Some interesting things from AGS class

[Just_Looking]

Wink,

First a disclaimer. I’m a Total newbie to diamonds so this comment may make no sense.

I found it interesting the posts about contrast, especially in how they relate to how humans perceive beauty. While I know next to nothing about diamonds I am a student of music. Those posts made me think about reading I have done on musical aesthetics and how music uses contrast to create beauty (this is something that is needed in anything that is perceived as beautiful).

I was wondering if there was anything ACS was doing to utilize the information the arts have gathered (I am thinking specifically about the visual arts) to help improve beauty in diamonds. I would think there are many ways in which both a painter and a cutter are trying to accomplish the same thing.

Thoughts anyone???? (or am I just a crazy newbie

)

 

[WinkHPD]

That may well be true, we shall have to take some one day and go from room to room looking at diamonds and then go somewhere and have lunch...

Or, we could go into Diamcalc and move the lighting and dim it to see what Sergey''s wonderful software says...

Wink

(But we should still go somewhere and have lunch!)

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 2/25/2006 5:43:07 PM
Author: Just_Looking

Wink,

First a disclaimer. I’m a Total newbie to diamonds so this comment may make no sense.

I found it interesting the posts about contrast, especially in how they relate to how humans perceive beauty. While I know next to nothing about diamonds I am a student of music. Those posts made me think about reading I have done on musical aesthetics and how music uses contrast to create beauty (this is something that is needed in anything that is perceived as beautiful).

I was wondering if there was anything ACS was doing to utilize the information the arts have gathered (I am thinking specifically about the visual arts) to help improve beauty in diamonds. I would think there are many ways in which both a painter and a cutter are trying to accomplish the same thing.

Thoughts anyone???? (or am I just a crazy newbie

)

Welcome to the forum, and I honestly have no idea, but I would not be surprised if some of the principles were not identicle. Many roads lead to Rome and I have no doubt that many of the same things apply to both fields, especially the contrast and also the frequency issues.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 2/25/2006 5:43:07 PM
Author: Just_Looking
I would think there are many ways in which both a painter and a cutter are trying to accomplish the same thing.

Hammer hit nail head.

Look into jewelery design then look at roman architecture so its just not the cutters in the industry.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Wink you have started an interesting and varied topic. And you have introduced lots of great ideas

with great simple communication

A few observations - on asschers and patterns - I bought a 1.50ct square emerald type and a 1.70ct asscher type stone yesterday - both had the same spread - the SE had a lot of brightness and firey flashes, but a bigger table. The asscher looking stone had a well of cascades that drew you in. I think I will have clients for both.

Re fire measurment - The AGS has developed a potential predictive method to measure from an actual stone''s 3D model. It seems to match what they observe, and I have no reason to doubt that it is an effective measure.

But it is predictive of a a physical response and like all things to do with human taste and preferences - it should be tested against a wide range of humans in appropriate lighting. This type of testing could be conducted for a few million dollars and a group I work with thinks this is essential and should be done - but we do not have the funds. it would solve Imagem, Bscope, AGS and GIA type cut debates - and it would provide better ways for the cutting creativity we need to ween us off our addiction to a hand ful of cuts.

With regard to where light comes from - windows are an excellent source in many types of diamond viewing environ''s. The simplest test to perform is to turn a spoon upside down and check lighting intensity where ever you are. I do it often and windows are often #1 brightness source - and at very low angles they also often create visible fire.

This spoon was in a window away from the sun on a desk with fluoro above.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 2/25/2006 8:43:41 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Wink you have started an interesting and varied topic. And you have introduced lots of great ideas

with great simple communication

A few observations - on asschers and patterns - I bought a 1.50ct square emerald type and a 1.70ct asscher type stone yesterday - both had the same spread - the SE had a lot of brightness and firey flashes, but a bigger table. The asscher looking stone had a well of cascades that drew you in. I think I will have clients for both.

Re fire measurment - The AGS has developed a potential predictive method to measure from an actual stone''s 3D model. It seems to match what they observe, and I have no reason to doubt that it is an effective measure.

