shape
carat
color
clarity

Sarin numbers or Aset image better tool to assess quality?

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

marchswallowbird

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Apr 22, 2008
Messages
849
I ran across a princess cut diamond with the following Sarin numbers:

. Shape: Princess
. Carat: 1.010
. Depth %: 69.5
. Table %: 78.2
. Crown Angle: 43.8
. Crown %: 9
. Pavilion Angle: 39
. Pavilion %: 57.4
. Girdle: Thin to Medium
. Measurements: 5.56-5.54X3.85
. Polish: Excellent
. Symmetry: Excellent
. Culet: Pointed
. Fluorescence: None

Looking at the depth and table this stone seems very shallow. Yet the Aset image shows "cherry," which would seem to indicate excellent light performance. Yet on this forum''s discussions everyone says the table should be smaller than the depth or you get a glassy stone. How can the Aset image show exceptional light performance if the stone is shallow?

In other words, what tools are most important when assessing a stone online? Sarin numbers or Aset images?
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
 
For me, especially with a stone in which the numbers mean little to me like a princess, I want the ASET every time. I could have a chart of the numbers and still not be convinced the stone was anything I wanted until I had seen the ASET which will SHOW me how the diamond is going to preform.

Wink
 
Date: 5/21/2008 5:29:40 PM
Author:marchswallowbird
In other words, what tools are most important when assessing a stone online? Sarin numbers or Aset images?
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
ASET in every case, especially fancies. Do you have the image?
 
Date: 5/21/2008 7:47:51 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 5/21/2008 5:29:40 PM
Author:marchswallowbird
In other words, what tools are most important when assessing a stone online? Sarin numbers or Aset images?
33.gif
33.gif
33.gif
ASET in every case, especially fancies. Do you have the image?
Now look...he''s only just back, and already I''m trouble.

Gentlemen...not an ASET, and not a princess. But how about here?
 
Here is the Aset image:

AST_AGS-7033505.jpg
 
Just to stir the pot with the ASET followers, I ask the following: If you have a diamond which gives you a very good ASET image, would another diamond with the same Sarin numbers give you very much the same ASET image? I am not saying the images would be "identical", but have you ever seen two well cut diamonds with highly similar Sarin readings, such as might be used in a fine pair of earrings, have ASET images which are surprisingly unalike?

It is my belief that once you know the parameters of what forms a great image in the ASET scope that it becomes pretty predictable by measurements. I realize there are a huge number of variables, but a computer can handle such comparisons very well. A human can''t make the same comparisons so readily and this is why the ASET is just easier for people to use, but underlying this I belive is the basic truth that one can, with computerization and a database, do the work of the ASET without seeing the image. Remember, the image in the ASET is graded with subjectivity. Measurement data is probably a lot less subjective and more solid once sufficient sampling has been accomplished.
 
I’m an ASET fan, especially if we're talking about a shopping tool.

Although it’s true that a Sarin can be used to generate the required data, the standard report shown to consumers doesn’t contain it. Often, all people have when they refer to a ‘Sarin report’ is a sticker with half a dozen measurements, most of which have been severely rounded (for example the list presented in the original question). Even what is presented as a 'full' report is importantly abbreviated.

Analyzing the full set of Sarin data both requires some unusual software and some practice that most people don’t have and, frankly, would be a waste of mental energy for most consumers to develop.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
 
Date: 5/22/2008 9:23:52 AM
Author: oldminer

Just to stir the pot with the ASET followers, I ask the following: If you have a diamond which gives you a very good ASET image, would another diamond with the same Sarin numbers give you very much the same ASET image? I am not saying the images would be 'identical', but have you ever seen two well cut diamonds with highly similar Sarin readings, such as might be used in a fine pair of earrings, have ASET images which are surprisingly unalike?

It is my belief that once you know the parameters of what forms a great image in the ASET scope that it becomes pretty predictable by measurements. I realize there are a huge number of variables, but a computer can handle such comparisons very well. A human can't make the same comparisons so readily and this is why the ASET is just easier for people to use, but underlying this I belive is the basic truth that one can, with computerization and a database, do the work of the ASET without seeing the image. Remember, the image in the ASET is graded with subjectivity. Measurement data is probably a lot less subjective and more solid once sufficient sampling has been accomplished.
No and yes. Measurements for 4-chevron faceting have different implications than 2, 3, etc. There are so many variables that I would say no.

