What procedures to follow when reflectors cannot (any longer) help?

[Serg]

Date: 8/1/2009 8:24:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/31/2009 4:17:03 PM

Author: Serg

dmc file for upper image

Andrey is looking into why the DiamCalc file did not upload.

Meanwhile I will try a .gem file.


And I made some movies and loaded them here


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QgQk2Ieg54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpFv0c0fuqQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnUyGVLRRIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIKroxc-cyI

They show persistant dark zones as the stone rocks resulting from head obscuration

Man see these black zones more clear and more often.
reason is human stereovision again
for white background If one eye see white or gray zone , and other eye see black zone for same place then Brain see black zone.
So in this case enough if just one eye see black zone what happened for this Princess more often than in DC movie( mono camera view)

 

[icekid]

Date: 7/31/2009 12:16:05 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
I did exactly that and we had an entire thread on it...let me find it.....

I just read that entire thread. While enlightening, we will have to disagree that you provided videos and good photos in various lighting scenarios. Perhaps you should give it another try.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/1/2009 6:28:11 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/1/2009 8:24:59 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/31/2009 4:17:03 PM

Author: Serg

dmc file for upper image

Andrey is looking into why the DiamCalc file did not upload.

Meanwhile I will try a .gem file.


And I made some movies and loaded them here


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QgQk2Ieg54

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpFv0c0fuqQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnUyGVLRRIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mIKroxc-cyI

They show persistant dark zones as the stone rocks resulting from head obscuration

Man see these black zones more clear and more often.
reason is human stereovision again
for white background If one eye see white or gray zone , and other eye see black zone for same place then Brain see black zone.
So in this case enough if just one eye see black zone what happened for this Princess more often than in DC movie( mono camera view)

Sergey i think this slide from http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/conferens-article/fig5b.htm is more appropriate.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 8/1/2009 9:04:22 PM
Author: icekid

Date: 7/31/2009 12:16:05 PM

Author: Rockdiamond

I did exactly that and we had an entire thread on it...let me find it.....

I just read that entire thread. While enlightening, we will have to disagree that you provided videos and good photos in various lighting scenarios. Perhaps you should give it another try.

HI icekid,
I looked back at elle''s post- and indeed it did mention videos.
I''m glad you found the thread enllightening.

I thought the thread did contain photos that conveyed the point....of course all photos have a subjective nature to them.

I still have the raw footage, and can put together a video of the two stones.
As a person in the trade, I don''t know if it''s ok for me to post my own videos.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 8/1/2009 12:59:38 AM
Author: Rhino

Date: 7/31/2009 11:58:11 AM

Author: Rockdiamond

I think everytone agrees ''Trust me'' coming from a seller about a diamond you might like or not sounds pretty slimy.


But in fact, trust is exactly what has to develop for a person to buy.


Both stores, and websites have had to find ways of earning trust- and communicating what they find beautiful and why.


Personally I have found that photos, video and personal observations work incredibly well.... and that ASET would arbitrarily ''downgrade'' stones I have picked based on visual attributes- which is why we don''t use it.




However, even an ASET/IS needs to be interpreted using....well, our eyes, right?


Plus, consumers who have not taken the time to learn , or simply have no interest in learning the fine points of an ASET still need to trust the vendor interpreting it for them.




Again, I''m not trying to make this into a knock against reflector technology- and Ira, it''s your thread- but I really would like to know what some of the others think of the points I''ve raised here

Wazzup mang?