But it is predictive of a a physical response and like all things to do with human taste and preferences - it should be tested against a wide range of humans in appropriate lighting. This type of testing could be conducted for a few million dollars and a group I work with thinks this is essential and should be done - but we do not have the funds. it would solve Imagem, Bscope, AGS and GIA type cut debates - and it would provide better ways for the cutting creativity we need to ween us off our addiction to a hand ful of cuts.

With regard to where light comes from - windows are an excellent source in many types of diamond viewing environ''s. The simplest test to perform is to turn a spoon upside down and check lighting intensity where ever you are. I do it often and windows are often #1 brightness source - and at very low angles they also often create visible fire.

This spoon was in a window away from the sun on a desk with fluoro above.

Interesting photo Garry, but it seems the example you posted is based more on a reflective result than a refractive one.

Plus the spoon is oval shaped, and while this might be interesting to use as a comparison for ovals, Perhaps you might try a large round or square shape item. ( Got a round, square and rectangular shaped spoon that you could put in the same place and condition?). Wonder if the photos would turn out different.

Rockdoc

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/25/2006 9:00:55 PM
Author: RockDoc


Interesting photo Garry, but it seems the example you posted is based more on a reflective result than a refractive one.

Plus the spoon is oval shaped, and while this might be interesting to use as a comparison for ovals, Perhaps you might try a large round or square shape item. ( Got a round, square and rectangular shaped spoon that you could put in the same place and condition?). Wonder if the photos would turn out different.

Rockdoc

A hemi sphere dome of pure mirror is of course best Roc - but spoons are everywhere and you can turn the spoon - you wil see it does not make much difference.
It is an experiment you should try every place you go for a week. you can find the main different types of lights that shine on diamonds in your lab, and relative intensity and also estimate color temp better than any other way.
Here in Bombay today I can tel there is a lot of particles in the sky as it is not pure white as normal for shaded away from sun daylight at midday.

dont discuss it kids, just do it. yu will learn a lot about light and if you look at diamonds at the same time you will discover even more stuff

 

[He Scores]

I''m sorry I got into this thread so late, but I''d like to thank Wink for bringing us the AGS info. As a cutter and cut evaluator, I still have my differences with diamond performance. One is that "computer metrics" really don''t have a real life counterpart. By that I mean, no real diamond is cut as well as any one "metric". Cutter''s just aren''t that accurate...and these little differences in angles (and more importantly the always assumed straightness of facets) makes differences in how diamonds look. These factors are why the "human observation" results go all over the board along with the fact that age old axiom, "when we rely on our senses for perception, there is no absolute".

The performance evaluators conveniently ignore these things.

Additionally, it gets me popping veins that the terms cut and performance are used interchangeably. How these metrics "look" assume that every facet on every diamond is exactly equal, is polished equally (lines or no lines is not the end all for finish), is from the exact same material, has the exact same amount of clarity and the color of the diamond is exactly the same and are all cleaned equally.

Are the light measuring machines and software going to go down each of these allys or will they make it easy on the buyer and seller some day?


Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

 

[oldminer]

Bill: You have said in words, other than my own, exactly the reasons that "modelling" is never going to address actual diamonds. Modelling will assist cutters with giving them guidelines to cut towards, but every diamond is distinctly different. The modellers are assuming a high degree of uniformity and many of us appreciate what the word "assume" spells. Assume makes an *** of U and ME.

Measuring the results of cutting is as individual and unique as every diamond. Nothing is assumed by measuring directly except that the diamonds examined are cut like others of the same shape. Each outline shape does perform in different ways. Diamond brands with unusual cutting or faceting which differ a lot from standard arrangements need to be judged on their own merits, in some instances.

In the end, it still is up to the end user to subjectively appreciate the visual looks of the diamond.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 2/25/2006 8:43:41 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Wink you have started an interesting and varied topic. And you have introduced lots of great ideas

with great simple communication

A few observations - on asschers and patterns - I bought a 1.50ct square emerald type and a 1.70ct asscher type stone yesterday - both had the same spread - the SE had a lot of brightness and firey flashes, but a bigger table. The asscher looking stone had a well of cascades that drew you in. I think I will have clients for both.


