Scenes from JCK 2007

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/6/2007 6:21:11 AM
Author: Ellen

Well gee Wink, that's probably because most of us know, What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

I've been tending to a very sick kid and trying to get ready to leave town tomorrow. No time for diamond talk.

Thanks for the jeweler story, funny! Good 'point'.

p.s. John, thanks for the great pics and commentaries!

LOL! In this case we're happy to bring the data back. Unfortunately Wink is right; the lbs tend to stick with you. I have a weekly tennis game I am dreading right now. As for the joke...in this case "cutlet" is the right term, huh?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/6/2007 11:56:45 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 6/6/2007 6:21:11 AM
Author: Ellen

Well gee Wink, that''s probably because most of us know, What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

I''ve been tending to a very sick kid and trying to get ready to leave town tomorrow. No time for diamond talk.

Thanks for the jeweler story, funny! Good ''point''.

p.s. John, thanks for the great pics and commentaries!

LOL! In this case we''re happy to bring the data back. Unfortunately Wink is right; the lbs tend to stick with you. I have a weekly tennis game I am dreading right now. As for the joke...in this case ''cutlet'' is the right term, huh?

Or a thicker girdle....

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/6/2007 8:53:18 AM
Author: mrssalvo
Wink or John (or anyone else who was there,

I'm curious if you all noticed any new trends heading our way with new product from designers? are things still mostly pave or are modern styles coming back. we've heard yellow gold is trying to make a come back too, any evidence of that?

Pave is still in style. Detailed work like milligrain and filigree was there in abundance. Debi noted that length is popular right now in accessories, items like exclamation earrings, long chains, etc. I didn't see as much evidence of yellow gold making a move as I did palladium, which appears to be growing fast in popularity (not surprising given the stratospheric prices of precious metals).

I had the pleasure of shaking hands with Bill Pearlman after Garry's session. It was a busy room and we didn't get to chat, but he may have comments about designs, etc.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/6/2007 12:03:21 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 6/6/2007 11:56:45 AM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 6/6/2007 6:21:11 AM
Author: Ellen

Well gee Wink, that''s probably because most of us know, What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

I''ve been tending to a very sick kid and trying to get ready to leave town tomorrow. No time for diamond talk.

Thanks for the jeweler story, funny! Good ''point''.

p.s. John, thanks for the great pics and commentaries!

LOL! In this case we''re happy to bring the data back. Unfortunately Wink is right; the lbs tend to stick with you. I have a weekly tennis game I am dreading right now. As for the joke...in this case ''cutlet'' is the right term, huh?

Or a thicker girdle....

Sure. There were girdles of all sizes in Vegas.

 

[diagem]

Date: 6/6/2007 12:07:45 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 6/6/2007 8:53:18 AM
Author: mrssalvo
Wink or John (or anyone else who was there,

I''m curious if you all noticed any new trends heading our way with new product from designers? are things still mostly pave or are modern styles coming back. we''ve heard yellow gold is trying to make a come back too, any evidence of that?

Pave is still in style. Detailed work like milligrain and filigree was there in abundance. Debi noted that length is popular right now in accessories, items like exclamation earrings, long chains, etc. I didn''t see as much evidence of yellow gold making a move as I did palladium, which appears to be growing fast in popularity (not surprising given the stratospheric prices of precious metals).

I had the pleasure of shaking hands with Bill Pearlman after Garry''s session. It was a busy room and we didn''t get to chat, but he may have comments about designs, etc.

I was not there..., but you are right John..., I heard that Palladium is growing fast.
Milligrain and filigree (basicaly all that has to do with ''old world craftsmanship/ vintage / Antique'' is sought after...

But I understand that "Brown" is heading our way big-time..., from brown Diamonds to brown colored Gems to brown gold etc, etc...
Or chocolate as many prefer to identify it!!! I guess Chocolate sounds HIP.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 6/6/2007 12:08:54 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 6/6/2007 12:03:21 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 6/6/2007 11:56:45 AM
Author: JohnQuixote



LOL! In this case we''re happy to bring the data back. Unfortunately Wink is right; the lbs tend to stick with you. I have a weekly tennis game I am dreading right now. As for the joke...in this case ''cutlet'' is the right term, huh?

Or a thicker girdle....

Sure. There were girdles of all sizes in Vegas.

All girdles were slightly thicker after departing Vegas

We had our last supper at the japaonai where some of us ate last Wed, and with the wisdom of hind sight we ordered well and it was very good. Dave Atlas and a young couple - freinds of family, joined us.