Not taking it as a knock whatsoever. The thing is this ... put yourself in the shoes of the consumer... wait ... put the consumer on hold a sec ... Let me speak from a vendor perspective. I call up cutting facilities, suppliers, manufacturers all the time for diamonds to have them sent in to inspect, You know as well as I do what the response is going to be 99.9% of the time when we ask them ''How does this diamond look?'' BEAUTIFUL is the general response. What''s even funnier is I''ve shopped competition WHOM I KNOW haven''t even seen the diamond and they say the same thing. Forgive me Dave but I''m a natural born skeptic. When a supplier says ''It''s BEAUTIFUL'' ... I want objective proof. ASET, IdealScope, DiamXray are some means by which to demonstrate that to a pretty strong degree. As I have mentioned earlier they are CERTAINLY not end/all be/all solutions ... they have their flaws and their drawbacks but when I say a diamond is beautiful, it gives credibility when you can point to hard evidence backed by testing of other laboratories and other experts in the field. Now ... if you or I are going to advise a consumer that a diamond is gorgeous or bogus when in fact reflector technology states otherwise ... the burden of proof lies on us to be able to demonstrate *why*.


My .02c

Nottttooobad meng- good to be discussing cool stuff!

I think there are different ways to put one''s self in the shoes of the consumer- as people may have very different ways of buying things themselves!
I have a lot of respect for the GOG website- it''s very thorough and well thought out.

I know what you mean about some cutters or diamond sellers saying everything is beautiful!
But thankfully not all.

I find three basic categories
1) the type you mentioned, where you really need to look at whatever they are offering as they say everything is beautiful and never mention any potential problem- you need to watch this type like a hawk.
2) The type that says little, letting you draw your own conclusions
3)My favorite, the type that gives an honest assessment- and who''s eyes I''ve learned to trust. The type that when they tell me they have a remarkable stone, I put down everything I''m doing to RUN over to see it! This manner of seller also would be quick to mention if a stone had any issue they knew of.

I think the whole issue relates to Reflector technology as there are other ways of providing sufficient info for many consumers- including some very picky ones.

If the reflector is 100% dead on matching your eye, then that''s clearly what you''d want to use
.

I have tremendous respect for Serg and Garry for their work- without a doubt, there''s enough consensus and good experience to say that many find the information provided by reflectors to be useful.
However my opinion is that the visual aspects of a diamond will never be able to be quantified in such a way that it''s possible for everyone to use these tools intuitively.
That is to say- if someone wants an "Ideal" cut kind of stone, and knows how the reflector images relate to real diamonds, the technology must work.
If one likes the type of diamonds that fall outside the range of what current reflector technology find acceptable- then current reflector technology seems to be ...calibrated differently .

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/2/2009 8:35:40 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

If one likes the type of diamonds that fall outside the range of what current reflector technology find acceptable- then current reflector technology seems to be ...calibrated differently .

I remain unconvinced from the round diamond example you showed already David.
Would you like to give more examples of other cuts of colorless diamonds that would be rejected by reflectors that you would recomend?

 

[oldminer]

I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look "off" or "not excellent".
I have not yet seen a diamond which had a "fair" reflector image yet which looked even close to anything like and "excellent" cut

It is possible to make naive consumers initially believe they don''t see much difference between such stones, "fair-good- excellent" especially when viewed in strong store type overhead lighting, but when the stone becomes a bit dirty or when the lighting becomes more normal, then the customer begins to understand the benefit of what screening with reflector techniques offered them. By then, it is too late. Of course there are borderline diamonds, "good to very good" which look very nice and are not super fine with reflector images. Anyone might choose such a stone for a consideration. Just as one might take an H color in place of an F or G color when it comes down to the final choice where the budget is part of the equation.

 

[John P]

Playing catch-up.

Date: 7/30/2009 10:04:39 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 7/30/2009 8:41:26 AM
Author: Stone-cold11
One question about the ASET, is there a difference between a black background ASET and a white background ASET? Similar usage? If same, why would one want to use one over the other or why present both in the image?

Thanks.

Black ASET does not show Leakage.
White ASET has too much colors for my Taste( too complex image)
Distribution is more clear in Black ASET,

It makes photography easier. I believe AGS chose black as the default because of those reasons and because cut-grading interp is easier, especially in non-brilliants.

