Usefulness of asets for brilliant fancies?

[Niel]

A friend of mine is buying a marquise for his girlfriend.

he got the two attached asets back. Now the one with all that red in the tip? NOT the best performer.

I didnt even get that "oh the aset machine doesnt work well" it was just saying it doesnt reflect the brilliance of the stone.
now this isnt the first time ive seen this from JA. Plus, the fact that oval, pears, and marquise usually have lackluster ASETS in general makes me wonder if they are really useful or if they could muddle the waters a bit. Or is this an anomaly?

If I had just looked at the ASET, I would assume the best looking ASET was the best performer, and i would be wrong. Are they even worth getting for these types of fancies.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think what it is going to show is that certain cuts are not nearly as brilliant as a well cut round brilliant. You have to buy them knowing that.

http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_ASET_scope.asp

http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_fancy.asp

And, good ASET images will be on a white background so you can see the leakage well. I do not think much of those with black backgrounds.

 

[Niel]

It's not a question of comparing brilliance to other stones. I know a round is best for that. But what I'm asking is if they are even accurate for these types of stones. Or of the sparkle is such that an ASET might misrepresent the performance.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes, see the links I provided. It says ASET's are most useful for fancies. Here's another one:

http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_reference_chart_ASET.asp ("ASET Scope - the best tool for fancy shape cut grading.")

 

[Niel]

Yes, see the links I provided. It says ASET's are most useful for fancies. Here's another one:

http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_reference_chart_ASET.asp ("ASET Scope - the best tool for fancy shape cut grading.")

More useful than what? I know more than ideal scopes but I'm not talking about that.

And the company that sells them will tell me they are helpful, I was hoping to hear from independent professionals an experts who sell these stones if they are really a tool all that helpful when choosing a good one pear, oval, radiants, or marquise specifically.

I mean they are better than nothing but how accurate are they at projecting a stone like that compared to step cuts or rounds and such? Do they really capture that type of sparkle

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Niel, the ASET scope shows light return. It is as useful in assessing light return for fancies as it is for rounds. I consider Garry an expert. I consider that expert vendors like GOG and WF use them routinely to show light return. Sometimes a stone may have charm and a nice shape and someone still may choose it without great light return. But the scope shows light return for those who value it.

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/aset-%E2%80%93-diamond-evaluation-tool

http://www.americangemsociety.org/theagsaset-1.htm (ASET is from AGS)

 

[Niel]

Niel, the ASET scope shows light return. It is as useful in assessing light return for fancies as it is for rounds. I consider Garry an expert. I consider that expert vendors like GOG and WF use them routinely to show light return. Sometimes a stone may have charm and a nice shape and someone still may choose it without great light return. But the scope shows light return for those who value it.

DS. The stone with the worse ASET is clearly the better performer per a gemological review. It's not a matter of quirkiness.

And I'm not questioning there legitimacy in general. Clearly they are useful. I'm asking how reliable and accurate they are for stones with a different type of light return. I just wanted to have a discussion about their limitations. That's all.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Which one do you think has the worse ASET image?

 

[distracts]

The second picture posted looks to have the best ASET to me. Which do you think has the best ASET?

 

[Niel]

Which one do you think has the worse ASET image?

The first. Which has the most red. Yes the center gets mushy but I knew that about the stone already. Which the rep agreed was the best ASET but did not equate to the best performing stone in real life.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The second picture posted looks to have the best ASET to me. Which do you think has the best ASET?

For what it's worth, I agree. The first one has more black which is leakage. I would expect the bottom stone to be the better of the two.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Which one do you think has the worse ASET image?

The first. Which has the most red. Yes the center gets mushy but I knew that about the stone already. Which the rep agreed was the best ASET but did not equate to the best performing stone in real life.

Still confused. You just said the first picture has the worst ASET but the rep agreed was the best ASET?

Which one is the better performer, the top or the bottom?

 

[Niel]

Which one do you think has the worse ASET image?

The first. Which has the most red. Yes the center gets mushy but I knew that about the stone already. Which the rep agreed was the best ASET but did not equate to the best performing stone in real life.

Still confused. You just said the first picture has the worst ASET but the rep agreed was the best ASET?

Which one is the better performer, the top or the bottom?

