Are aset images used as "proofy" numbers?

[Rockdiamond]

HI all,
I heard a very interesting interview on NPR the other day, and PS came to mind.
Here's a transcription. The author of this book coined a few phrases, which I feel relate directly to aset interpretation here on PS. "Proofiness" and "Disestimation "
The section below got me to thinking about the interpretation of aset images.

Every poll comes with a little number attached to it called the margin of error, and the margin of error is taken as how reliable this poll is, that it's 23 percent belief that Barack Obama is not born in the United States, plus or minus three percent. The problem is that for these polls, the margin of error only describes one very specific type of error that plagues polls. It comes from taking a small sample of people and projecting it to the entire world.

But in fact, when polls go wrong, it's due to a completely different type of error called the systematic error. These are errors that come when the poll isn't set up quite right, that the questions are a bit misleading or that you choose the wrong sample of people to interview or people are lying.

And these numbers are not reflected in the margin of error. So when journalists report polls, most of which are really not worth the paper they're written on, I think they're kind of innocently performing an act of proofiness, giving the public quasi-fictions in the name of fact.

Basically, aset is looking at one aspect of a diamond, and from a very limited perspective. That being a "given" lighting scenario

My position is that interpretation of aset images is systematically incorrect.
The tool does what it does. it shows where the diamond is getting light from.
I find a lot of limitations with that aspect- but far more is the mistaken belief that the information it provides has broad based relevance for consumers.
If, as I strongly believe, this information is interpreted completely incorrectly, with false conclusions drawn, it's far worse than no information at all.

 

[slg47]

when using any model you must consider its applications and limitations. the ASET is a useful tool and provides key information. how the consumer interprets this information is not the problem of the vendor-the vendor is there to supply information.

today's consumers want the necessary information to make an informed decision on purchasing.

 

[kenny]

I believe sellers of well-cut diamonds welcome the ASET tool and don't look for ways to discredit it.

They have nothing to fear from what the ASET tool reveals about their inventory.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The equivalent of what I'm suggesting is a seller using a poll to say "98% of all left handed people love Zingo toothpaste so if you're a lefty, use zingo which is scientifically proved better"

If you notice the way i worded my post, it's the interpretation of aset images that are the problem.
Personally, I find that the device has no use whatsoever in assisting me to select the best cut diamonds.
That in no way denigrates other sellers who have found benefit in it's use.
That as opposed to Kenny's insult.

 

[Karl_K]

David,
Before I am willing to discuss this with you... in your own words and without looking it up, what does ASET show about a diamond and be specific
Because if your not yet willing to learn that then there is no reason to discuss it with you.

 

[Dancing Fire]

The equivalent of what I'm suggesting is a seller using a poll to say "98% of all left handed people love Zingo toothpaste so if you're a lefty, use zingo which is scientifically proved better"

If you notice the way i worded my post, it's the interpretation of aset images that are the problem.
Personally, I find that the device has no use whatsoever in assisting me to select the best cut diamonds.
That in no way denigrates other sellers who have found benefit in it's use.
That as opposed to Kenny's insult.

and we can say the same about... "trust my eyes",so why not show the customer an ASET pic (if requested) and they can decide for themselfs.

 

[Rockdiamond]

aset purportedly shows how the diamond uses light, based on that location of lighting source.
Does thaw suffice Karl?

eta DF- I've provided aset images for anyone who has asked.

 

[John P]

<< Are aset images used as "proofy" numbers? >>

When it comes to rounds there are systems without meaningful research or peer-review spinning out terms like "Ideal" or "Excellent" that do fall into the category you describe. After all, what does lab ABC's "Ideal" or "Excellent" or "Tolkowsky Ideal" grade really mean? What papers exist? What research was done? (etc)

The major labs taking time to publish and explain the metric they employ to arrive at a cut performance grading are doing the trade and consumers a service. AGSL is certainly among them.

Given the opportunity to say something about cut performance based only on (1) the grade assigned by an anonymous lab (2) a list of averaged proportions (3) a manufacturer's report or (4) a single ASET image I'd pick the ASET every time and twice when it comes to fancy shapes. Does it tell everything? No, but it tells far more than the other options. Of course, as usual, I'd still like to see the diamond to verify impressions and arrive at final and more detailed conclusions.

It's also worth remembering that in the larger picture a static ASET image is just a fraction of the total system AGSL uses. They perform ray-tracing in three dimensions using around 40,000 light rays to arrive at separate values through ranges of tilt at different distances. That covers far more than a single ASET 'snapshot.' Using one image is nice but it's only part of the picture. And it should be said that, while the AGSL system is more repeatable and thorough than other major systems, even taken in-total it's primarily an evaluation of brightness, leakage and contrast.

Back to the original question: With proper interpretation even the static ASET image communicates far more than arbitrary pronouncements of "Ideal" or "Supergroovy" (etc etc) in unvetted, non-standardized systems. I believe it is those other systems we should be trying to help toward evolution and improvement.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply John.
What if the choice is between photos, videos, and a vendors well earned reputation versus aset.
In the case of "Oh Zingo diamond's site calls this "Super Ideal Excellent" versus aset, we're in agreement.

