The First Round of Possibilities

[spicolicpa]

LOL-
Well its interesting to see your responses, I will file them away to reference when I make another large purchase.

And disregard them completly, but you have stated your opinions.

I will say it again for the sake of "killing the donkey's"...did I get that right?

Any purchase made that will effect more than one period...otherwise known to benefit future periods must be looked at as an investment. Sorry if you feel differently but then I guess The Time Value of Money concept only exists in accounting text books and has no relevance to your lives.

And just because it does not make any sense in your relatively "economically" sheltered lives, does not make it invalid.

In fact it might just prove its accuracy

Has it ever occured to you that a select few people (Usually the same women who find their opinions more holy than life) are pissed off by what I say and its the same select few each time....Hummm...ignorance is bliss.


Now...spelling...any advice there is more than welcome!

 

[Mara]

BOW DOWN TO MEEEEEE...

 

[jenibear]

I've kept my mouth shut for too long spic - I am sick of you filling this board with your mean-spiritied remarks.
You do things your way - others do it another way.
How dare you insult people you do not know and assume that what you believe should always be right.
And we all know you love Barry. Enough already. There are many vendors online and off who are just as capable as fullfilling a comsumers need.
I think you've only heard from the select few because they are not afraid to say what everyone else is thinking.
Go ahead, insult me all you want. I know it's coming and I could care less.

 

[canadiangrrl]

Spicoli, I've never criticized you until now. I don't presume to know all that much about finance or accounting, or diamonds for that matter, but branding is my gig. Your pronouncements on that topic are not terribly accurate, and I wanted to make that crystal clear - much in the same way that I would hope someone would correct me if I were to falsely and publicly pontificate about something that I know little about.

Your enthusiasm for learning about super-ideals is great. If you could temper it with a little more kindness and a little less knee-jerk keyboarding, you'd be golden.

 

[spicolicpa]

If branding is your gig, what exactly of what I wrote in inaccurate?

I am not being mean to anyone; except maybe Duckwoman who has been much more than mean to me...everyone else who I have upset , I am sorry you take who I am on this forum as such a threat to your hard held beliefs.

Again, they are only my opinions which might be in discord with yours.

I think the problem is you all have grown to call Pricescope home and are intimidated by someone new that voices an opinion that has otherwise been unheard until know.

 

[ringbling17]

Hey,
We should move this thread to the steam room.
Actually, I did have a question that always confused me.
I thought that H&A's had more to do with facet symmetry than with light leakage/return.
I always thought that one could have a perfect H&A pattern, but not necessarily do well on the idealscope image.
When one views the H&A pattern, don't they use a H&A viewfinder, not the idealscope?
Or do the two go hand in hand?
Experts, please explain.

 

[Mara]

Kayla--I think that was the same point that has been brought up in a few other posts already (but for some reason spic never seemed to read those posts)... from what I know as well....symmetry is H&A....light return is Firescope, Idealscope etc. I think Rhino posted a few times yesterday with some comments that seemed to corroborate this as well. But yes...experts please explain.

Who really really knows?

 

[canadiangrrl]

Topic...um, yeah.

Anyone know which stone Alechope ending up buying, if any? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[Mara]

----------------
On 10/30/2003 8:40:28 PM spicolicpa wrote:






I think the problem is you all have grown to call Pricescope home and are intimidated by someone new that voices an opinion that has otherwise been unheard until know.


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

I don't think anyone is intimidated by an opinion around here, we have a pretty strong willed group of people as you well know. And we hear lots of opinions...from all types. However, you don't really make clear what your opinion is. You seem paranoid that diamond dealers are out to get you (oh everyone but Barry) and all your posts are overly suspicious, half the time very accusatory, and hard to follow. You ask alot of really valid questions, but you cloak them in other posts...you don't create new posts of your own out in the open with the questions for the experts to answer. Instead you hide in the other posts wondering why no experts are answering your questions (must be because they are HIDING things and RETOUCHING photos!); and just ramble on endlessly about one thing or another or about how there is a conspiracy and you have to be smart, and shop around...and if ONLY everyone was smarter like you...everyone's problems would be solved.

Pass me the kool-aid!! Maybe then I would actually understand half of what you type. BTW Steam Room is a great idea for this thread since poor alechope probably ran off and hid. Ha Ha.

Lastly, yes many of us have grown to call Pscope home...and a lovely home it is. I don't want to see it degenerate into something like DT with suspicions, paranoia, and in-fighting. Which is why I have said before...take it elsewhere to another forum...or just stick around to help.

 

[Rhino]

For clarification.




In order to attain the H&A optical symmetry effect a diamond MUST have a certain combination of proportions coupled with a certain level of precision symmetry. If variances are too far off (in major and minor facets) it will affect that optical symmetry disqualifying the stone as a true H&A.