But your premise works with a full scan where you can compare all aspects with no averaging. For that matter you can view a simulated ASET via software - though I still prefer the real deal. For today's consumer I think it’s a major boon to have an ideal-scope for rounds and an ASET for fancy shapes... Props to the dealers and appraisers providing them.

Now, taking your question farther on a professional level, with ASET we’re looking primarily at brightness and contrast (and a lot of people in the industry are stuck on evaluation of brightness). If you have a full scan and PGS you can see values for br, con, disp and leak calculated at different distances and with tilt included. Whether you’re in-step with that metric or not the data is useful as a scientific and repeatable reference (meaning, if you like the recipe of x, w, z, y just seek those values). A basic .SRN is <> 22KB. This is why I say that if you really want to analyze by-the-numbers averaged proportions are passé when a full scan can be generated just as easily. For B2B purposes - not to be confused with what's practical for innocent shoppers - suppliers should be providing full scans to dealers along with basic numbers.
 
Date: 5/22/2008 9:23:52 AM
Author: oldminer
Just to stir the pot with the ASET followers, I ask the following: If you have a diamond which gives you a very good ASET image, would another diamond with the same Sarin numbers give you very much the same ASET image? I am not saying the images would be 'identical', but have you ever seen two well cut diamonds with highly similar Sarin readings, such as might be used in a fine pair of earrings, have ASET images which are surprisingly unalike?

It is my belief that once you know the parameters of what forms a great image in the ASET scope that it becomes pretty predictable by measurements. I realize there are a huge number of variables, but a computer can handle such comparisons very well. A human can't make the same comparisons so readily and this is why the ASET is just easier for people to use, but underlying this I belive is the basic truth that one can, with computerization and a database, do the work of the ASET without seeing the image. Remember, the image in the ASET is graded with subjectivity. Measurement data is probably a lot less subjective and more solid once sufficient sampling has been accomplished.
sarin 3d no, helium yes for a princess.
sarin isn't accurate enough for acceptable to me models of princess cuts.
A 3d scan from a properly calibrated top model sarin on a RB diamond with no painting gives a barely acceptable model.
With an Rb I can look at a full helium report and predict the aset image.
The advantage of aset is it makes it easy to explain and good enough not that it is the perfect indicator.
 
Date: 5/22/2008 9:49:13 AM
Author: denverappraiser

Analyzing the full set of Sarin data both requires some unusual software and some practice that most people don’t have and, frankly, would be a waste of mental energy for most consumers to develop.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
most maybe, but analyzing full helium reports(more data than full sarin) and comparing them to other data taught me a lot about diamond design and I am a better diamond designer today because of it.
Without having done so I could not design diamonds in my head.
 
Here is the problem with ASET one of these diamonds has a stereo light return rating of 98 the other 92 can you tell me which is which? A super-ideal RB runs about ~99 on the same rating system. 98 to 92 is the difference between ags0 level and ags4-5 or so level of light return for a RB.
edit: make that ags4-5 range.

simularASET.gif
 
Date: 5/22/2008 1:18:56 PM
Author: strmrdr
Here is the problem with ASET one of these diamonds has a stereo light return rating of 98 the other 92 can you tell me which is which? A super-ideal RB runs about ~99 on the same rating system. 98 to 92 is the difference between ags0 level and ags4-5 or so level of light return for a RB.
edit: make that ags4-5 range.
Got a client coming in two or three minutes, so quick answer.

I do not think you can apply an AGS rating to a stone for which there is yet no metric. Obviously these are not traditional rb''s.

My thought from the ASET is that both of these are going to be, in Storm talk, kicken. They suffer from a lack of contrast, so they will not appear as bright as they are. Ironic, isn''t it, that a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down. Oh wait, wrong song. Mary Poppins jumped up into my brain. Ironic isn''t it, that a bit of dark contrast makes the bright look brighter.

Client comming up the stairs, Wink out!
 
