We need to do the Pepsi challenge. "top ideal cut" shootout on video.

[Dancing Fire]

WF ACA, CBI, BGD H&A, GOG H&A, JA H&A and Rockdiamond's best 60/60 cut.

After PSers view the video we can then vote on which stone look the best (from 1-6) to their eyes.

 

[sarahb]

Great Idea DF!

 

[kenny]

WF ACA, CBI, BGD H&A, GOG H&A, JA H&A and Rockdiamond's best 60/60 cut.

After PSers view the video we can then vote on which stone look the best (from 1-6) to their eyes.

All the diamonds must be the same size, very similar color and clarity, and side by side.
Voters must not know which is which.

Otherwise the data is worthless.

I sincerely doubt you'd get all the vendors to send in a loose stone, let alone agree on the all-important photography environmental and lighting conditions.

 

[ac117]

This sounds fun!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I've seen a few of those in real life. They were all outstanding. I contend that the best stones of those vendors who specialize in super ideal stones are equal to the eye. Now some might prefer higher crown angles and that kind of thing, but if all measurements were the same, I'd say at least WF, GOG, CBI, BG and Victor Canera's would look the same. I can hardly stand the debating that goes on here already in certain threads, and all this would do is cause arguments, DF!!!

However, if all the vendors would like to send me a sample diamond, I'll be sure to analyze them over a period of several years to be certain I know which ones are best and report back.

 

[Gussie]

I've seen a few of those in real life. They were all outstanding. I contend that the best stones of those vendors who specialize in super ideal stones are equal to the eye. Now some might prefer higher crown angles and that kind of thing, but if all measurements were the same, I'd say at least WF, GOG, CBI, BG and Victor Canera's would look the same. I can hardly stand the debating that goes on here already in certain threads, and all this would do is cause arguments, DF!!!

However, if all the vendors would like to send me a sample diamond, I'll be sure to analyze them over a period of several years to be certain I know which ones are best and report back.

I think you would only get quality data with >2 ct stones. Be sure to put that in your requirements.

 

[Niel]

A few years back we tried to get a photography challenge with the colored Stone venders. I wish that would have happened.

 

[Dancing Fire]

All the diamonds must be the same size, very similar color and clarity, and side by side.
Voters must not know which is which.

Otherwise the data is worthless.

I sincerely doubt you'd get all the vendors to send in a loose stone, let alone agree on the all-important photography environmental and lighting conditions.

Yup, a blind test!. Maybe like a 1.5ct F/G VS stone from each vendor?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think you would only get quality data with >2 ct stones. Be sure to put that in your requirements.

Um, I am 100% in favor of ceg's idea.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Um, I am 100% in favor of ceg's idea.

So maybe like 8.2-8.3mm?

 

[pearaffair]

This is such a cool idea!!! If only!!

 

[AprilBaby]

Lets do it! I wNt to see if we can really see the difference between 60/60 and ideal.

 

[sarahb]

Quite honestly, to truly see the dif in a 60/60 stone vs Ideal Cut stones, I think you'd have to either have a video or see the comparison in person. IMHO, all 60/60 submissions should be accompanied by a video. At one time, had a 60/60 eternity home for the weekend, it was pretty, but there was just something that bothered me about it & I returned it. Have since learned why it bothered me. Not sure a pic would show the dif between a 60/60 & Ideal AGS.

 

[kenny]

Long post warning ... for photo geeks ...

If this project happens I have some advice for the photographer/videographer.
Rent the Nikon AF Micro-NIKKOR 200mm f/4D IF-ED Lens. https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/nikon-200mm-f4-ed-if-af-micro
Review: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/200mm-micro.htm
Cost for 7 day rental: $99.
Better yet buy one, $1,800: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/66989-USA/Nikon_1989_Telephoto_AF_Micro_Nikkor.html

Why? ... Because it's like buddah!
Seriously, besides being razor sharp, it has the greatest working distance of all macro lenses I'm aware of.
It magnifies to the full 1:1 macro ratio when the front of the lens is FURTHER from the diamond than macro lenses with shorter focal lengths, like 55mm or 105mm.

Why does that matter?
Diamonds behave like mirrors; they reflect what they can 'see'.
They 'see' a big black camera and lens that is shoved right in their faces, actually in their tables .
Something closer appears larger (it's an angle thing), resulting in the diamond having more black reflections.

Being able to back the camera away and still get full 1:1 is a godsend when photographing diamonds.
It also lets you get light into the front of the diamond since the lens is not in the way casting a shadow onto the diamond.

I have this lens and, though it was designed back in 1993, I now understand why today it is still the holy grail macro lens.
Greater working distance is also groovy for other subjects ... being further from a butterfly means you are less likely to scare it away.