Re fire measurment - The AGS has developed a potential predictive method to measure from an actual stone''s 3D model. It seems to match what they observe, and I have no reason to doubt that it is an effective measure.


But it is predictive of a a physical response and like all things to do with human taste and preferences - it should be tested against a wide range of humans in appropriate lighting. This type of testing could be conducted for a few million dollars and a group I work with thinks this is essential and should be done - but we do not have the funds. it would solve Imagem, Bscope, AGS and GIA type cut debates - and it would provide better ways for the cutting creativity we need to ween us off our addiction to a hand ful of cuts.


With regard to where light comes from - windows are an excellent source in many types of diamond viewing environ''s. The simplest test to perform is to turn a spoon upside down and check lighting intensity where ever you are. I do it often and windows are often #1 brightness source - and at very low angles they also often create visible fire.


This spoon was in a window away from the sun on a desk with fluoro above.

Gary,

Thanks for the nice words and especially thanks for the spoon trick. I am guessing from your photo that the light from the window is much stronger than the light from the lights overhead, should make for interesting viewing and it would be interesting to look at a diamond in various positions in that room and then walk outside to compare the view with the stronger overhead lighting.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 2/26/2006 10:11:33 AM
Author: He Scores



I''m sorry I got into this thread so late, but I''d like to thank Wink for bringing us the AGS info. As a cutter and cut evaluator, I still have my differences with diamond performance. One is that ''computer metrics'' really don''t have a real life counterpart. By that I mean, no real diamond is cut as well as any one ''metric''. Cutter''s just aren''t that accurate...and these little differences in angles (and more importantly the always assumed straightness of facets) makes differences in how diamonds look. These factors are why the ''human observation'' results go all over the board along with the fact that age old axiom, ''when we rely on our senses for perception, there is no absolute''.


The performance evaluators conveniently ignore these things.


Additionally, it gets me popping veins that the terms cut and performance are used interchangeably. How these metrics ''look'' assume that every facet on every diamond is exactly equal, is polished equally (lines or no lines is not the end all for finish), is from the exact same material, has the exact same amount of clarity and the color of the diamond is exactly the same and are all cleaned equally.


Are the light measuring machines and software going to go down each of these allys or will they make it easy on the buyer and seller some day?



Bill Bray

Diamond Cutter

Bill,

One of the reasons I resisted buying the Octunus software so long was that all the modeled diamond pictures seemed to have varying degrees of H&A patterns which I fdelt was unrealistic.

When I saw the patterns generated by actual SRN files I was amazed to see that they mirrored the actual patterns seen in the ASET. When I get to the office tomorrow I will have to look for that slide in the presentation that showed actual stones with actual ASET images and then the computer generated ASET images. The similarities were astonishing to me.

I am now just waiting for my registration to come from Sergey so that I can start to use the software that I bought Friday. Darn weekends!

Anyway, while the software will not grade polish and symmetry, it will show the look of the diamond, complete with minor angle and length variations of the facets. I think you might be amased at how well the combination of software and non-contact measuring devises do in predicting the look of the diamond. In the very near future I can just ask a vendor to send me the SRN file of any diamond that I am considering and know without risking the $50-80 (round trip) or so of Fedex and Insurance that it will take to receive and reject a diamond. When the pattern and the diamond look good enough on the software I will gladly risk the one way ticket to confirm.

While I agree with you that the computer graphics may not be exact to the tiniest bazillionth of a nano quark they are way past good enough to give me a great feel for what I am going to see when the diamond arrives. The very low price of Sergey''s software and its very high degree of accuracy in predictive look mean to me that the saved shipping and insurance expenses will pay of the software in about two weeks time. Silly me for not buying it long ago.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 2/26/2006 10:24:23 AM
Author: oldminer
Bill: You have said in words, other than my own, exactly the reasons that ''modelling'' is never going to address actual diamonds. Modelling will assist cutters with giving them guidelines to cut towards, but every diamond is distinctly different. The modellers are assuming a high degree of uniformity and many of us appreciate what the word ''assume'' spells. Assume makes an *** of U and ME.