The problem is that leakage isn’t as clear in black. White definitely reveals more. That's not right or wrong, it just “is.” But those of us who focus on micro-cut technology - and/or learned with Firescope/Ideal-Scope - may have a preference for white. I do.

A big challenge for anyone trying to document white ASET is that photography becomes difficult. The user must calibrate his setup to maintain girdle plane for all diamonds, as well as proper sized receptacle (so angular spectrum is correct for stone size) while adjusting focal depth. Additionally, with backlighting, correct intensity and color correction for the backlight is needed so as not to wash out or alter primary ASET colors. It takes a lot of patience and comparison-time with black ASET to set up a decent white ASET studio.

For those interested, one way to calibrate white ASET realistically is to use a diamond you’ve shot in a proven ideal-scope metric (which also uses white backlight). Calibrate white ASET backlighting using the same control stone.

I have used both setups. Away from brilliants, especially, one must remember leakage is somewhat exaggerated in white but I think it ultimately reveals more.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/30/2009 10:36:57 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 7/30/2009 10:19:46 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

So what does the black in the Black ASET represents? Thanks.

1) Black is Leakage + lens obscuration
2) leakage is muc more visiable in white ASET. Just compare dull green in Black ASET and with sane place in white ASET
Black ASET is more correct for cut ''grading'' than white ASET
White ASET is more useful for cut improving
3) ask ASGL or John Pollard

I would say the same.

 

[John P]

Date: 7/30/2009 1:04:28 PM
Author: strmrdr

This is also why when looking at diamonds under the aset live you should tilt them back and forth.
When a round brilliant is said to have contrast issues it is a diamond that has persistent dark zones over distance.

You and DG both hit on this. Movement is critical, especially when you get away from brilliants. Diamonds are dynamic, it’s “what they do.”

The AGS LP takes a range of tilt into account; ASET views at 1 degree increments (14 degrees I believe?). That somewhat addresses the situation but it’s rarely mentioned - I suspect a lot of people don’t even know it’s a part of the assessment.

What I wonder is how effective or practical is it? Has anyone submitted a diamond of EX/Ideal standing and, because of tilt, had it disqualified? 14 degrees was chosen for a practical reason (FE/Girdle-ref). Ok. But is that practical in terms of performance qualities?

 

[John P]

Date: 7/30/2009 4:27:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 7/30/2009 10:55:25 AM
Author: Serg

Date: 7/30/2009 10:47:44 AM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 7/30/2009 10:36:57 AM
Author: Serg
1) Black is Leakage + lens obscuration

2) leakage is muc more visiable in white ASET. Just compare dull green in Black ASET and with sane place in white ASET

Black ASET is more correct for cut 'grading' than white ASET

White ASET is more useful for cut improving

3) ask ASGL or John Pollard

I thought the lens obstruction is Blue color coded?

Who could you see white, green, red in such case?
blue does not cover whole lens

In the DiamCalc images blue does cover the entire 'virtual lens'.
In the hand held version I made for AGS, that is also included as the operational component in theier desk top showroom unit, the lens hole is very small.

I believe there is some larrger lens black in some of the AGS units used for photography - so in the case of photo's from vendors it could be true that leakage and obscuration could be mixed together.

Unlike Sergey, I prefer the white leakage version because I use it very often and perhaps I have become very familiar with it.
But remember I rock the stone so i see a lot more with it (rocking the stone is next to impossible with black ASET)

The first image shows a default DiamCalc princess that shows the 'hole in the middle' that is almost always visible to the naked eye (even allowing for stereo vision). with ASET black this is very often missed.

This relates to my calibration post above.

Here is a recent example of same diamond in black ASET and white IS (normal IS). Both photos are good. White exaggerates leakage, maybe too much in this example. Black definitely hides it though.

[thread - images rotated/sized for orientation]

 

[John P]

Date: 8/1/2009 11:40:49 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/1/2009 11:15:56 AM
Author: DiaGem
So you are going to need more movement...., a natural part of the Diamonds environment..., movement.

