reflecting sparks all around it from the gentle moving of the overhead light/fan. It glows brilliantly. After the many, many stones we had seen together, my husband and I were awestruck by the scintillation and dispersion we were witnessing. We had not seen anything like this in our hunts all over town. Their are facets, which I later learned are called star facets, that do the most amazing things with light. Again, I am no expert, but I have very sensitive vision and can tell you, that what CBIs are known for, cut quality, do INDEED make a world of difference. Are there other stones cut this well by other vendors? Perhaps, but I have yet to see one IRL.

I went back to that shop that had the bright E stone and can tell you from looking at my CBI side by side to that higher colored GIA XXX, there really was no comparison. My CBI G was easily as bright white as that E, and 50 times as alive with color play and brilliance. The lady thought my stone was also an E and took my rings back to look at them under her scopes to see if she could determine the difference. She said she found nothing visibly different and I explained to her what little I know of cut quality and the difference it makes. But that confirmed in my mind what I already knew - I made the right choice. I won't even get into the comments and questions I get from both men and women on an almost daily basis on how brilliant my diamond rings and how they shine and glow from afar.

I find it difficult to see individuals who haven't even witnessed a CBI and the difference between it and other expertly cut stones, doubt the excellence of the cut and the difference it makes. It's like watching a movie on 8 mm film or on BlueRay. Once you've seen the quality and crisp detail of BlueRay - you KNOW the difference. Until you see the better quality - it is difficult to imagine that it could be that much better. But I am here to tell you, as a lowly consumer who shopped and researched for months, it IS better and there IS a huge difference.

Now back to your regularly scheduled quasi-scientific discussions....

 

[pfunk]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Tmorrow....You posts show you had been on PS in long time( before 2 April ). who are you and why do you use new PS registration?

I am glad someone finally asked what others of us have been thinking. Frankly, this and the other two new resident "experts" that both joined within two days of each other in December elicit suspicions, especially in light of their very pointed criticism/questioning of CBI in particular, when I would bet they haven't actually seen one IRL.

I am no expert, but I am an experienced consumer. I bought an expensive GIA XXX I VS2 from Costco that was gray in all lighting situations. I thought its pedigree would guarantee my satisfaction. I could not possibly have been more wrong. That's how I found this site and started educating myself. I learned that between like stones in size, color and clarity, the biggest distinguishing factor in light return, fire and brilliance is cut. Armed with this information, I went to at least 15 jewelers looking for that something that neared perfection that I couldn't quantify, but thought I would recognize once I saw. I looked at hundreds of stones and listened to dozens of biased and uneducated sales pitches, some of which were too much fun not to counter and shred. I did visit one jeweler who had a lovely stone that I liked more than anything else I saw. It was a GIA XXX E VS2. She took me outside with it and it was the whitest stone I had ever seen, but it had a carbon freckle smack dab in the middle of the table that bothered me. She told me I couldn't possibly see that, until she pulled out the GIA report and saw that there indeed was an inclusion right where I was pointing.

The more I learned, the further away attainment of my goal seemed to get. I never asked for any help from the residents here as the majority seemed like shills for one vendor or another and I wouldn't be surprised if they were on the payroll for some of these vendors. I contacted at least 6 of the major vendors on this website. A couple were out of my price range for the setting I desired. Some admitted they didn't have any stones to meet my criteria, some tried to sell me an inferior stone thereby losing my trust forevermore by lying. And a couple were too busy to attend to my $20k+ budget. I could name names, but I don't think that would be helpful to this topic. I even looked at some Tiffany stones and there is something about their dimensions that made the HCA unable to return values for them. They may be popular, but I think that's more the blue box marketing than actual quality of the stones, but what do I know....

Aside from the beauty and performance of the stone I would eventually choose, there really are a myriad of other factors that should come into play for intelligent consumers who are making a purchase of this size imho. Diamonds, I have been taught, are a poor investment vehicle. However, in reviewing the options offered by various vendors on this site, a 100% trade in value towards upgrade and 80% buy back policy is an incredibly powerful consideration. If you have not seen what happens to consumers who purchase the "oohh pretty shiny" without knowing what they're buying, and then try to resell it, I can tell you it is disheartening. Some lose 70-90% of their purchase value. I see it on ebay every day. I did not want that to happen to me and my husband.