Measuring the results of cutting is as individual and unique as every diamond. Nothing is assumed by measuring directly except that the diamonds examined are cut like others of the same shape. Each outline shape does perform in different ways. Diamond brands with unusual cutting or faceting which differ a lot from standard arrangements need to be judged on their own merits, in some instances.


In the end, it still is up to the end user to subjectively appreciate the visual looks of the diamond.

I am a little confused as to what you are meaning in this post. While the large pictures I provided do give us models of what stones might look like if they were actually cut, the main purpose of this thread is to share the wonderful relationship between the theoretical possibilities and the actual results. Each stone can be measured and looked at and the results can be seen in the ASET tool as well as in the predictive software.

It is exactly about measuring and evaluating not just modelling. Each stone can and will be judged on its own merits, but not each stone is capable of achieving an AGS 0 cut grade. If you personally like a stone design that is only capable of achieving an AGS 1, or 2, or 10 that is totally ok and it is your preference. The grades AGS assigns are based on a percentage of the top favorable attributes as determined by AGS in their studies. They are measurable and repeatable, and those who want to use a different attribute are welcome to do so, but they will need to understand that it will not necessarily be what the AGS recognises as a top performing diamond.

Wink

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/25/2006 4:57:42 PM
Author: oldminer



''As for displaying FIRE, Marty has a way of makig it visible as well. Once he has that in production, it will be significant additional to what is already out there. Perhaps the fellows at IMAGEM will consider supporting what the industry is considering a standard, and rather than departing from it.

Marty is an industry asset, but not a marketing guru, not sufficiently funded, and not widely accepted. He is known for his opinions and his knowledge, but he knows his approach has turned many people off. I listen to him with great respect, but cannot always follow his lead. Producing a finished piece of technology requires years of hard work to get it right BEFORE selling it. I sort of doubt Marty has the serious bucks backing what might otherwise be an excellent effort.

Yah.. I know, I turn some in the instrustry "off" because I try to tell the truth, as I see it, and can prove and/or document. I guess the "industry" doesn''t like it when they are told that they spend more on marketing and hype than what is behind their product. What they want is a black box where you wave the stone in front of it and out pops and inflated "value" complete with laminated "proof". Sell the sizzle, not the steak

Big bucks would be welcome (send money) so I would have the time to do more of the research I like to do, so until that funding comes, I guess I''ll continue to do what I have always done, tell the truth, expose the frauds and misrepresentations, be a pain in the backside to some by calling them on their technical shortcomings, and not necessarily waste my time and energies on hyperbole, "marketing" and BS, things that turn me off. At least I''ve never been accused of that, I choose to retain my technical objectivity and knowledge and not sell out.

As to your cliam that I am not "accepted". well my SAS2000 has been used my major corporations like General Electric and others, major and minor labs in the world (other than GIA "offically"), my innovations have also been "ripped off", the SAS2000 been used to help value the DeBeers stockpile by agents of the South African government, and I have been told it has has paid for itself many times over by fancy colored diamnd dealers. I guess not being in every WalMart is my "failure", at least I''d have some money in the bank account, but I guess I''m not a "merchant". Any suggestions for me, other than kissing you know whos backside?

 

[WinkHPD]

Now that we have that straight my friend, what can you say about what I learned at AGS. I know you had some input along the line and any illumination you wish to offer is appreciated.

Wink

 

[WinkHPD]

I was going to do this tomorrow, but heck, free time is over rated anyway and I have a lot of catching up to do so, here is the picture I promised earlier of real stones in the ASET and in the Image predicting software, in this case the software that AGS is coming out with at their conclave in April.

 

[WinkHPD]

Hmm, hard to see that, here is a slightly expanded view.

 

[WinkHPD]

Here is a composite photo of a round and a princess together, actual ASET oictures.

 

[WinkHPD]

And a little test to see if you have been paying attention, this is for both professionals and non professionals. If I have done my job at all well you will be able to answer these simple questions...

 

[WinkHPD]

and this.