Enroute to Italy now in O''Hare airport

 

[mepearl53]

Date: 6/6/2007 12:07:45 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 6/6/2007 8:53:18 AM

Author: mrssalvo

Wink or John (or anyone else who was there,


I''m curious if you all noticed any new trends heading our way with new product from designers? are things still mostly pave or are modern styles coming back. we''ve heard yellow gold is trying to make a come back too, any evidence of that?

Pave is still in style. Detailed work like milligrain and filigree was there in abundance. Debi noted that length is popular right now in accessories, items like exclamation earrings, long chains, etc. I didn''t see as much evidence of yellow gold making a move as I did palladium, which appears to be growing fast in popularity (not surprising given the stratospheric prices of precious metals).


I had the pleasure of shaking hands with Bill Pearlman after Garry''s session. It was a busy room and we didn''t get to chat, but he may have comments about designs, etc.

It was my pleasure also John! As to what I saw with the designers I run with I found much more art jewelry with very cool textures and lots of color. You could feel gold was back strong and I feel it is on the fashion side. More rose gold than 25 years ago shown. Classics with diamonds were pretty much the same but the diamond contents were very heavy with pave in ever more shapes and mixtures. Bridal to my eyes was still white (platinum) with white gold coming back because of the price points. Palladium with the people I work with was dead. Hard for me to think of palladium as a romantic metal. The platinum rings I saw were incredible with lots of colored diamond mixtures. Also, many more pieces with fancy side diamond shapes and colored diamonds. Halo''s or diamond bezels still strong and still very beautiful. US craftsmenship is still amongst the best here with very sophisticated prong techniques.

But, 5 days was too long there. Nightmares about jewelry

 

[Kaleigh]

Thanks for your report Bill. Nice to hear about the rose gold, am a big fan of it these days.

 

[Harriet]

Date: 6/6/2007 4:53:05 AM
Author: strmrdr
Well I was being polite and letting you all get rested up.
If you check the past years thread the JCK thread was mostly pictures and a few stories and the fun stuff came later in other threads.

The biggest mistake the US ever made was allowing the dollar to become a world currency. Well the second biggest anyway the biggest was giving control to the international bankers/fed reserve.
Its funny that it takes all of Europe combined to bring out a decent currency to compete.

Why?

 

[Madam Bijoux]

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas.

....not when somebody had a spy In Vegas.....heee heee heee.....

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/6/2007 5:21:11 PM
Author: Harriet

Date: 6/6/2007 4:53:05 AM
Author: strmrdr
Well I was being polite and letting you all get rested up.
If you check the past years thread the JCK thread was mostly pictures and a few stories and the fun stuff came later in other threads.

The biggest mistake the US ever made was allowing the dollar to become a world currency. Well the second biggest anyway the biggest was giving control to the international bankers/fed reserve.
Its funny that it takes all of Europe combined to bring out a decent currency to compete.

Why?

control
believe it or not the government is spose to serve the people of our country not the world.
By giving up control of our currency we gave up control over our future and put it into the hands of others. Often those others are our enemies. China has enough dollars to destroy whats left of our economy.
On the other hand it makes it nice to exploit the world when they will trade worthless paper for real goods but it has lead down a path of destruction where we have become consumers instead of producers.
A society of consumers produce no real wealth and all that is left is the fake wealth of the federal reserve notes which are at the whim of the world.
Add into that out sourcing and the take over of illegals stealing jobs and you have the downfall of the US writen in the sand.......

 

[Finding_Neverland]

Date: 6/5/2007 7:37:33 PM
Author: Wink
I confess to being a little confused and surprised, there are so few questions of any of us about what happened at the show. I think John was expecting a lively discussion about some of the issues that he brought forth, perhaps we shall have to start separate threads for them to be properly discussed.

Wink

For myself,..........

I was enjoying seeing the pictures and learning what you guys had been up to.

I kinda figured you all were busy, for the most part, attending seminars and looking at all the new things coming down the pipeline.

JohnQ was posting in the wee hours of the am many times.

I just kind of figured we''d get to hear more from all of the pros once the Convention was over and you''d had a chance to catch your breathe.

 

[Regular Guy]

Reviewing again the graphics on scintillation...my first thought was towards the similarity in gestalt to what we see has been developed with Gemex.

Date: 6/1/2007 5:03:51 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

The best thing about this system is that it is light source independent - with the exception of the final graphic which is a kind of standardized litmus test.Prior systems fire lights at a diamond and count pixels to arrive at a ‘score.’This metric evaluates scintillation potential.