Because of HPD's return policy, I knew I would be safe in purchasing that stone and returning it if it wasn't up to snuff. When we received the rings, both my husband and I were left speechless. The CBI, sitting in its box untouched, was picking up and reflecting sparks all around it from the gentle moving of the overhead light/fan. It glows brilliantly. After the many, many stones we had seen together, my husband and I were awestruck by the scintillation and dispersion we were witnessing. We had not seen anything like this in our hunts all over town. Their are facets, which I later learned are called star facets, that do the most amazing things with light. Again, I am no expert, but I have very sensitive vision and can tell you, that what CBIs are known for, cut quality, do INDEED make a world of difference. Are there other stones cut this well by other vendors? Perhaps, but I have yet to see one IRL.

I went back to that shop that had the bright E stone and can tell you from looking at my CBI side by side to that higher colored GIA XXX, there really was no comparison. My CBI G was easily as bright white as that E, and 50 times as alive with color play and brilliance. The lady thought my stone was also an E and took my rings back to look at them under her scopes to see if she could determine the difference. She said she found nothing visibly different and I explained to her what little I know of cut quality and the difference it makes. But that confirmed in my mind what I already knew - I made the right choice. I won't even get into the comments and questions I get from both men and women on an almost daily basis on how brilliant my diamond rings and how they shine and glow from afar.

I find it difficult to see individuals who haven't even witnessed a CBI and the difference between it and other expertly cut stones, doubt the excellence of the cut and the difference it makes. It's like watching a movie on 8 mm film or on BlueRay. Once you've seen the quality and crisp detail of BlueRay - you KNOW the difference. Until you see the better quality - it is difficult to imagine that it could be that much better. But I am here to tell you, as a lowly consumer who shopped and researched for months, it IS better and there IS a huge difference.

Now back to your regularly scheduled quasi-scientific discussions....

Sandy,

I think you should have crowned yourself an "expert" right away while you were labeling the rest of us. Not once have I ever said that I doubted how beautiful a CBI stone could be. And as I explained in an earlier thread that you may or may not have read, after finding out that I happen to have a dealer not too far from where I live, I fully intend to go see one in person myself when time permits.

The very people who sell superideals have said themselves that the differences are indeed subtle and that some consumers may not ever even notice a difference. I am glad that you, with your impeccable eyesight, are seeing and appreciating those differences and are happy that you spent the premium for it. It is great that you are getting every last ounce of value out of it.

Many people who come to the forums are looking to buy stones without the opportunity to see them prior to the purchase. Not everyone has a superideal diamond dealer close to home where they can go see for themselves. The intent is to better inform consumers who are buying sight unseen what they can expect to see. If the fact is that the majority of superideal owners can see the differences and point them out, great. It would be good for consumers to know that. If it's a 50/50 split of people who can see and appreciate the difference, it may change the way consumers go into the purchase. I don't know what the numbers are, and that is the reason for the questions; not only to know how many people are seeing differences but to hear what those differences are and what is causing them. It's not to single out any diamond dealer. It is to help and empower other consumers to make a more well informed decision that takes marketing out of the way and looks strictly at real world observations.

You are one example of someone who sees a difference and states that your diamond IS better and there IS a "huge" difference. I am sure you are not alone. But you know as well as I do that there are other consumers who have compared superideals to ideal cut diamonds and have NOT seen the difference. Yours is a single opinion, and there are opinions that are the opposite of yours. Getting a better gauge on the percentage of people who can see these differences is empowering to consumers who are looking to spend a great deal of money without ever laying an eye on the diamond.

Finally, what "suspicions" might I be able to lay to rest for you? It seems that you find it "suspicious" that I happened to have joined within a couple of days of someone else who shares some of the same viewpoints as myself? Is that too big of a coincidence for you or something?