While there are many sets of proportions that will attain that optical effect NOT all of those proportions are flattering to the reflective abilities of the diamond. Certain sets of proportions AND the cutting of the minor facets can either increase or decrease the intensity of light through the crown of the diamond or cause more or less leakage within the diamond. This is why you have H&A's with varying optical results in tests that critically analyse light return and it's intensity through the crown. Just about all H&A cutting factories ARE NOT FOCUSING on light return and the intensity of it but are focusing more on attaining the H&A optical symmetry pattern which is an element that does contribute to the beauty of the diamond.




I'd post links to examples of all these but can't.




Rhino

 

[Rhino]

Just for fun ... here is an example of a stone I was searching for, for a client and when I got the numbers on the stone was able to generate a DiamCalc Gem Reader file on the stone and a potential Lightscope image. If you open this up in the GemReader software and examine it's potential LightScope image (default file) you'll note the dreaded white "ring of death" under the table (indicating leakage). If you go to the "Hearts & Arrows" view this is a stone that would appear to have great optical symmetry though and demonstrates my point.




Rhino

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Rhino you did a bit of Ideal-Scope bashing a page back on this thread.

1. We have been there before.
2. You took a photograph of a diamond through a $25 plastic lens - that is hardly a fair comparison - especially since the scope was never designed for that purpose.
3. This photo was taken by Sibelius in the same way you took yours - and we know if you tried harder you could do better too

4. If you want to improve photo's through your scope then throw away your fancy expensive lens and just use your camera lens. You will get a better result still.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This is way of our best eg and is compressed a bit - but we have the ability to take extermely high quality photos with an Ideal-Scope.
Anyone can - just use the optics in any camera that will allow macro shots and pull out your ideal-scope pink reflector and do not use the lens

 

[spicolicpa]

"...you don't create new posts of your own out in the open with the questions for the experts to answer. ..."

Do a search...see how little I contribute as far as new threads.

.....but since it is coming from Mara, or Duckwoman or any of the other women that live here and relish in drama, I guess I should not even bother to refute it.

As far as my replies not making sense, I won't try to dumb it down for you, My teachers always made me struggle and that’s how I learned.....

Assuming you are capable of learning and not just spouting opinions that are not expert in this circumstance FOR SURE. Try really reading what I write and not glazing over...

Diamonds are not my expertise, this has been stated and is Painfully obvious from my postings.

Finance and Accounting are, you could learn a few things as well. From the previous responses this is painfully obvious. All some of you do is just bristle every time I comment and throw us completely off topic.

As an Auditor I am trained to ask questions others would not even think of. ....some might call it paranoid. Its saved me a lot of money, pain, and produced many benefits during my life.

After all, your not paranoid if everyone is out to get ya. :O)...

End of this soap opera.....but based on the number of hits...I would say its been quite popular.


PS thanks Gary for the Ideal scope info, I think that if an Idealscope photo is to be shown as a marketing device, than the excuse "its a bad picture" is a lame one as good pictures can be achieved.

And my idea of a Super Ideal Cut will not show massive light leakage from the Idealscope pic's...but thats Spicoli's definition.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Gary,




My intent was not to bash but to point out one weakness in the HCA (not IdealScope) with regards to it's grade and how it doesn't correlate to superiority in craftsmanship or optical symmetry. The spirit in which I wrote it was not malicious, just matter of fact. I consider you a friend. If there is something you object of that I wrote please point it out to me and if I'm wrong I'll consider and listen to why you think I may be wrong. I generally will not make a "statement" if I don't have reason or objective data to back it up.




Your statement I fully agree with "You can't compare a $25 plastic lens with what we use". You may be confusing this with something I was demonstrating in another thread regarding the scopes and pics taken through them.




Peace,


Rhino

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

----------------
On 10/29/2003 8:55:23 PM Rhino wrote:


Mara is correct about the lighting and the scope used. These 2 pictures below are of the same diamond. One picture would lead you to believe it would get a triple VH on the BrillianceScope the other explains why it doesn't.

The pic on the left is an IS image the pic on the right is our LightScope.


/idealbb/files/DSCN95r93.jpg/idealbb/files/DSCN95r87.jpg


Of the images that have been posted by the originator of this thread I would suggest the first stone of them all. The first G SI1 (I think it was).
----------------

First Sorry spic for hijacking your thread

Second Rhino - no hard feelings - but fair is fair - that is a photo (bad) you took through the lens of a $25 ideal-scope. It is not what a user with reasonale eye sight will see though an ideal-scope - it is what a camera takes a photo of through an ideal-scope.
If you want to take photo's through the lens then use the Expert $120 model, or as we do - use the reflector and no lens at all.
I was not commenting on any other issues in this thread.
But by the by Spic - those ladies give a lot of consumers great (free) advice. I have heard that some auditors gave bad advice, and charged for it!