So question 1 is to ask you to say this a different way. I intuit that we''re talking about passive as in ASET style presentations, with light behind...but...just how nuanced is this difference?

Date: 6/1/2007 5:03:51 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Sergey’s work with ETAS handshakes in many ways with portions of what AGSL is doing.This is all in its infancy, but it has been born.

It is a precursor of things to come.

John, maybe you, Sergey, Garry or others could help flesh this out, too.

Thanks again!

 

[Regular Guy]

I know...difficult to contain yourselves...

Let's try the first half of the same post....

Date: 6/1/2007 5:03:51 PM
Author: JohnQuixote


A few notes:

1.Warning!The graphics I've posted here are one static view.They are only 1/45th of an overall puzzle.Without rotation animation the overall meanings can’t be conveyed in one photo; these are just examples to share the “gist” of this:Even a few degrees + or – makes vast differences in the distribution and number of events seen.For example, the Tolk shows no large events in this view, but a degree or two of tilt changes that, as well as overall distribution.So it goes with the other configurations.Also bear in mind that these are simulated models with perfect optical symmetry, etc.

2. The color coding in the scintillation event graphics - yellow, cyan, magenta etc. - just identifies angular spectrum in 5 degree increments from 45 to 75 degrees.It has nothing to do with the color of the flashes.

3. Many unknowns and questions remain.Some have to do with distance (AGS is currently using 25 cm), stereoscopic vision, etc.They continue to research the frequency and visibility of scintillation events; relative to size for instance.

So, here's a follow up. You get 45 shots to make a movie? This is based on 2 degree rotation? What if the sinque is moved over 1 degree, and the shots are still 45 of them, but moved one degree over?

Does this variance map on to the sorts of concerns expressed concerning Gemex (as to the shooting of lights at the diamond); and why or why not?

 

[Regular Guy]

I'll even be the first to try to anwer....with a previously posted answer...but I think the answer needs to raise a question.

Recently, Garry posted this in the last item of this thread in the FAQs section:

"For the same reason GIA's lighting environment for their 70,000 observation survey was flawed, so too is the Brilliancescope.

When light comes from a small part of the area around a diamond back to a single point (eyes or lens) the placement and size of the light has a very big bearing on the result (seen or pixel counted).

These DiamCalc ETAS maps show the probability of seeing a sparkle if a light was placed in the right spot. The B'scope light is a very thin donut and if you imagine that they are in 5 or so discreet thin donuts on each of these maps - then depending on where you put them as to what result you get. It is possible to make any of these stones as the very best by different placements.

It is also possible to cut diamonds to get the very best result. I know that this is being done. ACA could do it to if they wanted to.

ho hum"

--------------

So...I would ask if this is reasonable...that a diamond a) really be cut to optimize on a strategic placement, and then b) that such a placement be achieved?

---------------

Finally....thank goodness John chose to provide some context for this research. Scintillation has been named for a long time, and work has clearly been done in the area. Garry has written for the longest time that Sergey's about cracked this...without providing more teeth to the comment that I'm mindful of. Acknowledging this context is responsible, and significant. Science is made successful by standing upon the shoulders of others. It honors all to understand this, and increases the value of the outcome, I think.

Many thanks!

-----------------

and...eta for above...to keep my math at least consistent, even if incorrect globally...I'm guessing the 45 degrees repsesents 8 degree movements. Right? thanks again...

 

[JohnQuixote]

Hey Ira,

I started a post last night but quickly realized that no scintillation events would take place, ever again, if I didn''t take my lady to dinner as promised. I will respond to your thoughtful questions; if not during the business day today it will be over the weekend.

 

[Regular Guy]

John, Wink, and everybody

Many thanks, of course. I do worry however, that at nearly 3 years for moi, what has become an avocation will turn into something else, if I stay even just a day more here, so I look at that with some fear. Further:

1) I do want to hear what you have to say, John. You're a clear writer & thinker, have assumed the task of MC somewhat literally, and this is well and good for PS. Also, your delay as named is quite important, and we must always take care of these things.

2) Still, this is not, after all, John's dinner theatre. As we have seen...

Date: 6/5/2007 7:37:33 PM
Author: Wink
I confess to being a little confused and surprised, there are so few questions of any of us about what happened at the show. I think John was expecting a lively discussion about some of the issues that he brought forth, perhaps we shall have to start separate threads for them to be properly discussed.

One of the things that pleased me immensely was the reception of Garry Holloway's presentation.

...and so, for example, Wink, let alone others, might also chime in.