What I said was the one with the best ASET was the first. Based I me (a nobody) and the rep.

The second one is the better performer.

but this isn't about which of these two stones are better. It's about ASET in general and it's effectiveness for marquise, pears, and radiants. How much stock should be put into it for crushed ice/ pinpoint type performing stones

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well, I guess we'll have to wait for one of the pros to come, but I think the second one is the better ASET and that corresponds with their visual inspection that it is the better stone. I don't always think their reps are great at interpreting ASETs.

 

[distracts]

I also think the second has the better ASET. It doesn't have as much red, but it has TONS of green, and green is just fine as well. Red means the light is coming from the top, green from the top/sides (I am too lazy to look up the specific degrees) so it'll reflect plenty back too. The first ASET has more mushy brown areas, which aren't going to lend themselves to as crisp light reflection as the more defined areas in the second image. The first also looks to have more leakage. I also imagine the first has a really hard on/off bowtie whereas the second bowtie will be usually "on" and reflecting light.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great thread Neil.
Here's a response I wrote yesterday when someone was advised to get an ASET for a Princess cut.
Things like IS and ASET do provide info- however the type of info provided by these tools may not give you the answers you're looking for as an individual.
IOW- if someone has looked at a lot of diamonds, and correlated that experience looking at ASETS, they could look at an ASET and extrapolate the info they are looking for.
But for many ( most ) people, who have not done this, looking at good quality photographs and video are far more helpful IMO


Years ago I simply scoffed at ASET.
Since then I have learned more about why people like the device- but it has not led me to use it instead of my eyes when I buy.
When it comes to Fancy Shapes, many of ASET images are counter intuitive.
It seems to me that an ASET does not benefit the end user of a Fancy Shape, unless they themselves can read it.
IMO it's a mistake to define one ASET as "better" in a case such as these marquises- it's personal preference. Especially when it comes to Fancy Shapes.
If you think about the logic: If a buyer uses ASET, it will lead them to buy certain stones simply because they look good in the reflector- I prefer to buy stones that look good in real life- some of which look "wonky" in ASET.
Brightest ( according to ASET) is not always best in person.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

ASET (ideal-scope and HCA) should all only be used as rejection tools.

RockDiamond - if you always buy in your own office then I can agree, but if you go to different offices, or shock horror, to trade fairs, then it is impossible to be a reliable buyer in different lighting situations.

JA may shortly have much more consistent images

 

[WinkHPD]

A friend of mine is buying a marquise for his girlfriend.

he got the two attached asets back. Now the one with all that red in the tip? NOT the best performer.

I didnt even get that "oh the aset machine doesnt work well" it was just saying it doesnt reflect the brilliance of the stone.
now this isnt the first time ive seen this from JA. Plus, the fact that oval, pears, and marquise usually have lackluster ASETS in general makes me wonder if they are really useful or if they could muddle the waters a bit. Or is this an anomaly?

If I had just looked at the ASET, I would assume the best looking ASET was the best performer, and i would be wrong. Are they even worth getting for these types of fancies.

The ASET images are not designed to measure light and tell you which diamond will be more brilliant. Rather they are designed to tell you where the light you are seeing is coming from. Personally I find them very useful in looking at diamonds that do not have a cut grading system that we can rely upon.

When I look at these two ASETs I see the following.

The top stone has an overall "muddy" look. The reds are not strong red, but often pale orangish-red with lot of black mixed throughout the stone, indicating that it has a good deal of leakage since the ASET is taken with a dark background. Likewise the greens are also mixed with a lot of blackish color and there is no real crispness to the colors. There is also some muddy looking blue (obstruction) across the middle of the stone so it has some bow tie effect.

The bottom stone has to me a crisper pattern of colors, although the reds are not bright red, which may be a photography issue, they at least appear to have crisper edges. The blacks are blacker and not muddy, which although they indicate areas of leakage they are smaller and thus will also provide some of that contrast that our eyes like as they flash on and off as the stone moves rather than just being muddily part of the pattern as they appear to be in the top stones. The greens are brighter and appear to be where most of the sparkle will be coming from in this diamond and there is little of the blue obstruction pattern. I have not seen the diamond, but I suspect that it has little bow tie effect. Perhaps our OP can comment on that.