Warning: here's why you might not be able to use it on your camera body ...
New lenses have internal motors that change the aperture.
New bodies have the electronics and contacts to 'talk' to these lenses.
This old lens has no internal aperture motor, only the old school mechanical link to the body ... so the body must also have this mechanical link.

That means two things:
1. This lens will only work on Nikon's more expensive bodies (look up which) because they will have that mechanical thingie that moves the aperture thingie on the lens.
Why do only Nikon's more- expensive bodies have this?
Because pros often have a bag of old professional lenses (without aperture motors) that they don't want to throw away.

2. Before you install this lens (or any of Nikkor's older D-series lenses) you must rotate its aperture ring to f32 and lock it in place. Only then can the aperture be controlled at the body via that mechanical link.

Though it's huge and heavy it is safe to put onto Nikon's bellows, the PB-6, better yet the PB-4 (below) which has tilt and swing movements to aid in increasing depth of field at high magnifications when you are shooting more than one gem at an angle.

... and you should be using a bellows to fill up your camera's sensor with the diamond ... unless the diamonds you photograph are 35mm wide.
Without a bellows a 6mm 1 ct only uses 1/6th of the width of your 35mm full-frame sensor.
If you have a 24 MP camera and only use 1/6th of the sensor you are actually using a 4 MP camera.
Get a bellows, fill up the sensor to use all the pixels and your pics will have so much clarity they will jump right out of your monitor.
Bellows simply hold the lens away from the body, have no glass.
This used one in Excellent condition costs $278 at KEH.
https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-manual-focus-pb4-blws-221042.html
Again, I think bellows only work on Nikon's more expensive bodies for that same aperture-link reason.

Here's my 200mm on my PB-4 bellows.
A Manfrotto 3-axis head is another godsend for macro work.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/124665-REG/Manfrotto_410_410_Junior_Geared_Head.html



Whew!
The End

 

[Rockdiamond]

I totally agree with the first point Sarah made. Either in person. Or video is needed.
There are some things for which quality of camera or lens is not the impediment to depicting the item. It's not the microscopic aspects that you notice in person.
Texture.
That's a great word for the scintillation of a well cut 60/60 with 80LGF. Texture. Super close ups won't capture it. In fact they distort it.
Contrast and patterns, on the other hand, easy to document with a Macro lens
Same for reflectors which are great at contrast, poor for showing scintillation.
So you'd need different setups to illustrate the advantages of each photographically.

About an sellers representing an eternity band as being 60/60's. It's highly unlikely stones smaller than about 1/2ct are cut to the proportions I'm referring to. And with individual reports on the stones we don't know the table and depths.
I'm just saying that basing an opinion of what 60/60 is on an eternity band might lead to incorrect assumptions.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Great Idea DF!

I'm just BSing. I know this challenge is not gonna happen, b/c the vendors wouldn't risk the possibility of being in last place..

 

[PintoBean]

Omg bonus points for a @Dancing Fire guest appearance in the video

 

[sarahb]

I totally agree with the first point Sarah made. Either in person. Or video is needed.
There are some things for which quality of camera or lens is not the impediment to depicting the item. It's not the microscopic aspects that you notice in person.

Texture.
That's a great word for the scintillation of a well cut 60/60 with 80LGF. Texture. Super close ups won't capture it. In fact they distort it.
Contrast and patterns, on the other hand, easy to document with a Macro lens
Same for reflectors which are great at contrast, poor for showing scintillation.
So you'd need different setups to illustrate the advantages of each photographically.

About an sellers representing an eternity band as being 60/60's. It's highly unlikely stones smaller than about 1/2ct are cut to the proportions I'm referring to. And with individual reports on the stones we don't know the table and depths.
I'm just saying that basing an opinion of what 60/60 is on an eternity band might lead to incorrect assumptions.

David, the eternity w/ the 60/60 stones were 50 pointers, or 1/2 ctw each. Returned it Monday & went straight to WF. Sure could tell the dif on that 60/60 variety when the WF eternity arrived. The 60/60 was not nearly as fiery nor had as much scintillation. It's hard to put the nuances to words--maybe how about flinty flat white. Huge difference IMHO.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/wf-eternity-ring-arrived.181339/

 

[Dancing Fire]

Omg bonus points for a @Dancing Fire guest appearance in the video

PB
No XXX video allowed on PS...

 

[Serg]

Yup, a blind test!. Maybe like a 1.5ct F/G VS stone from each vendor?

