What do you think of these ASET and IS images?

[nuffsaid]

Hi all

Can you please help me interpret these images

Thanks

 

[nuffsaid]

IS

 

[stone-cold11]

Too symmetrical, it is a computer generated image. Looks like the average number is used rather than the individual facet's number.

Ask for an actual image from the scope.

 

[Lorelei]

Obvious computer generated image, do you have the actual ASET or Idealscope images please?

 

[nuffsaid]

Will find out, looks like the image is drawn off some numbers in a program

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 9/2/2009 9:01:40 AM
Author: nuffsaid
Will find out, looks like the image is drawn off some numbers in a program

Yes it is a computer made image based off entered proportions, actual images are much preferred in order to evaluate a diamond properly.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/2/2009 8:53:55 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
Too symmetrical, it is a computer generated image. Looks like the average number is used rather than the individual facet''s number.

Ask for an actual image from the scope.

I think you are all wrong.
Thiese appear to be DdiamCalc / Gemadviser images based on scanned 3D models.

There is nothing wrong with using such images for buying. I buy at least 1/2 my spend using this technology - have been doing it for about 5 years. I have never needed to return a stone.

 

[nuffsaid]

Thanks Gary

It seems to score a HCA 1.4

If something like DiamCalc was used for this, what is then the opinion?

(still trying to get an actual scope image though)

 

[stone-cold11]

Thanks Gary.

I am not saying Diamcalc is bad, just the image looks like being generated from average facet number. Too axis symmetrical, maybe it is just very good cutting.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Nuffsaid you do not need a real photo - what you have is impossible to cheat on.

Date: 9/2/2009 7:20:00 PM
Author: Stone-cold11
Thanks Gary.

I am not saying Diamcalc is bad, just the image looks like being generated from average facet number. Too axis symmetrical, maybe it is just very good cutting.

SC it is from a 3D model and the only variant can be a poor quality scan.
I see no reason to think this diamond is other than very tight in all repsects.


Given the wide variance in IS and ASET photographic styles and the new devices that increase the range of H&A''s diamond proportions (another story again), the DiamCalc approach is at least consistant and because the files can be sent as .gem files and opened on your own computer on independantly controlled software - there is no possability (other than being sent the wrong file) for manipulation.

Really this is the best scenario.
and once the inclusions are in the .gem files (see the first video here which is 100% digital http://diamondscope.pricescope.com/ ) then it will be game set and match for buying unseen diamonds.
BTW can you tell us which vendor this came from (without loosing the stone because it is nice and others might jump on it)

 

[nuffsaid]

Hmmmm

So my question then is, is it possible to generate these images by entering numbers into a program?

Or as Gary described, you can only get an image like this via a file that is generated after a proper full scan of the stone?

(please correct me if I am wrong)

 

[JogiaDiamonds]

Date: 9/2/2009 8:26:51 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Given the wide variance in IS and ASET photographic styles and the new devices that increase the range of H&A''s diamond proportions (another story again), the DiamCalc approach is at least consistant and because the files can be sent as .gem files and opened on your own computer on independantly controlled software - there is no possability (other than being sent the wrong file) for manipulation.

Really this is the best scenario.

The ASET camera with control device that the AGS released a while back provides consistent and accurate ASET image. Also, is not open to manipulation of lighting conditions like I''ve found the Idealscope is.

At present, I can only think of one manufacturer that provides .gem files for use with DiamCalc, and even then I have found their stones to be good, but not that great.

When compared to $15,000+ for an Octonus scanner, the $1200 for the AGS ASET really is the best scenario, especially since it can be used throughout the supply chain from manufacturers to retailers.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 9/2/2009 9:31:28 PM
Author: nuffsaid
Hmmmm

So my question then is, is it possible to generate these images by entering numbers into a program?

Or as Gary described, you can only get an image like this via a file that is generated after a proper full scan of the stone?

(please correct me if I am wrong)

You can generate images from numbers and have perfectly symmetrical diamonds using DiamCalc.

But these are not generated by numbers, there are tiny clues that tell me that.
Storm would easily see it too.

 

[strmrdr]

The images look to be generated from 3-d files.
This is a tough issue for me.
Generated from helium files they can be great.
Generated from the top end sarin they can be very good: painting and digging is sometimes missed.
That is assuming both are properly used and calibrated.
We have no way of knowing if that was the case.
I would like to know the source and have them have a track record of good scans before I would put a buying decision on them.
The problem isn''t DC it is the old problem of garbage in/garbage out.

The problem is I have seen a lot of bad scans.
A lot of the times the problems are obvious but sometimes not.

That said dealers do use DC and 3d scans to decide which diamonds to have sent to them but the final decision is always made using the real diamond.

As scanning technology improves and or helium gets out there more I think it will be a valid way to represent diamonds but I am not sure that is universally true today.

 

[strmrdr]

Here is an example:

 

[nuffsaid]

Hi all

Specs attached as a PDF file below

EX EX EX GIA

 

[Lorelei]

Excellent numbers and could be a great diamond, if it is SI clarity then check the grade setting cloud isn''t impacting brilliance by asking the vendor.

 

[nuffsaid]

DCLA Sarin scanner data back in
Some discrepancy with GIA cert, especially the table size

GIA DCLA
Depth 61.7 61.2
Table 57 58.2
Crown 34.5 34.8
Pavil 40.8 40.8
Culet None 0.5

Otherwise rated by DCLA as EX proportion grade, EX transparency, EX polish, EX symmetry

I understand GIA does a fair bit of rounding in the numbers

 

[nuffsaid]

Could be a calibration thing, and they could well be using different Sarin machines (BrilliantEye, DiaScan, DiaMension)

So not surprised, just not sure if the table size difference is large enough to be concerned about

Nonetheless, its graded EX everywhere by GIA and DCLA so that''s got to be good! haha

 

[nuffsaid]

Any thoughts? Thanks again