Note: Since both diamonds had their ASETS taken at the same location, I am going to assume that the differences in the patterns are due to the light should be fairly consistent if they were taken one after the other. If they were taken at separate times and/or locations, some of the differences could be due to different camera set ups and lighting.

Wink

 

[UberClaire]

Based on these ASETs, I would have anticipated the second stone to be the better performer. The black background muddies the waters, but the first stone looks to have either a bow-tie or light leakage across the middle. The problem here seems to be in the people they have interpreting the ASET information, not the ASET itself.

 

[denverappraiser]

I’m gussing that the reason you report #1 is a better ASET is because it has more red than green. Red/green vs. Black is a better way to read overall faceup light return, and #2 is better in this regard. Red/Green vs. Blue and the patterning on the blue is the way to get a feel for contrast and 'life'. Neither one of them is particularly good in this regard (marquise's rarely are by the way). I’m with Distracts and UberClaire, if I were force choosing one of these two, I’d pick #2.

I’m curious about the other end of the equation. You mentioned a gemological test was done for performance and that this is the way you decided #2 was a better stone. Can you give some more details on what that test was? As I’m sure you know, there is not a standardized sort of test for this.

 

[Rockdiamond]

ASET (ideal-scope and HCA) should all only be used as rejection tools.

RockDiamond - if you always buy in your own office then I can agree, but if you go to different offices, or shock horror, to trade fairs, then it is impossible to be a reliable buyer in different lighting situations.

JA may shortly have much more consistent images

Excellent point Garry.
I am a bit spoiled as I never need to buy diamonds outside my office- even if I go over to the cutters to select goods, I always bring the stones back to my office before making purchasing decisions.

Clearly, for those who have devoted the time to building the "mental library" to be able to glean the info ASET offers- like Neil, Wink, and of course you, it's a valuable tool when needing to make decisions out of familiar lighting- or even at a familiar location.
Even then, the info will only provide part of the answer- and if we're comparing the two marquises in question- the answer will be one of preference.
There's no clear cut "better performer' indicated in these ASETs IMO- maybe others would be able to make a selection based on the ASETS- but I'd need to see both stones to evaluate. Both stones shown in the ASET seem to have a nice model to me.
Marquise, in particular really need to be looked at in motion- and from varying angles.
If we eliminate the many Marquise diamonds on the market that are really poorly cut, I would suggest that shape might play a greater part in influencing someone to prefer a given marquise, as compared to slight differences in optical signature.

 

[leoshraeder]

Is there a specific reason why some vendors prefer black backgrounds to white backgrounds?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

ASET (ideal-scope and HCA) should all only be used as rejection tools.

RockDiamond - if you always buy in your own office then I can agree, but if you go to different offices, or shock horror, to trade fairs, then it is impossible to be a reliable buyer in different lighting situations.

JA may shortly have much more consistent images

Excellent point Garry.
I am a bit spoiled as I never need to buy diamonds outside my office- even if I go over to the cutters to select goods, I always bring the stones back to my office before making purchasing decisions.

Clearly, for those who have devoted the time to building the "mental library" to be able to glean the info ASET offers- like Neil, Wink, and of course you, it's a valuable tool when needing to make decisions out of familiar lighting- or even at a familiar location.
Even then, the info will only provide part of the answer- and if we're comparing the two marquises in question- the answer will be one of preference.
There's no clear cut "better performer' indicated in these ASETs IMO- maybe others would be able to make a selection based on the ASETS- but I'd need to see both stones to evaluate. Both stones shown in the ASET seem to have a nice model to me.
Marquise, in particular really need to be looked at in motion- and from varying angles.
If we eliminate the many Marquise diamonds on the market that are really poorly cut, I would suggest that shape might play a greater part in influencing someone to prefer a given marquise, as compared to slight differences in optical signature.

Glad we agree on something. Clink!

It has largely gone unnoticed that I prefer to rock a fancy shaped stone in tweezers under ASET
http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_ASET_scope.asp for a demo, because as you say, its vital with fancy shapes.

I hope you understand Rockdiamond that consumers look at diamonds in many different stores and have no hope to make a decision - that is why Ideal-scopes (for rounds) and ASET (for fancy shapes) are like your own portable viewing and lighting environment.