Sorry - not wanting to start a flaming session - just adding a little viewpoint.

 

[Serg]

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

Second Rhino - no hard feelings - but fair is fair - that is a photo (bad) you took through the lens of a $25 ideal-scope. It is not what a user with reasonale eye sight will see though an ideal-scope - it is what a camera takes a photo of through an ideal-scope.

Sorry - not wanting to start a flaming session - just adding a little viewpoint.----------------

Garry, I am agree. But could you explain why : "It is not what a user with reasonale eye sight will see though an ideal-scope - it is what a camera takes a photo of through an ideal-scope."

It is very interesting and important subject for such type of cut grading system.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

It is a bit late here to be attempting to think hard Sergey, but I will try.
It is OK to compare photo's of different diamonds through red reflector devices if they are all taken in the same way.

This is a problem at present because there is no standard. But you know that we are going to solve that problem (and that really means you will need to come along to Jonathon).
What our eyes see is far more detail and it is also not static. As we look from one side to another side there are subtle changes.
Also I have noticed that my 2 diamond buying staff reglarly rock stones in the tweezers as they examine them if they are certain types (e.g. shalow stones). They started do this intuitively and not through special instructions.

Another issue is depth of feild - the camera is limited and digital cameras even more so because the aperature is not very small. Our eyes can change focus and we build a perception of what we see, not a single image.
I am sure there is more others can add to this.

 

[canadiangrrl]

Spicoli, one of the reasons why the marketing department frequently clashes with the finance department is because the finance guys are forever trying to attach a bottom line to an intangible.

I will try to illustrate why I disagreed with you about seventy-six posts ago.

I love Kellogg's Frosted Flakes. I have loved them since I was a small child (before the wheel was invented, and dinosaurs still roamed the earth.) I love them for so many reasons - they taste good, they're crunchy, Tony the Tiger is adorable, they remind me of my childhood, etc. etc.

Now...let's say a major supermarket chain decides to launch...Phrosted Phlakes...complete with a Leo the Lion character (yes lawyers I realize I'm pushing it but play along, there's a point in all of this.)

They taste very similar to the original Frosted Flakes, and to boot, they cost almost forty cents less per unit. But they are not the real thing, and this is patently obvious to the consumer.

Is this cheap imitator harmful to the integrity of the Frosted Flakes brand? The short answer is yes. Is it damaging to the cereal category as a whole? Depends on which angle you're looking at it from - if you're the consumer, no. BUT...and this is the kicker, Spicoli...does this not-quite-the-real-thing cereal degrade the value of the Frosted Flakes brand to the consumer? NO. Because the end user (me) still loves Tony, still thinks they taste grrrrreeeeat, still loves the goofy prizes, etc.

The point of this breakfast cereal analogy is that people love their products for reasons that are difficult to quantify. There's a strong emotional component in loyalty to any brand, be it cereal, diamonds, or cars, that has little to do with a dollar figure. Just because diamonds with suspect H&A designations are in the marketplace doesn't make the diamond you gave to your fiancee any less valuable. Because the value of the diamond to your fiancee is comprised of a whole host of emotional reasons having to do with YOU -- it has nothing to do with any brand name etched on the girdle.

Back to my Frosted Flakes.

 

[Serg]

----------------
On 10/31/2003 7:17:11 AM Cut Nut wrote:

It is a bit late here to be attempting to think hard Sergey, but I will try.
This is a problem at present because there is no standard. ----------------

If somebody create a standard it does not mean that this standard is well.

Rhino create one standard.
Garry create other standard.
Who is right?

Which idea do you want to use for creating MAIN standard ?

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 10/30/2003 8:40:28 PM spicolicpa wrote:

I am not being mean to anyone; except maybe Duckwoman who has been much more than mean to me...
----------------

When exactly was I mean to you?

 

[Giangi]

HEY!

I just found out this reply on another thread posted a few days ago!

Tesssa amd Giange...

I am not a disgruntled postal worker...but it is nice to know you guys have a sence of humor, this is the first clever thing I have heard you post....maybe the labotomy was unsuccessful?....:O)

I do not think it fair that Kam pay for shipping but, if it bothered Kam she would have insisted she not pay.

That really made my day! Boy, you're funny aren't you? I'm surprised I haven't seen on the TV at 'Friends' yet! So funny!

What can I say... It looks like you have a lot of time to spare and you're having great fun bashing us all. That makes me sick (and sad).