1) It is too strict selection. there is too difficult to find several such diamonds.
IF-VS does not change Optical Performance. Also colour range for round cuts comparison could be D-E-F
.better to fix average diameter( +/-100 microns) instead weight
2) ask 2 diamonds from each brand( as 2 cars in Formula 1). it will significantly improve consistency of such tests

 

[Rockdiamond]

David, the eternity w/ the 60/60 stones were 50 pointers, or 1/2 ctw each. Returned it Monday & went straight to WF. Sure could tell the dif on that 60/60 variety when the WF eternity arrived. The 60/60 was not nearly as fiery nor had as much scintillation. It's hard to put the nuances to words--maybe how about flinty flat white. Huge difference IMHO.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/wf-eternity-ring-arrived.181339/

Sarahb- each stone had a GIA report? And ALL we're 60/60 as graded by GIA?
If that's not the case we can't know what the proportions were.
I'm not saying your new band isn't nicer- just that without GIA reports we have no idea of the specifics of either ring.
This is like DF saying how he had a stone that was terrible and blaming it on being a 60/60 yet the stone was not certed- we have no idea what it was.
If you're going to compare you need to look at stones with GIA or AGS reports.
ETA- Sarah- congratulations on the new band! With 1/2ct stones it must be remarkable!

 

[Rockdiamond]

1) It is too strict selection. there is too difficult to find several such diamonds.
IF-VS does not change Optical Performance. Also colour range for round cuts comparison could be D-E-F
.better to fix average diameter( +/-100 microns) instead weight
2) ask 2 diamonds from each brand( as 2 cars in Formula 1). it will significantly improve consistency of such tests

As good an idea as it is, it's highly unlikely such a test could take place. For many pragmatic reasons.
But Sergs suggestion is relevant.
If you were going to do a test and all stones were the exact same diameter we'd clearly see the differences in weight for the spread. I believe the 60/60 will average having more spread for the weight. I can test stones listed for sale on the market statistically.
Another hypothetical test would be dollar for dollar in the same quality.
What does $20k buy in an F/VS1 super ideal and compare to the $20k 60/60 for appearance. Many observers will choose size over other aspects frequently discussed here.

 

[sarahb]

Sarahb- each stone had a GIA report? And ALL we're 60/60 as graded by GIA?
If that's not the case we can't know what the proportions were.
I'm not saying your new band isn't nicer- just that without GIA reports we have no idea of the specifics of either ring.
This is like DF saying how he had a stone that was terrible and blaming it on being a 60/60 yet the stone was not certed- we have no idea what it was.
If you're going to compare you need to look at stones with GIA or AGS reports.
ETA- Sarah- congratulations on the new band! With 1/2ct stones it must be remarkable!

Yes David, all were certified. Absolutely no comparison between ACA over 60/60 performance. It's a no brainer IMHO.

 

[Rockdiamond]

How many stones were In the band Sarah?
Were they Dossiers or full reports?
Please post a few of the ACA reports as well as a few of the 60/60 GIA report numbers so we can see what the proportions in those are.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The whole point of an exercise like this would be to inform what sort of differences we might see in the type of stone I'm talking about compared to a super ideal.
We'd need a lot more specific information regarding the stones used for comparison. So the " oh I had one and it was terrible" does nothing to inform the discussions for those who really would like to know the differences.

 

[sarahb]

David, I did not keep the 60/60 documentation. I have all the AGS certs on the ACA version. Move on please.

 

[valeria101]

...let alone agree on the all-important photography environmental and lighting conditions.

This'd be such a JOB, that whoever does pull it off might as well merit receiving the samples on loan ...

[Footnote: some such I have done - however, the 'photography' I had to offer went to 500KX & the samples - received via a university research collection, have no price, so to speak]

 

[Rockdiamond]

Agreed Sarah. The great news is that you got a band you love. But whatever your experience with the band, it's simply not relevant to this discussion because we don't have any info on the stones you did not like.

 

[Rockdiamond]

All the diamonds must be the same size, very similar color and clarity, and side by side.

Voters must not know which is which.

Otherwise the data is worthless.

I sincerely doubt you'd get all the vendors to send in a loose stone, let alone agree on the all-important photography environmental and lighting conditions.

An interesting aspect to many buyers would be cost- and I believe it's relevant in a comparison.
If we used, for example, 6.35mm Diamonds of the same grade, the 60/60 might be .96cts. while the Ideal would weight 1.00cts. That would mean there'd be a substantial price difference due to ct weight. There may also be price difference based on the brand. So we could be looking at a large difference in price for two stones of the same mm size.
I agree that if there was a test, it should be blind. But also that price considerations be included in the analysis

 

[valeria101]

price considerations be included in the analysis

A camera could see all there is to see in a .5, .3 ...

-

Off the cuff,

Taking up just Ideals by any other name, may not touch the matter of what is there between the gradable & the visible; accounting for the letter is quite the technicality ...
[my reference - the degree of subtlety of grades, letting this kind of distance]