Date: 5/22/2008 1:04:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/22/2008 9:23:52 AM
Author: oldminer
Just to stir the pot with the ASET followers, I ask the following: If you have a diamond which gives you a very good ASET image, would another diamond with the same Sarin numbers give you very much the same ASET image? I am not saying the images would be ''identical'', but have you ever seen two well cut diamonds with highly similar Sarin readings, such as might be used in a fine pair of earrings, have ASET images which are surprisingly unalike?

It is my belief that once you know the parameters of what forms a great image in the ASET scope that it becomes pretty predictable by measurements. I realize there are a huge number of variables, but a computer can handle such comparisons very well. A human can''t make the same comparisons so readily and this is why the ASET is just easier for people to use, but underlying this I belive is the basic truth that one can, with computerization and a database, do the work of the ASET without seeing the image. Remember, the image in the ASET is graded with subjectivity. Measurement data is probably a lot less subjective and more solid once sufficient sampling has been accomplished.
sarin 3d no, helium yes for a princess. A Princess (fancy shape) only..., or other fancy''s also?
sarin isn''t accurate enough for acceptable to me models of princess cuts. I have no experience with Helium..., but I have no idea how anyone can rely on Sarin''s accuracy in measuring (or Ogi)!!!
A 3d scan from a properly calibrated top model sarin on a RB diamond with no painting gives a barely acceptable model.
With an Rb I can look at a full helium report and predict the aset image.
The advantage of aset is it makes it easy to explain and good enough not that it is the perfect indicator.
 
Date: 5/22/2008 4:23:54 PM
Author: DiaGem


Date: 5/22/2008 1:04:58 PM
Author: strmrdr


Date: 5/22/2008 9:23:52 AM
Author: oldminer
Just to stir the pot with the ASET followers, I ask the following: If you have a diamond which gives you a very good ASET image, would another diamond with the same Sarin numbers give you very much the same ASET image? I am not saying the images would be 'identical', but have you ever seen two well cut diamonds with highly similar Sarin readings, such as might be used in a fine pair of earrings, have ASET images which are surprisingly unalike?

It is my belief that once you know the parameters of what forms a great image in the ASET scope that it becomes pretty predictable by measurements. I realize there are a huge number of variables, but a computer can handle such comparisons very well. A human can't make the same comparisons so readily and this is why the ASET is just easier for people to use, but underlying this I belive is the basic truth that one can, with computerization and a database, do the work of the ASET without seeing the image. Remember, the image in the ASET is graded with subjectivity. Measurement data is probably a lot less subjective and more solid once sufficient sampling has been accomplished.
sarin 3d no, helium yes for a princess. A Princess (fancy shape) only..., or other fancy's also?
sarin isn't accurate enough for acceptable to me models of princess cuts. I have no experience with Helium..., but I have no idea how anyone can rely on Sarin's accuracy in measuring (or Ogi)!!!
A 3d scan from a properly calibrated top model sarin on a RB diamond with no painting gives a barely acceptable model.
With an Rb I can look at a full helium report and predict the aset image.
The advantage of aset is it makes it easy to explain and good enough not that it is the perfect indicator.
Just so.

DG, when Helium was introduced (2004?) it forced other technologies to improve. The people who have older Sarin/Ogi hardware/software are in the comparative dark ages now. It's like continuing to use Adobe Acrobat 1 when v8 is available.

An even bigger problem is that human operators must respect the need for a sterile environment, constant calibration and use of the hi-res setting. I asked a retailer who was having issues how often he calibrated his scanner. His answer was 'a few times a year.' The labs calibrate them every morning. They also use hi-res setting for every stone which takes more time.

When properly executed a modern hi-res scan is accurate enough to place a diamond within a grade. Here is a snip of actual ASET photos of diamonds and the virtual ASET images of those diamonds generated from hi-res scans. Pretty good I'd say, and these are from 2005.

The complete image is too big for PS, viewable here (used with permission)

scan-and-actual-snip.jpg
 
Date: 5/22/2008 5:00:35 PM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 5/22/2008 4:23:54 PM
Author: DiaGem



Date: 5/22/2008 1:04:58 PM
Author: strmrdr



Date: 5/22/2008 9:23:52 AM
Author: oldminer
Just to stir the pot with the ASET followers, I ask the following: If you have a diamond which gives you a very good ASET image, would another diamond with the same Sarin numbers give you very much the same ASET image? I am not saying the images would be ''identical'', but have you ever seen two well cut diamonds with highly similar Sarin readings, such as might be used in a fine pair of earrings, have ASET images which are surprisingly unalike?