Still face up shots are good for rejection, but rocking a stone can be great for deciding between stones and in the case of these 2 marquise, I would use your method (e.g. for bow tie and fire and flash sizes etc ) and ASET rocking for a final decision.

Leo black vs white backgrounds can be controversial.
AGS prefer black (I think because it makes sales easier)
I prefer lit background, but the leakage in most fancies can kill the sale.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_reference_chart_ASET.asp a better e.g.

 

[Niel]

I’m gussing that the reason you report #1 is a better ASET is because it has more red than green. Red/green vs. Black is a better way to read overall faceup light return, and #2 is better in this regard. Red/Green vs. Blue and the patterning on the blue is the way to get a feel for contrast and 'life'. Neither one of them is particularly good in this regard (marquise's rarely are by the way). I’m with Distracts and UberClaire, if I were force choosing one of these two, I’d pick #2.

I’m curious about the other end of the equation. You mentioned a gemological test was done for performance and that this is the way you decided #2 was a better stone. Can you give some more details on what that test was? As I’m sure you know, there is not a standardized sort of test for this.

To the secon part, it wasn't a test so far as to say a review. Just visually. I don't know if they do something specific.

 

[Karl_K]

ASET is a reasonable tool with fancies if you know how to read it.
Each shape has its own signature that shows better cut and it is not always the most obvious stuff that makes the difference.
More red does not always mean a better stone.

I look at those 2 asets and my thoughts are 2 middling stones that likely the second one is slightly better.
The problem is actually finding a well cut one.
The odds of any 2 on the market both being middling or worse is very high.
The odds of any random 2 being well cut are very very slim.

 

[Niel]

ASET is a reasonable tool with fancies if you know how to read it.
Each shape has its own signature that shows better cut and it is not always the most obvious stuff that makes the difference.
More red does not always mean a better stone.

I look at those 2 asets and my thoughts are 2 middling stones that likely the second one is slightly better.
The problem is actually finding a well cut one.
The odds of any 2 on the market both being middling or worse is very high.
The odds of any random 2 being well cut are very very slim.

I dont want to sound like i dont value your opinion but ive seen actual photos of these stones and ive had someone look at them in hand and i do not think they are middle of the road or worse.

sorry to offend everyone by asserting that static images of these stones might have limitations. Just wanted to learn a bit more.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

ASET is a reasonable tool with fancies if you know how to read it.
Each shape has its own signature that shows better cut and it is not always the most obvious stuff that makes the difference.
More red does not always mean a better stone.

I look at those 2 asets and my thoughts are 2 middling stones that likely the second one is slightly better.
The problem is actually finding a well cut one.
The odds of any 2 on the market both being middling or worse is very high.
The odds of any random 2 being well cut are very very slim.

I dont want to sound like i dont value your opinion but ive seen actual photos of these stones and ive had someone look at them in hand and i do not think they are middle of the road or worse.

sorry to offend everyone by asserting that static images of these stones might have limitations. Just wanted to learn a bit more.

The marquise second last on this table of master stones is comparitvely very good. but this is a ASET with back light.
Click on the number for an expanded view http://www.octonus.com/oct/mss/table.phtml

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

here is its ASET black via DiamCalc

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Based on these ASETs, I would have anticipated the second stone to be the better performer. The black background muddies the waters, but the first stone looks to have either a bow-tie or light leakage across the middle. The problem here seems to be in the people they have interpreting the ASET information, not the ASET itself.

Bingo

ASET (ideal-scope and HCA) should all only be used as rejection tools.

RockDiamond - if you always buy in your own office then I can agree, but if you go to different offices, or shock horror, to trade fairs, then it is impossible to be a reliable buyer in different lighting situations.

JA may shortly have much more consistent images

Yes, this is an internet forum where people are usually having to buy based solely on images and someone's opinion rather than comparing stones in person. If I am spending thousands of dollars on a diamond, I am very interested in any tools that would help me narrow down my selection. This forum tends to attract people who would prefer that. So I am very appreciative of tools such as ASET and idealscope which help me to narrow down the best stones.

I am very happy to hear that JA may soon have better images to go along with their very nice diamond videos!