I don''t think many people would want to have to move their hand through a 15 degree ark every time they wanted to see some life to their diamond.
1-3 degrees is much more reasonable.

In a vast number of "normal" situations I agree. It’s small motions which seem to attract casual viewer attention IRL. That’s why I''m curious about thoughts for range of motion that are practical for performance assessment (as opposed to FE/GR).

 

[John P]

Date: 8/2/2009 2:16:16 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Sergey i think this slide from http://www.gemology.ru/cut/english/conferens-article/fig5b.htm is more appropriate.

Garry,

Have you taken this to a VF level and considered dominant hues in terms of DCLR? Or is this strictly relative to grayscale/obstruction?

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/3/2009 11:24:11 AM
Author: John Pollard

Date: 7/30/2009 1:04:28 PM
Author: strmrdr

This is also why when looking at diamonds under the aset live you should tilt them back and forth.
When a round brilliant is said to have contrast issues it is a diamond that has persistent dark zones over distance.

You and DG both hit on this. Movement is critical, especially when you get away from brilliants. Diamonds are dynamic, it’s “what they do.”

The AGS LP takes a range of tilt into account; ASET views at 1 degree increments (14 degrees I believe?). That somewhat addresses the situation but it’s rarely mentioned - I suspect a lot of people don’t even know it’s a part of the assessment.

What I wonder is how effective or practical is it? Has anyone submitted a diamond of EX/Ideal standing and, because of tilt, had it disqualified? 14 degrees was chosen for a practical reason (FE/Girdle-ref). Ok. But is that practical in terms of performance qualities?

Yes..., good question.
Especially because its all pretty much systematic...
A "systematic" shape, facet design, angle combo, uniformed appearance, lighting, and (1-14 deg.) tilt...

I believe its way to systematic...
At least movement should be free-play...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 8/3/2009 11:06:50 AM
Author: oldminer
I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look 'off' or 'not excellent'.
I have not yet seen a diamond which had a 'fair' reflector image yet which looked even close to anything like and 'excellent' cut

It is possible to make naive consumers initially believe they don't see much difference between such stones, 'fair-good- excellent' especially when viewed in strong store type overhead lighting, but when the stone becomes a bit dirty or when the lighting becomes more normal, then the customer begins to understand the benefit of what screening with reflector techniques offered them. By then, it is too late. Of course there are borderline diamonds, 'good to very good' which look very nice and are not super fine with reflector images. Anyone might choose such a stone for a consideration. Just as one might take an H color in place of an F or G color when it comes down to the final choice where the budget is part of the equation.

HI David- are you saying that you loved every stone with a better ASET as compared to others with lesser ASET's?
Well, that's your taste, and your right.
Remember, what you think looks "excellent", is not going to necessarily be the same as what I , or others see.

It seems to me that you performed a Sarin test and generated the images of the stones in my thread.
Would you consider the ASET of the .54ct ( photo attached) to be "fair"

In terms the other part of your statement ( the second paragraph)- that's nothing but, excuse me, a scare tactic.
Most people I know can tell if they are looking at something under a bright light.
I am a strong advocate in making sure people get a money back guarantee, so that they can take their time to evaluate a diamond purchase- in their normal lighting environment.

Where are these stones that , once they get dirty go from being amazing to ugly.
Or conversely, where are these reflector stones who look the same when they get dirty?
Reflectors do NOTHING at all to protect people from diamonds that may look lesser once they are dirty.....every diamond looks less shiny if it's covered in dirt...which does not mean it looks ugly, or that all of a sudden the consumer will hate the stone they loved before.

Maybe it's possible for you to "make naive consumers" believe things you want them to.
But in fairness, can't we give a little credit to people shopping?


Garry- I'll be more than happy to try with a few fancy shapes.

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/3/2009 11:06:50 AM
Author: oldminer
I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.