It is my belief that once you know the parameters of what forms a great image in the ASET scope that it becomes pretty predictable by measurements. I realize there are a huge number of variables, but a computer can handle such comparisons very well. A human can''t make the same comparisons so readily and this is why the ASET is just easier for people to use, but underlying this I belive is the basic truth that one can, with computerization and a database, do the work of the ASET without seeing the image. Remember, the image in the ASET is graded with subjectivity. Measurement data is probably a lot less subjective and more solid once sufficient sampling has been accomplished.
sarin 3d no, helium yes for a princess. A Princess (fancy shape) only..., or other fancy''s also?
sarin isn''t accurate enough for acceptable to me models of princess cuts. I have no experience with Helium..., but I have no idea how anyone can rely on Sarin''s accuracy in measuring (or Ogi)!!!
A 3d scan from a properly calibrated top model sarin on a RB diamond with no painting gives a barely acceptable model.
With an Rb I can look at a full helium report and predict the aset image.
The advantage of aset is it makes it easy to explain and good enough not that it is the perfect indicator.
Just so.

DG, when Helium was introduced (2004?) it forced other technologies to improve. The people who have older Sarin/Ogi hardware/software are in the comparative dark ages now. It''s like continuing to use Adobe Acrobat 1 when v8 is available.

An even bigger problem is that human operators must respect the need for a sterile environment, constant calibration and use of the hi-res setting. I asked a retailer who was having issues how often he calibrated his scanner. His answer was ''a few times a year.'' The labs calibrate them every morning. They also use hi-res setting for every stone which takes more time.

When properly executed a modern hi-res scan is accurate enough to place a diamond within a grade. Here is a snip of actual ASET photos of diamonds and the virtual ASET images of those diamonds generated from hi-res scans. Pretty good I''d say, and these are from 2005.

Looks surprisingly good..., Helium right? Can you show me the same type of comparisons from 2008 on other fancy shapes? Do those even exists?

The complete image is too big for PS, viewable here (used with permission)
Could very well be..., but I have yet seen one accurate scan on the measurements of a fancy cut Diamond by either Sarin-Ogi-FacetWare...
 
Date: 5/22/2008 5:27:09 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/22/2008 5:00:35 PM
Author: John Pollard

When properly executed a modern hi-res scan is accurate enough to place a diamond within a grade. Here is a snip of actual ASET photos of diamonds and the virtual ASET images of those diamonds generated from hi-res scans. Pretty good I''d say, and these are from 2005.

Looks surprisingly good..., Helium right? Can you show me the same type of comparisons from 2008 on other fancy shapes? Do those even exists?

The complete image is too big for PS, viewable here (used with permission)
Could very well be..., but I have yet seen one accurate scan on the measurements of a fancy cut Diamond by either Sarin-Ogi-FacetWare...
You have now. The above were all Sarin scans.
1.gif


With respect, you may want to have a talk with the operators you know. I can''t tell you how many times I''ve been a party to accuracy complaints and the problem turns out to be update or operator-related.

Helium it''s fantastic and gave the whole trade a shove forward. I suspect the extra expense and distance from support has prevented its spread. I know one major lab keeps it on-hand as an option when super-sensitivity is sought. They say that while Sarin is accurate enough to go beyond human cognitive ability Helium gets even closer.
 
Date: 5/22/2008 4:23:54 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 5/22/2008 1:04:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

sarin 3d no, helium yes for a princess. A Princess (fancy shape) only..., or other fancy''s also?
sarin isn''t accurate enough for acceptable to me models of princess cuts. I have no experience with Helium..., but I have no idea how anyone can rely on Sarin''s accuracy in measuring (or Ogi)!!!
A 3d scan from a properly calibrated top model sarin on a RB diamond with no painting gives a barely acceptable model.
With an Rb I can look at a full helium report and predict the aset image.
The advantage of aset is it makes it easy to explain and good enough not that it is the perfect indicator.
all fancies
and I have compared the results with the latest updates and highest settings.
 