 

[WinkHPD]

Answers tomorrow although I am sure it will be well answered long before I come back. These last two are just pretty pictures, because they are pretty pictures...

 

[WinkHPD]

And here is a particularly pretty princess. All of the above photos were taken from the AGS presentations at the seminal I attended and used with permission.

Wink

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/26/2006 2:43:08 PM
Author: Wink
Now that we have that straight my friend, what can you say about what I learned at AGS. I know you had some input along the line and any illumination you wish to offer is appreciated.

Wink

Well, I''ve had a little input continually along the way, which I can''t get into...But suffice to say it has always been a wellcome two way technical interchange, unlike that of the GIA blackhole, or others who seek to hide their methodologies or stomp their feet insising that they are G-D and can''t be wrong, ever...

And as to "illumination", you said it, it is all about illumination and where diamonds are collecting their light from, AS WELL AS OPTICAL Symmetry, both of which are addressed well in the AGS methodologies. I believe that there will be more interesting insights on the way from AGS. They (AGS) want to try to do it right, other than some others who want to say that all diamonds are just peachy and cut from the same mold.

I might mention that Gary''s example of the bright sun streaming in from a (south facing ?) window in Bancock, may illustrate one condition, but I suggest that there might be a little glare raising its ugly head if you substituted a diamond for the spoon in that condition illustrated (something like the glare in a photo by Rhino on this thread earlier), and maybe the exception, rather than the rule, just as jewelry store lighting or an 18 inch overhead fluorescenct in the diamondtair''s office is the exception, rather than the rule, for consumers in their home, or in a typical social envirionment where I believe most WANT their diamond to be noticed and admired as exceptional.
Of course, cynically, I''ve found, some just want BIG.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/26/2006 10:11:33 AM
Author: He Scores


I''m sorry I got into this thread so late, but I''d like to thank Wink for bringing us the AGS info. As a cutter and cut evaluator, I still have my differences with diamond performance. One is that ''computer metrics'' really don''t have a real life counterpart. By that I mean, no real diamond is cut as well as any one ''metric''. Cutter''s just aren''t that accurate...and these little differences in angles (and more importantly the always assumed straightness of facets) makes differences in how diamonds look. These factors are why the ''human observation'' results go all over the board along with the fact that age old axiom, ''when we rely on our senses for perception, there is no absolute''.

The performance evaluators conveniently ignore these things.

Bill Bray
Diamond Cutter

Re your highlighted passage, when it comes to GIA, I think they have...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/26/2006 5:13:53 PM
Author: adamasgem


I might mention that Gary''s example of the bright sun streaming in from a (south facing ?) window in Bancock, may illustrate one condition, but I suggest that there might be a little glare raising its ugly head if you substituted a diamond for the spoon in that condition illustrated (something like the glare in a photo by Rhino on this thread earlier), and maybe the exception, rather than the rule, just as jewelry store lighting or an 18 inch overhead fluorescenct in the diamondtair''s office is the exception, rather than the rule, for consumers in their home, or in a typical social envirionment where I believe most WANT their diamond to be noticed and admired as exceptional.

Marty the light on that spoon was from a non sun facing window on a cloudy but bright day.

 

[denverappraiser]

Wink,

Thanks for the thread!

I stopped for a 3-day ski trip on the way back from the class in Vegas and I see you’ve been busy while I’ve been out. Like you, I was very impressed both with the technology and with the willingness of the AGS people to explain it. The room was filled with dealers who were looking for a better way to communicate the quality of a cutting with their customers and who have been searching for the right language to use. AGS provided it. The modeled ASET images are an easy and graphical way of displaying a huge amount of useful data and the optical ASET tool is a wonderful way of presenting it to a customer as well as documenting for appraisal purposes.