If you find it suspicious that I ask questions of vendors here about material on their websites, I am sorry but I can do nothing for you in that regard. I think I have been professional in all of my statements and inquiries here, and if any vendor would rather not answer my questions that is completely up to them. They need not respond if they would rather not. Like I have said before and as I will continue to say, I am here to learn myself and to hopefully help others learn in the process. If asking questions of vendors is against the rules, then lock me up because I will be a long time repeat offender.

 

[Medical]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Thanks for the great responses, Karl, Garry, Serg, and Rockdiamond!

Karl- that makes a lot of sense that there's not much funding for this kind of research- I never really thought about that, thanks for bringing it up! I suppose it would be counterproductive for the majority of (non PS super ideal) cutters out there to carry out this work as the more research done the more their current inventory could end up looking subpar. Also, whoever did the studies and developed the technology would need to invest in educating consumers on the difference on top of putting in the research to turn more profit, so it could be a real net negative for the average dealers out there.

It seems like the market has been moving towards a paradigm shift though in the last couple decades, so I think the PS dealers here are ahead of the curve and will do quite well as the market continues to shift towards data driven consuming in all categories- and the ability to adapt with the data and continually think critically about it will allow them to stay ahead of the market and continue to thrive.

Garry/Serg- That article was very informative- thanks! It is amazing how visual/cognitive processing can cause such drastic changes in how two distinct static images are transposed into one single image- I was aware summation doesn't do it justice but was not aware of the extent of difference suggested. I am curious about how certain data points such as the square experiments were collected- such as when the squares were displayed to subjects, how was what they were seeing determined- and how many people were studied? Also, have you noticed any variation between people in how two different images are synthesized? I haven't read through the literature, but I'm curious if you know whether each person tends to interpret the two images combined in the same way, or if there is some variation between people for this.

To the poster above- I don't think I've ever said anything negative about CBI or any other super ideal dealer. It's my personal opinion (non-scientific and untested) that I also see a difference and I plan on obtaining a super ideal myself at some point- and I'm very grateful to pricescope for how much I've learned and the ability to decide that I am after such a diamond. My questions are purely for lack of ability to control my curiosity, and tangentiality of this field to my personal areas of interest- not really much else. I'm not sure if I'm the poster who joined in the same time frame as pfunk, but I can assure you I do not know him and it is pure coincidence.

Finally, just want to give a big kudos to the PS dealers and researchers on this thread for engaging in these discussions, it's this kind of dedication to the craft and willingness to talk about all aspects of diamond creation that has locked up my lifelong business- I enjoy supporting the companies that are dedicated scientifically and willing to both educate and continually learn. Thanks!!

 

[KobiD]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Sandy, I must be the other "expert". That's not a term I'd use to describe myself, but there's a first time for everything.

Firstly, I'd like to agree with you and admit it must appear somewhat suspicious that myself and another both signed up around the same time and both share similar views, however I assure you there is no conspiracy going on. I can only speak for myself, but my questions are genuine and revolve around my own experiences. I am not a long time consumer, and I have only made one purchase.

When I signed up, I knew nothing about Diamonds. I didn't even know the basic 4C's. I had done little more than step into a jewellery store once or twice (mall stores), where I was completely out of my comfort zone and had no trust in the sales assistant. I did not know enough to feel confident making a purchase.

So with that in mind, I ended up here to find out more. I will admit that through all that I read, there is indeed a very strong trend to push towards middle ground TIC proportions (and I can agree with that, its a safe ground to work in). There is also a very strong underlying tone that unless if you cough up the extra coin for a precision cut, (or make further compromises in size/clarity) that you will indeed be missing out on something substantial.

I can most definitely see a difference in optics between a GIA VG and an AGS0. The main questions I have revolve around if there is as much gain to be seen stepping up from AGS0 performance to AGS0 with superideal optical symmetry. The other is that just because I can comprehend visual differences, it doesn't neccessarily make one 'better' or more 'beautiful' than another. It simply makes them different.