I have not yet seen a diamond which had a ''fair'' reflector image yet which looked even close to anything like and ''excellent'' cut


It is possible to make naive consumers initially believe they don''t see much difference between such stones, ''fair-good- excellent'' especially when viewed in strong store type overhead lighting, but when the stone becomes a bit dirty or when the lighting becomes more normal, then the customer begins to understand the benefit of what screening with reflector techniques offered them. By then, it is too late. Of course there are borderline diamonds, ''good to very good'' which look very nice and are not super fine with reflector images. Anyone might choose such a stone for a consideration. Just as one might take an H color in place of an F or G color when it comes down to the final choice where the budget is part of the equation.

re:I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.

Hi David,
could you( or anybody else) explain what bad is in below 2 ASET images( in formal classical ASET criteria without link to ASET for AGS0 RBC)?

 

[Serg]

other ASET example

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/3/2009 2:46:03 PM
Author: Rockdiamond

Date: 8/3/2009 11:06:50 AM
Author: oldminer
I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.
I have not yet seen a diamond which had a ''fair'' reflector image yet which looked even close to anything like and ''excellent'' cut

It is possible to make naive consumers initially believe they don''t see much difference between such stones, ''fair-good- excellent'' especially when viewed in strong store type overhead lighting, but when the stone becomes a bit dirty or when the lighting becomes more normal, then the customer begins to understand the benefit of what screening with reflector techniques offered them. By then, it is too late. Of course there are borderline diamonds, ''good to very good'' which look very nice and are not super fine with reflector images. Anyone might choose such a stone for a consideration. Just as one might take an H color in place of an F or G color when it comes down to the final choice where the budget is part of the equation.

HI David- are you saying that you loved every stone with a better ASET as compared to others with lesser ASET''s?
Well, that''s your taste, and your right.
Remember, what you think looks ''excellent'', is not going to necessarily be the same as what I , or others see.

It seems to me that you performed a Sarin test and generated the images of the stones in my thread.
Would you consider the ASET of the .54ct ( photo attached) to be ''fair''

In terms the other part of your statement ( the second paragraph)- that''s nothing but, excuse me, a scare tactic.
Most people I know can tell if they are looking at something under a bright light.
I am a strong advocate in making sure people get a money back guarantee, so that they can take their time to evaluate a diamond purchase- in their normal lighting environment.

Where are these stones that , once they get dirty go from being amazing to ugly.
Or conversely, where are these reflector stones who look the same when they get dirty?
Reflectors do NOTHING at all to protect people from diamonds that may look lesser once they are dirty.....every diamond looks less shiny if it''s covered in dirt...which does not mean it looks ugly, or that all of a sudden the consumer will hate the stone they loved before.

Maybe it''s possible for you to ''make naive consumers'' believe things you want them to.
But in fairness, can''t we give a little credit to people shopping?


Garry- I''ll be more than happy to try with a few fancy shapes.

I would be interesting on hearing Serg''s professional analytic opinion on the color arrangement of this specific ASET..., I know its not a fancy cut but still...

RE> "ASET image for good fancy cut should have good mix of red and green( may be more red than green, but what is more important green should be between red, green should seperate red zones). if you see read zones in part image and green zone in other part, it is not best cut. For example if table is red and crown facets are green or via versa, it is bad cut. If knot is red and shoulders are red, it is bad cut. You try find cuts with good mix green and red. Better if cut has more red than green, but if cut has not green , it can not be best cut "

Serg, I see the black leakage (in the table)..., but still in my (un-professional) opinion on this issue the red and greens are dominant and are missing the uniformed obstruction the arrows usualy show on the so called "better" ASET images out there..., actually the obstruction (blue) on this ASET resemble (to me) some fancy cut ASET''s. Maybe a plus??

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/3/2009 3:07:31 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 11:06:50 AM
Author: oldminer
I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.