Date: 5/22/2008 5:00:35 PM
Author: John Pollard

Just so.

DG, when Helium was introduced (2004?) it forced other technologies to improve. The people who have older Sarin/Ogi hardware/software are in the comparative dark ages now. It's like continuing to use Adobe Acrobat 1 when v8 is available.

An even bigger problem is that human operators must respect the need for a sterile environment, constant calibration and use of the hi-res setting. I asked a retailer who was having issues how often he calibrated his scanner. His answer was 'a few times a year.' The labs calibrate them every morning. They also use hi-res setting for every stone which takes more time.

When properly executed a modern hi-res scan is accurate enough to place a diamond within a grade. Here is a snip of actual ASET photos of diamonds and the virtual ASET images of those diamonds generated from hi-res scans. Pretty good I'd say, and these are from 2005.

The complete image is too big for PS, viewable here (used with permission)
yea the rounds are good enough, the princess are decent.
hearts images show the real difference, or to use Paul speak symmetry images.
 
Date: 5/22/2008 3:59:31 PM
Author: Wink

Got a client coming in two or three minutes, so quick answer.

I do not think you can apply an AGS rating to a stone for which there is yet no metric. Obviously these are not traditional rb's.

My thought from the ASET is that both of these are going to be, in Storm talk, kicken. They suffer from a lack of contrast, so they will not appear as bright as they are. Ironic, isn't it, that a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down. Oh wait, wrong song. Mary Poppins jumped up into my brain. Ironic isn't it, that a bit of dark contrast makes the bright look brighter.

Client comming up the stairs, Wink out!
I am not trying to apply the AGS metric I am comparing the ASET image to the stereo light return metric. Then comparing them to typical RB measurements.
Here is one of those combos in office lighting the contrast of the large virtual facets can be seen.
In the small size of these stones the space between the stones will provide the contrast.
When you look at pave the contrast of the diamond itself is min. even with full cuts the contrast is the setting against the diamond.

singlecutOffice.jpg
 
Date: 5/22/2008 6:23:53 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/22/2008 3:59:31 PM
Author: Wink

Got a client coming in two or three minutes, so quick answer.

I do not think you can apply an AGS rating to a stone for which there is yet no metric. Obviously these are not traditional rb''s.

My thought from the ASET is that both of these are going to be, in Storm talk, kicken. They suffer from a lack of contrast, so they will not appear as bright as they are. Ironic, isn''t it, that a spoonful of sugar makes the medicine go down. Oh wait, wrong song. Mary Poppins jumped up into my brain. Ironic isn''t it, that a bit of dark contrast makes the bright look brighter.

Client comming up the stairs, Wink out!
I am not trying to apply the AGS metric I am comparing the ASET image to the stereo light return metric. Then comparing them to typical RB measurements.
Here is one of those combos in office lighting the contrast of the large virtual facets can be seen.
In the small size of these stones the space between the stones will provide the contrast.
When you look at pave the contrast of the diamond itself is min. even with full cuts the contrast is the setting against the diamond.

I will hazzard the opinion that this is the right hand image from your set above. I wish we had a real one to look at too.
 
Date: 5/22/2008 6:36:25 PM
Author: Wink


I will hazzard the opinion that this is the right hand image from your set above. I wish we had a real one to look at too.
yep its the right one, it has the least contrast of the 2 in pictures but has more 3d conrast with a higher crown. Not that that is going top matter a great deal at 1mm
 
This is a classic P''scope thread. I very much appreciate all the well thought out replies and suggestions. This is an area of great industry importance that very few are even discussing. The level of understanding on this subject is extremely low otside a small number of people. In truth, it should be a topic of far greater and more general concern. This thread may be the best discussion, kept in simple terms, of the subject ever put together. Thanks for the responses.
 
Date: 5/22/2008 6:11:58 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/22/2008 5:00:35 PM
Author: John Pollard

Just so.

DG, when Helium was introduced (2004?) it forced other technologies to improve. The people who have older Sarin/Ogi hardware/software are in the comparative dark ages now. It''s like continuing to use Adobe Acrobat 1 when v8 is available.