I still think there is some work to be done in interpreting the images and I especially like Just_Looking’s observation about learning from the other visual arts in evaluating areas where there are both technical and connoisseurship components. This is the bleeding edge of a major change in the way people describe diamonds and it’s going to be big. Really big.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 2/26/2006 10:39:54 AM
Author: Wink

Date: 2/26/2006 10:11:33 AM
Author: He Scores



I''m sorry I got into this thread so late, but I''d like to thank Wink for bringing us the AGS info. As a cutter and cut evaluator, I still have my differences with diamond performance. One is that ''computer metrics'' really don''t have a real life counterpart. By that I mean, no real diamond is cut as well as any one ''metric''. Cutter''s just aren''t that accurate...and these little differences in angles (and more importantly the always assumed straightness of facets) makes differences in how diamonds look. These factors are why the ''human observation'' results go all over the board along with the fact that age old axiom, ''when we rely on our senses for perception, there is no absolute''.


The performance evaluators conveniently ignore these things.


Additionally, it gets me popping veins that the terms cut and performance are used interchangeably. How these metrics ''look'' assume that every facet on every diamond is exactly equal, is polished equally (lines or no lines is not the end all for finish), is from the exact same material, has the exact same amount of clarity and the color of the diamond is exactly the same and are all cleaned equally.


Are the light measuring machines and software going to go down each of these allys or will they make it easy on the buyer and seller some day?



Bill Bray

Diamond Cutter

Bill,

One of the reasons I resisted buying the Octunus software so long was that all the modeled diamond pictures seemed to have varying degrees of H&A patterns which I fdelt was unrealistic.

When I saw the patterns generated by actual SRN files I was amazed to see that they mirrored the actual patterns seen in the ASET. When I get to the office tomorrow I will have to look for that slide in the presentation that showed actual stones with actual ASET images and then the computer generated ASET images. The similarities were astonishing to me.

I am now just waiting for my registration to come from Sergey so that I can start to use the software that I bought Friday. Darn weekends!

Anyway, while the software will not grade polish and symmetry, it will show the look of the diamond, complete with minor angle and length variations of the facets. I think you might be amased at how well the combination of software and non-contact measuring devises do in predicting the look of the diamond. In the very near future I can just ask a vendor to send me the SRN file of any diamond that I am considering and know without risking the $50-80 (round trip) or so of Fedex and Insurance that it will take to receive and reject a diamond. When the pattern and the diamond look good enough on the software I will gladly risk the one way ticket to confirm.

While I agree with you that the computer graphics may not be exact to the tiniest bazillionth of a nano quark they are way past good enough to give me a great feel for what I am going to see when the diamond arrives. The very low price of Sergey''s software and its very high degree of accuracy in predictive look mean to me that the saved shipping and insurance expenses will pay of the software in about two weeks time. Silly me for not buying it long ago.

Wink

I would like to second Winks comments here Bill and Dave.

An accurate 3D model carries all the data you use in BrayScorces Bill - but puts it into a visual pixel counter.
I am not 100% happy with pixel counting per se'' because it does not have a humanpattern perceptor built in - the conrast calculator in DiamCalc for instance does not match my preference for contrast (yet).

But your protests Bill are not really valid because every symmetry defect is there - just as every positive benefit from any symmetry defect is also there in the accurately scanned data. And this is a new can of worms - that certain types of symetry ''defects'' - especially in larger rounds - can improve a tones appearance.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/26/2006 8:10:13 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 2/26/2006 5:13:53 PM
Author: adamasgem


I might mention that Gary''s example of the bright sun streaming in from a (south facing ?) window in Bancock, may illustrate one condition, but I suggest that there might be a little glare raising its ugly head if you substituted a diamond for the spoon in that condition illustrated (something like the glare in a photo by Rhino on this thread earlier), and maybe the exception, rather than the rule, just as jewelry store lighting or an 18 inch overhead fluorescenct in the diamondtair''s office is the exception, rather than the rule, for consumers in their home, or in a typical social envirionment where I believe most WANT their diamond to be noticed and admired as exceptional.

Marty the light on that spoon was from a non sun facing window on a cloudy but bright day.

My apology sir, I stand corrected.

Looked a little bright ot me. I also understand you were in India, not Bancock.

We haven''t seen the sun lately in Boston.

 

[adamasgem]

Date: 2/26/2006 9:04:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I would like to second Winks comments here Bill and Dave.