3) It's possible the points I've been drawn to are actually not on point, or not helpful, or yada yada...in which case, no follow up is particularly necessary. Or, you could tell me so. Garry's presentation, for example, while important altogether, in this context, is every bit preaching to the choir. Right?

4) Though we've seen a journal article from them...no one represents AGS like themselves.

5) Google reminds me that GIA has had something to say about this, too.

6) As they say on SNL, compare & contrast, talk amongst yourselves. It's like butta.

Warm regards,

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Hey Ira,

I thought about replying to your posts, but after re-reading them several times, I must confess that I have no idea what your point or question is.

Live long,

 

[Regular Guy]

Date: 6/9/2007 8:26:22 AM
Author: Paul-Antwerp
Hey Ira,

I thought about replying to your posts, but after re-reading them several times, I must confess that I have no idea what your point or question is.

Live long,

Perhaps just...what new was understood and presented about scintillation that hadn''t been understood before?

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/9/2007 10:16:34 AM
Author: Regular Guy

Perhaps just...what new was understood and presented about scintillation that hadn''t been understood before?

frankly im rather sceptical that scint will ever be nailed down to any great degree.
AGS hasn''t even proven their static fire metric to my satisfaction and scint is a billion times harder.

 

[strmrdr]

One thing Id like to see addressed in both the fire and scint metrics is scatter and facet junctions.
Observation has lead me to feel that they are the key too both.
Where is the greatest amount of fire returned in a RB diamond?
Study a diamond in multiple lighting conditions and report back.
(pay attention to facet junction locations in relation to the areas of greatest fire)

 

[strmrdr]

merely by rotating the diamond model while leaving the source point alone by targeting facet junctions you can go from all white light return to this.

 

[strmrdr]

until someone can nail down the why of the effects of lgf% on fire I will remain sceptical of any fire metric.
And if you cant nail fire you cant nail scint.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 6/9/2007 3:00:47 PM
Author: strmrdr
One thing Id like to see addressed in both the fire and scint metrics is scatter and facet junctions.
Observation has lead me to feel that they are the key too both.
Where is the greatest amount of fire returned in a RB diamond?
Study a diamond in multiple lighting conditions and report back.
(pay attention to facet junction locations in relation to the areas of greatest fire)

Storm,

I think that you will be pleased to know that the AGS-metric starts on the basis of 40,000 entering rays of light, which end up as more than 60,000 rays, because of them splitting when hitting a facet junction.

The rest is basically simple arythmetics.

Live long,

 

[strmrdr]

Thanks Paul interesting stuff.
AGS needs to do a better job getting info out and it needs to be independently verified.
The brightness metric(ASET) built on what the IS and other scopes had done before so it was fairly easy to accept but the fire and scint are going to be much harder.

 

[Paul-Antwerp]

Date: 6/10/2007 10:34:37 AM
Author: strmrdr
Thanks Paul interesting stuff.
AGS needs to do a better job getting info out and it needs to be independently verified.
The brightness metric(ASET) built on what the IS and other scopes had done before so it was fairly easy to accept but the fire and scint are going to be much harder.

So, you are saying, if they use an ASET-scope, as a simplified version of the reverse-ray-tracing, because it seems to adapt the same principle as the Idealscope and the Gilbertson-scope, that this is acceptable.

But if they use the same technique, only this time with forward-ray-tracing, it becomes something to be sceptical about.

I do not understand your reasoning in this.

Live long,

 

[Regular Guy]

Five thoughts:

1) The dad of my roommate's friend in college, a scientist, spoke about a good scientists ability to talk to laymen about the technical things they were doing. I do think that when this is done successfully, you have the success you frequently see here on Pricescope.

2) Re beams and such...when driving, on a busy highway, and the speed limit is whatever it is (55 Mph...), how in the heck do those machines I look at read back to me my individualized speed?

3) Paul's last post reminded me of something like this thread I found...and here much of it is...not entirely understood by me...or really, even partially. First I read that you cannot reverse rays (middle of page 2, from Beryl/Bruce Harding)...

" I think that now everyone must agree that light is not reversible."

Later, I think it is (reversible), and then a closing from Beryl suggests it is not, again.

4) Paul's comments suggests this ray business is related, back again, to the scintillation being discussed here (unless it ls the fire, instead, of course).

5) Anyone who might like to help the weave of this come together for pro-sumers who might have their buying decision influenced by the report that a diamond has enhanced fire or scintillation, as indicated by such & such...probably has my vote!