An even bigger problem is that human operators must respect the need for a sterile environment, constant calibration and use of the hi-res setting. I asked a retailer who was having issues how often he calibrated his scanner. His answer was ''a few times a year.'' The labs calibrate them every morning. They also use hi-res setting for every stone which takes more time.

When properly executed a modern hi-res scan is accurate enough to place a diamond within a grade. Here is a snip of actual ASET photos of diamonds and the virtual ASET images of those diamonds generated from hi-res scans. Pretty good I''d say, and these are from 2005.

The complete image is too big for PS, viewable here (used with permission)
yea the rounds are good enough, the princess are decent.
hearts images show the real difference, or to use Paul speak symmetry images.
Storm.., if you are saying above that "all fancies" in conjunction with Helium (yes)..., Sarin 3D (no)....

33.gif
 
Date: 5/23/2008 1:16:34 AM
Author: DiaGem
Storm.., if you are saying above that ''all fancies'' in conjunction with Helium (yes)..., Sarin 3D (no)....

33.gif
pretty much yes, there may be some fancies that helium chokes on but its far better on them than sarin.
If it does choke it is my understanding you can import the basic facet structure and it will use that data to build the internal model and improve the accuracy.
 
In my experience the top-model Sarin, operated in the manner the labs operate it, is certainly accurate enough to place a diamond inside one grade or another and goes beyond human perception. Compare the detail of these diamonds and their scans again, and remember how small they actually are. Seen in real life any differences are beyond human cognition.

It’s possible that Strm and I simply disagree. I can’t speak for him, only from my experience.

I do agree that a lot of bad scans take place. The worst ones show missing or extra facets and aren’t repeatable. Dirt on the stage leads to inconsistencies. Some machines get close but have problems with break facets and tables, especially with outdated soft/hardware. I’ve seen plenty of them. (DG, I’d liken scanners & operators to cutters with modern/well-maintained vs. old/worn polishing equipment)

Edited to add: Strm, if it were possible for you to come to JCK I suspect Jim Caudill could update your opinion. Also, I want to be clear that I agree - Helium is #1. 'Tis the Ferrari of scanners.
 
John,
Part of the reason we are disagreeing is that knowing what kind of stones DiaGem cuts and comparing the sarin results vs helium for fancy cuts especially step cuts that is the direction I am coming from on one hand.
With the models my needs also go far beyond placing them in one grade or another on the other hand.
When validating my designs and when diagem needs some numbers for his creations the issue of scanner accuracy becomes much more vital than a cut grade.
What we are doing is setting the standards for production runs when doing so we need to know precisely where the edges are to set a standard that leads to excellent results.
While we get there different ways the end results we need are the same. precise feedback.

AGS may feel that they can use sarin to place it in a grade thats kewl with me and they have the pull and can hire the tech staff to get the most out of them.
As I have said many times I don't really care what the labs use for generating a grade because the grades mean very little to me.
 
I get where you're coming from. Microsurgery vs. nanosurgery. Appreciate the explanation.
 
Date: 5/23/2008 4:20:47 AM
Author: John Pollard
I get where you''re coming from. Microsurgery vs. nanosurgery. Appreciate the explanation.
Its kewl :}
Glad your back :}
 
Date: 5/23/2008 4:01:22 AM
Author: strmrdr
John,
Part of the reason we are disagreeing is that knowing what kind of stones DiaGem cuts and comparing the sarin results vs helium for fancy cuts especially step cuts that is the direction I am coming from on one hand.
With the models my needs also go far beyond placing them in one grade or another on the other hand.
When validating my designs and when diagem needs some numbers for his creations the issue of scanner accuracy becomes much more vital than a cut grade.
What we are doing is setting the standards for production runs when doing so we need to know precisely where the edges are to set a standard that leads to excellent results.
While we get there different ways the end results we need are the same. precise feedback.

AGS may feel that they can use sarin to place it in a grade thats kewl with me and they have the pull and can hire the tech staff to get the most out of them.
As I have said many times I don''t really care what the labs use for generating a grade because the grades mean very little to me.
Still..., makes me wonder about the true accuracy...
20.gif

After all..., every fraction of a degree or even less could make a difference in the Diamonds appearance...
2.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top