I have not yet seen a diamond which had a ''fair'' reflector image yet which looked even close to anything like and ''excellent'' cut


It is possible to make naive consumers initially believe they don''t see much difference between such stones, ''fair-good- excellent'' especially when viewed in strong store type overhead lighting, but when the stone becomes a bit dirty or when the lighting becomes more normal, then the customer begins to understand the benefit of what screening with reflector techniques offered them. By then, it is too late. Of course there are borderline diamonds, ''good to very good'' which look very nice and are not super fine with reflector images. Anyone might choose such a stone for a consideration. Just as one might take an H color in place of an F or G color when it comes down to the final choice where the budget is part of the equation.

re:I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.

Hi David,
could you( or anybody else) explain what bad is in below 2 ASET images( in formal classical ASET criteria without link to ASET for AGS0 RBC)?

One color is too dominant?? In this case red?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Why does this NOT equal a visual shortfall in real life?

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/3/2009 3:26:46 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2009 3:07:31 PM

Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 11:06:50 AM

Author: oldminer

I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.


I have not yet seen a diamond which had a ''fair'' reflector image yet which looked even close to anything like and ''excellent'' cut



It is possible to make naive consumers initially believe they don''t see much difference between such stones, ''fair-good- excellent'' especially when viewed in strong store type overhead lighting, but when the stone becomes a bit dirty or when the lighting becomes more normal, then the customer begins to understand the benefit of what screening with reflector techniques offered them. By then, it is too late. Of course there are borderline diamonds, ''good to very good'' which look very nice and are not super fine with reflector images. Anyone might choose such a stone for a consideration. Just as one might take an H color in place of an F or G color when it comes down to the final choice where the budget is part of the equation.

re:I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.


Hi David,

could you( or anybody else) explain what bad is in below 2 ASET images( in formal classical ASET criteria without link to ASET for AGS0 RBC)?

One color is too dominant?? In this case red?

Diagem, I could create Bad RBC with ANY shares Blue, Red and Green colors.
This is proof what ASET is just rejection and selection tool even for RBC ( ASET is not grading grading tool ). ASET can not reject all bad proportions except one case( one case of using ASET) When we define what Only ASG0H&A has good ASET.

Or we reject all images except AGS0H&A or some bad diamonds could receive Good ASET grade.

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/3/2009 3:47:52 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 3:26:46 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2009 3:07:31 PM

Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 11:06:50 AM

Author: oldminer

I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.


I have not yet seen a diamond which had a ''fair'' reflector image yet which looked even close to anything like and ''excellent'' cut



It is possible to make naive consumers initially believe they don''t see much difference between such stones, ''fair-good- excellent'' especially when viewed in strong store type overhead lighting, but when the stone becomes a bit dirty or when the lighting becomes more normal, then the customer begins to understand the benefit of what screening with reflector techniques offered them. By then, it is too late. Of course there are borderline diamonds, ''good to very good'' which look very nice and are not super fine with reflector images. Anyone might choose such a stone for a consideration. Just as one might take an H color in place of an F or G color when it comes down to the final choice where the budget is part of the equation.

re:I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.


Hi David,

could you( or anybody else) explain what bad is in below 2 ASET images( in formal classical ASET criteria without link to ASET for AGS0 RBC)?

One color is too dominant?? In this case red?

Diagem, I could create Bad RBC with ANY shares Blue, Red and Green colors.
This is proof what ASET is just rejection and selection tool even for RBC ( ASET is not grading grading tool ). ASET can not reject all bad proportions except one case( one case of using ASET) When we define what Only ASG0H&A has good ASET.

Or we reject all images except AGS0H&A or some bad diamonds could receive Good ASET grade.


Then it all actually depends on the quantity of leakage displayed?

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/3/2009 4:01:25 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2009 3:47:52 PM

Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 3:26:46 PM

Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2009 3:07:31 PM


Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 11:06:50 AM


Author: oldminer


I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.