Regards,

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 6/10/2007 4:54:33 PM
Author: Paul-Antwerp

Date: 6/10/2007 10:34:37 AM
Author: strmrdr
Thanks Paul interesting stuff.
AGS needs to do a better job getting info out and it needs to be independently verified.
The brightness metric(ASET) built on what the IS and other scopes had done before so it was fairly easy to accept but the fire and scint are going to be much harder.

So, you are saying, if they use an ASET-scope, as a simplified version of the reverse-ray-tracing, because it seems to adapt the same principle as the Idealscope and the Gilbertson-scope, that this is acceptable.

But if they use the same technique, only this time with forward-ray-tracing, it becomes something to be sceptical about.

I do not understand your reasoning in this.

Live long,

Simple the red scopes have been proven to relate to light return and Wink does an excellent explanation of ASET that anyone can understand.
The same hasn''t been done for the others.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 6/10/2007 5:33:29 PM
Author: Regular Guy

5) Anyone who might like to help the weave of this come together for pro-sumers who might have their buying decision influenced by the report that a diamond has enhanced fire or scintillation, as indicated by such & such...probably has my vote!

I think we're a long way from that. Still, I like to weave as I am able - even if it's only dreamweaving.

So, at the risk of dinner theatrics (thanks Ira), I started a thread in RT and copied some of this discussion over there...where more techies might see and comment.

Brace yourself. 'Tis long: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/agsl-scintillation-studies.63707/

 

[Regular Guy]

John,

Nice job as usual in the webinar today, and then especially in your follow up on scintillation in Rocky Talky.

I'll avoid putting my comments there, to leave it clean for scintillation discussion...though your specific comments there do make me think about the more general case between actuals, vs. modeling...vis-a-vis infinite light sources, vs the application of specific ones.

In general support of your position...one of the strongest cases to be made for modeling, I saw in a thread I can't retrieve, including a post from Sergey, where he modelled something in DC, and then next to it, represented an almost identical picture of an actual diamond's IS image...to help show the proof of the validity of modeling to represent actuals.

But...that's what this is all about, right? This more general question of how well the shopper can depend on these technologies to accurately model the actual case...so that you feel you can understand it's behavior.

You've made an example "over there." saying:

"Here’s an analogy: Suppose you’ve never played poker before but want to know how often a particular hand is dealt (3 of a kind vs 2 pair for instance)."

At the Museum of Science & Industry in Chicago...they have a machines that drop balls over a series of pegs (or at least used to do this), to likewise "prove" the theory of the bell curve...that dropping balls randomly produces this...so that you see you don't have to do this over and over to see this pattern of distribution. Likewise...for a penny...if you flip it sufficiently, you will see the pattern of heads & tails...and the point with the Museum's model, and the suggestion in particular of the penny flipping...is that you're seeking the general rule from the principle of the flipping...because you are specifically seeking, in the case of the penny, to have the penny stand in for the principles of the likelihood of heads vs tails, generally. That is to say...you have no particular real interest in the specific attributes of that penny.

However, in contradiction to that general case...when trying to evaluate a diamond...you do want to know not the principles of its performance (or maybe you do)...but you want to be assured of the specific performance of that actual diamond itself.

(edited to add....well, on re-thinking this, I suppose you are trying to model the attributes of this particular diamond with the given AGS procedure. Notwithstanding, the following concerns remain...)

So, as the concern goes...you might have two sets of them:

a) have you specifically measured the perimeter accurately, to project with confidence the pattern of behavior of light rays that interact with it.

b) are there variances within the diamond to distract the light otherwise.

In the case of (b), for example...recollecting the interest many Pricescope buyers have in SI options...consider Garry's first post in this thread...

What do you suspect would be the predicted variance between modelled performance of such a described stone, vs the actual performance you could observe from it. Moreover...what systems would we even begin to want to call up to proof check such variance. We could call in Gemex & Imagem...but these are the vary systems we would prefer to compare ourselves against...so this provides no relief.

For such options, are we only left to a pepsi test?

And moreover...how common or uncommon are such options, at the outset. Alternately...maybe we should instead challenge Garry as to the reality of such a phenomena of a dulled performance, attributed to a cloud. But if not...it is clear AGS's methodology would not check it, right?

So, although this discussion started with rolling out to review the application of extensions of AGS methodology, I've found your description of the architecture necessary for an understanding of how scintillation works...takes us provisionally back to the beginning of issues concerning modelling altogether.

Speaking of which...school is about out...and as far as modelling goes...I'd say my sons are just as likely to be making model paper airplanes when they are out of school, as when they are in school. But, one thing is certain...they will be having a more bright light source available to them after Thursday of this week, for most of the day.