Its like walking into an art gallery and asking which painting is best. The artist can have the best skills, use the best products, paint the most precise picture.. but the beauty will always lie in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[Karl_K]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

I can most definitely see a difference in optics between a GIA VG and an AGS0. The main questions I have revolve around if there is as much gain to be seen stepping up from AGS0 performance to AGS0 with superideal optical symmetry. The other is that just because I can comprehend visual differences, it doesn't neccessarily make one 'better' or more 'beautiful' than another. It simply makes them different.

That is really the question at hand when does it become a quality difference vs a personality difference?

One thing about high precision cutting both angular and 3d symmetry with tight tolerances is that similar sized diamonds will have similar personalities and in different sizes a family resemblance.
Another is the craftsmanship aspect, I have always been drawn to craftsmanship and I admire things where very skilled people go the extra mile to produce something.

But as too the answer to when it becomes a quality difference we have a lot of opinions but but few facts once you get to the point of being well cut vs "super ideal cut" vs ultimate craftsmanship cut.
As you move up the ladder the differences become smaller and the human element harder to predict and model.

 

[Serg]

Re: Quantifying Performance Nuances beyond ASET, H&A Photos,

Thanks for the great responses, Karl, Garry, Serg, and Rockdiamond!

Karl- that makes a lot of sense that there's not much funding for this kind of research- I never really thought about that, thanks for bringing it up! I suppose it would be counterproductive for the majority of (non PS super ideal) cutters out there to carry out this work as the more research done the more their current inventory could end up looking subpar. Also, whoever did the studies and developed the technology would need to invest in educating consumers on the difference on top of putting in the research to turn more profit, so it could be a real net negative for the average dealers out there.

It seems like the market has been moving towards a paradigm shift though in the last couple decades, so I think the PS dealers here are ahead of the curve and will do quite well as the market continues to shift towards data driven consuming in all categories- and the ability to adapt with the data and continually think critically about it will allow them to stay ahead of the market and continue to thrive.

Garry/Serg- That article was very informative- thanks! It is amazing how visual/cognitive processing can cause such drastic changes in how two distinct static images are transposed into one single image- I was aware summation doesn't do it justice but was not aware of the extent of difference suggested. I am curious about how certain data points such as the square experiments were collected- such as when the squares were displayed to subjects, how was what they were seeing determined- and how many people were studied? Also, have you noticed any variation between people in how two different images are synthesized? I haven't read through the literature, but I'm curious if you know whether each person tends to interpret the two images combined in the same way, or if there is some variation between people for this.

To the poster above- I don't think I've ever said anything negative about CBI or any other super ideal dealer. It's my personal opinion (non-scientific and untested) that I also see a difference and I plan on obtaining a super ideal myself at some point- and I'm very grateful to pricescope for how much I've learned and the ability to decide that I am after such a diamond. My questions are purely for lack of ability to control my curiosity, and tangentiality of this field to my personal areas of interest- not really much else. I'm not sure if I'm the poster who joined in the same time frame as pfunk, but I can assure you I do not know him and it is pure coincidence.

Finally, just want to give a big kudos to the PS dealers and researchers on this thread for engaging in these discussions, it's this kind of dedication to the craft and willingness to talk about all aspects of diamond creation that has locked up my lifelong business- I enjoy supporting the companies that are dedicated scientifically and willing to both educate and continually learn. Thanks!!

Medical,
1)test with squares is very old( more than 10 years old at least). we showed this test to more than 100 observers in 2014, but in group tests.( In previous 10 years we tested around 100 individual observers totally. it was more hobby for me than science research )
2) we published all data and instructions. If you have Stereo Monitor you can repeat it.
3) I did not see significant variations in tests results, but most observers have problems to describe how do they see Black/White squares on grey background( white and black backgrounds show just difference in brightness and it is easy to describe )
4) repeatability with more complex objects ( like static diamond images) was much worse:
4a) results strongly depends from 3D monitor quality and observation conditions( illumination in room, distance from screen, angle to screen )
4b) around 5-10% men have not "binocular stereo" vision. Them brain emulate stereo vision.( this phenomena is well known long time)