I have not yet seen a diamond which had a ''fair'' reflector image yet which looked even close to anything like and ''excellent'' cut




It is possible to make naive consumers initially believe they don''t see much difference between such stones, ''fair-good- excellent'' especially when viewed in strong store type overhead lighting, but when the stone becomes a bit dirty or when the lighting becomes more normal, then the customer begins to understand the benefit of what screening with reflector techniques offered them. By then, it is too late. Of course there are borderline diamonds, ''good to very good'' which look very nice and are not super fine with reflector images. Anyone might choose such a stone for a consideration. Just as one might take an H color in place of an F or G color when it comes down to the final choice where the budget is part of the equation.

re:I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.



Hi David,


could you( or anybody else) explain what bad is in below 2 ASET images( in formal classical ASET criteria without link to ASET for AGS0 RBC)?

One color is too dominant?? In this case red?

Diagem, I could create Bad RBC with ANY shares Blue, Red and Green colors.

This is proof what ASET is just rejection and selection tool even for RBC ( ASET is not grading grading tool ). ASET can not reject all bad proportions except one case( one case of using ASET) When we define what Only ASG0H&A has good ASET.


Or we reject all images except AGS0H&A or some bad diamonds could receive Good ASET grade.



Then it all actually depends on the quantity of leakage displayed?

re:Then it all actually depends on the quantity of leakage displayed?

No. Bad diamond could have zero leakage, good RBC diamonds have some leakage
Of course usually diamonds with big leakage are bad, but one time I saw nice for me diamond with huge Leakage and Huge Fire in same time. Garry saw it too

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 8/3/2009 4:19:00 PM
Author: Serg

No. Bad diamond could have zero leakage, good RBC diamonds have some leakage

Of course usually diamonds with big leakage are bad, but one time I saw nice for me diamond with huge Leakage and Huge Fire in same time. Garry saw it too

Do you have the proportions for that? Sounds interesting.

 

[Serg]

Date: 8/3/2009 4:22:02 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 8/3/2009 4:19:00 PM

Author: Serg


No. Bad diamond could have zero leakage, good RBC diamonds have some leakage


Of course usually diamonds with big leakage are bad, but one time I saw nice for me diamond with huge Leakage and Huge Fire in same time. Garry saw it too

Do you have the proportions for that? Sounds interesting.

No. I saw it in Diamond Found( Moscow Kremlin), I can not receive it to scan .

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/3/2009 4:19:00 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 4:01:25 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2009 3:47:52 PM

Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 3:26:46 PM

Author: DiaGem

Date: 8/3/2009 3:07:31 PM


Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 11:06:50 AM


Author: oldminer


I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.



I have not yet seen a diamond which had a ''fair'' reflector image yet which looked even close to anything like and ''excellent'' cut




It is possible to make naive consumers initially believe they don''t see much difference between such stones, ''fair-good- excellent'' especially when viewed in strong store type overhead lighting, but when the stone becomes a bit dirty or when the lighting becomes more normal, then the customer begins to understand the benefit of what screening with reflector techniques offered them. By then, it is too late. Of course there are borderline diamonds, ''good to very good'' which look very nice and are not super fine with reflector images. Anyone might choose such a stone for a consideration. Just as one might take an H color in place of an F or G color when it comes down to the final choice where the budget is part of the equation.

re:I have yet to see a round diamond where the reflector image indicated a fine stone and the diamond appeared to look ''off'' or ''not excellent''.



Hi David,


could you( or anybody else) explain what bad is in below 2 ASET images( in formal classical ASET criteria without link to ASET for AGS0 RBC)?

One color is too dominant?? In this case red?

Diagem, I could create Bad RBC with ANY shares Blue, Red and Green colors.

This is proof what ASET is just rejection and selection tool even for RBC ( ASET is not grading grading tool ). ASET can not reject all bad proportions except one case( one case of using ASET) When we define what Only ASG0H&A has good ASET.


Or we reject all images except AGS0H&A or some bad diamonds could receive Good ASET grade.



Then it all actually depends on the quantity of leakage displayed?

re:Then it all actually depends on the quantity of leakage displayed?