An accurate 3D model carries all the data you use in BrayScorces Bill - but puts it into a visual pixel counter.
I am not 100% happy with pixel counting per se'' because it does not have a humanpattern perceptor built in - the conrast calculator in DiamCalc for instance does not match my preference for contrast (yet).

But your protests Bill are not really valid because every symmetry defect is there - just as every positive benefit from any symmetry defect is also there in the accurately scanned data. And this is a new can of worms - that certain types of symetry ''defects'' - especially in larger rounds - can improve a tones appearance.

I don''t know if you confuse people by keeping on bringing up that issue about more facets on larger stones, Gary. You may be right but it is a surperfluous issue within the normal sizes of stones people buy.

I''ve held the Eightstar 13ct D FL(or IF?) American Star more than once, and it looks pretty damn good to me with 58 facets. Of couse GIA, in their infinate wisdom with cut grades, probably only gave it a good or very good. You should see it sometime, and you might have second thoughts about your statement.

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 2/25/2006 5:43:07 PM
Author: Just_Looking

Wink,

First a disclaimer. I’m a Total newbie to diamonds so this comment may make no sense.

I found it interesting the posts about contrast, especially in how they relate to how humans perceive beauty. While I know next to nothing about diamonds I am a student of music. Those posts made me think about reading I have done on musical aesthetics and how music uses contrast to create beauty (this is something that is needed in anything that is perceived as beautiful).

I was wondering if there was anything ACS was doing to utilize the information the arts have gathered (I am thinking specifically about the visual arts) to help improve beauty in diamonds. I would think there are many ways in which both a painter and a cutter are trying to accomplish the same thing.

Thoughts anyone???? (or am I just a crazy newbie

)

This is off the topic here a bit, Just Looking, but since you''re a student of music, I''ll give you a little heads up for diamonds, patterns and music.

Gabi Tolkowlksky, the diamond cutter of legendary fame, has been involved with Gemprint Corp. Gemprint captures the specific and unique light patterns refracted by a diamond and captures this image digitally to its software system. A few years ago, each unique pattern was introduced to music software, with Gabi using software scoring programs, to "translate" these unique light patterns with music scoring programs so that each diamond could "sing it''s own unique "song" ",

When this project started I was asked to assist in it, but being a "compu-grape" I really didn''t have the knowledge to help using Finale or Cakewalk to accomplish this. I do have a knowledge of music however, and do play keyboards.

I will try to get more information on this as Gabi is coming to the meeting we are talking about in April I believe.

Rockdoc

 

[RockDoc]

Date: 2/26/2006 9:53:12 PM
Author: adamasgem

Date: 2/26/2006 9:04:00 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

I would like to second Winks comments here Bill and Dave.

An accurate 3D model carries all the data you use in BrayScorces Bill - but puts it into a visual pixel counter.
I am not 100% happy with pixel counting per se'' because it does not have a humanpattern perceptor built in - the conrast calculator in DiamCalc for instance does not match my preference for contrast (yet).

But your protests Bill are not really valid because every symmetry defect is there - just as every positive benefit from any symmetry defect is also there in the accurately scanned data. And this is a new can of worms - that certain types of symetry ''defects'' - especially in larger rounds - can improve a tones appearance.

I don''t know if you confuse people by keeping on bringing up that issue about more facets on larger stones, Gary. You may be right but it is a surperfluous issue within the normal sizes of stones people buy.

I''ve held the Eightstar 13ct D FL(or IF?) American Star more than once, and it looks pretty damn good to me with 58 facets. Of couse GIA, in their infinate wisdom with cut grades, probably only gave it a good or very good. You should see it sometime, and you might have second thoughts about your statement.

Gee, Marty -

It must be pretty darn cold there in Boston! The 13 carat just looks "pretty damn good" ????? ( Marty''s being is "cold" analytical self folks).

That diamond is just about better than sex! I seen it and held it (and just about drooled all over it). I can''t think of too many stones I''ve held and seen that are that are as amazing as that one. It certainly would qualifiy with the status of "Ultimate Pet Rock" im my book.

Just being my usual humorous self. No insult intended.

Rockdoc