No. Bad diamond could have zero leakage, good RBC diamonds have some leakage
Of course usually diamonds with big leakage are bad, but one time I saw nice for me diamond with huge Leakage and Huge Fire in same time. Garry saw it too

I saw this many times..., usualy when huge leakage is tilted (enough) it produces a huge flash of fire..., these exhibit a lot in the super shallow (40''std%) old-cuts...

 

[diagem]

Date: 8/3/2009 4:26:14 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 4:22:02 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 8/3/2009 4:19:00 PM

Author: Serg


No. Bad diamond could have zero leakage, good RBC diamonds have some leakage


Of course usually diamonds with big leakage are bad, but one time I saw nice for me diamond with huge Leakage and Huge Fire in same time. Garry saw it too

Do you have the proportions for that? Sounds interesting.

No. I saw it in Diamond Found( Moscow Kremlin), I can not receive it to scan .

Where those the Catherine the Great Cherrie earrings??

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 8/3/2009 4:30:18 PM
Author: DiaGem
I saw this many times..., usualy when huge leakage is tilted (enough) it produces a huge flash of fire..., these exhibit a lot in the super shallow (40''std%) old-cuts...

often the greatest blast of fire is when a facet is either leaking or obstructing then switches to returning light.
The larger the VF the larger the effect.
I take this into account when designing asschers.
By carefully paying attention to face up patterns to integrate them into the design you can create some stunning diamonds.
The face up static brightness is impacted that is the price you pay.
I will trade off some brightness for kewl patterns any day.

To me RB''s don''t work that way they are all about brightness and light return.
No matter what you do the kewlest pattern is going to be arrows and to much of a good thing means a dark table.

When aset first came out I was thrilled with the concept in practice not so much as it does leave a lot of information out.
I do not design asschers using ASET and just check it when the design is almost done.
I may take the info the ASET does provide and tweak it a little but that is about it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/3/2009 4:26:14 PM
Author: Serg

Date: 8/3/2009 4:22:02 PM
Author: Stone-cold11

Date: 8/3/2009 4:19:00 PM

Author: Serg


No. Bad diamond could have zero leakage, good RBC diamonds have some leakage


Of course usually diamonds with big leakage are bad, but one time I saw nice for me diamond with huge Leakage and Huge Fire in same time. Garry saw it too

Do you have the proportions for that? Sounds interesting.

No. I saw it in Diamond Found( Moscow Kremlin), I can not receive it to scan .

It was a little unusual Sergey - it was rather large

http://images.google.com.au/images?sourceid=navclient&rlz=1T4GGLL_en&q=orlov+diamond&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=l013SrWCKsyQkQXUpbyEDA&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 8/3/2009 4:50:52 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 8/3/2009 4:30:18 PM
Author: DiaGem
I saw this many times..., usualy when huge leakage is tilted (enough) it produces a huge flash of fire..., these exhibit a lot in the super shallow (40''std%) old-cuts...

often the greatest blast of fire is when a facet is either leaking or obstructing then switches to returning light.
The larger the VF the larger the effect.
I take this into account when designing asschers.
By carefully paying attention to face up patterns to integrate them into the design you can create some stunning diamonds.
The face up static brightness is impacted that is the price you pay.
I will trade off some brightness for kewl patterns any day.

To me RB''s don''t work that way they are all about brightness and light return.
No matter what you do the kewlest pattern is going to be arrows and to much of a good thing means a dark table.

When aset first came out I was thrilled with the concept in practice not so much as it does leave a lot of information out.
I do not design asschers using ASET and just check it when the design is almost done.
I may take the info the ASET does provide and tweak it a little but that is about it.

Storm and DG - the brightest flashes work their way from off, to blue, thru bright white, to orange red to off again, or in the opposite direction. This need not come off a background of leakage - it is simply that the facet is directing your eye to the lights.

For cut desiging Storm you could include more colours in smaller graduations