Now that I have a unit on my desk, and have used it, I can't say I feel it's useful at all in determining cut quality- especially on fancy shapes.
But it's important to note that I'm using the unit with the diamond in front of me. The eyes have it, every time.
Then, the logical response is that consumers shopping online don;t have that luxury.
My feeling is that while John may have a good grasp on relating aset imagery to actual diamonds, consumers are far better at interpreting photos, videos, and a sellers reputation.

 

[Rockdiamond]

As an example, let's look at a stone which has a bow tie. (The stone is not ours- we got it to use for this example)

The faint blue stripe on the aset does correspond with the dark area in the photo.
The aset actually makes it look a lot less prominent- but shows it to some extent.
We can all agree the photo has it's limitations, and there may be issues of physics and photography that exacerbate the dark areas ( or lessen them) We can agree this is caused by head obstruction in cases where such bright lights exist.


This is a fairly easy stone to interpret- and shows one example where photo and aset really do show the same thing, easily recognizable.
But, in real life, the only way I can get that particular effect- the horizontal back "stripe"- is under a lot of light.
In normal room lighting, it's impossible.
There's still a difference in sparkle between the ends and the middle- but each area seems to sparkle, rather than look dark.

So, how is a person who wants a marquise going to use the aset?
For those that have a grasp on reading aset and make commentary, what would you look for, in a marquise diamond?

 

[John P]

Thanks for the thoughtful reply John.
What if the choice is between photos, videos, and a vendors well earned reputation versus aset...

You're welcome. Your next posts seem to go away from the original topic? You asked whether ASET images are used as "Proofiness" (aka "The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception" as described in your link). As stated, I don't think any metric that is repeatable, well-defined and published falls into a such a category. There are other trees to bark-up, however. Perhaps it is those systems we should identify and try to help toward evolution and improvement.

 

[Karl_K]

So, how is a person who wants a marquise going to use the aset?
For those that have a grasp on reading aset and make commentary, what would you look for, in a marquise diamond?

A face up ASET does not show you at what distance the obstruction goes away and at what tilt.
Obstruction that goes away with mild tilt is much less of an issue than what I call hard obstruction that stays present through 5+ degrees of tilt and or greater distance.
So I would recommend that the buyer have the vendor evaluate that and report back.
That ASET tends to over obstruct with fancies is a known issue but it points out an area that needs to be investigated both by the vendor and the buyer when he/she looks at it.

Also looking at both images a request for an image in softer/less bright lighting would be a good idea.

 

[Karl_K]

aset purportedly shows how the diamond uses light, based on that location of lighting source.
Does thaw suffice Karl?

eta DF- I've provided aset images for anyone who has asked.

Close but you forgot obstruction and leakage.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Let us not forget your biggest mistake of all in that photograph.
The ASET evaluates through the crown lighting.

Pretty hard to reproduce a through the crown evaluation when you hold up a stone in tweezers and light the pavilion.
Take a photograph with the stone in the tray (pavilion blocked) like you did before, you'll find the bowtie areas much easier to find.

You also asked how do you evaluate marquises, well first you realize all the leakage(white) and weak light return(green) areas in the example you posted.

Then you find a a marquise that has an ASET that looks more like this. (Hint: its not a brand name, not fully optimized, just a set of well aligned proportions and happens to be the default cut parameters for marquise in Diamcalc.)

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks Karl- yes, you're right.
However I have some qualms about the aset showing leakage- or more accurately stated, exactly what white means in the aset.

I used this marquise as the first example as it's fairly easy to correlate the photo and the aset.
ccl is proving my point by claiming that the aset he's posted is a "better" stone

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Your point for the last year is your "cut for weight" or "cut for cheap shallow rough" diamonds can have the same light performance signature as more expensive diamonds per carat(that require a lower yield or more expensive rough).

Misleading consumers? Yes
Deceptive to support your personal preference and business goals? Absolutely.

You actually purchased two ASET scopes just to convince yourself that it doesn't work.
You think it doesn't work because you lack even a basic understanding of the physics behind the ASET.

I can't teach someone unless they want to learn. You don't want to learn, rather you created this thread to spread your ignorant opinion on ASET Ad Nauseum.

Spend a couple hours reading the Dr. Sassian's (University of Arizona) and AGSL foundations article I've linked to you a dozen times.

CRUCIAL_THEORY_ARTICLE_ON_ASET_FOR_ROCKDIAMOND_TO_READ_CLICK_HERE


Then ask intelligent questions that demonstrate you have understood the theory and want to learn and understand practical application and its limitations.

Intelligent questions for you Rockdiamond could mean you copy specific and brief lines of text from the article and then ask a question based on that text.

If not your threads and your posts on this topic are really a joke and you are simply provoking another argument void of education for consumers.

 

[LadyBlue]

CCL, Can I see a real picture not an aset of the diamond you post next the diamond that Rock Diamond post. So I can see a real difference.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Gaby, I believe the diamond in ccl's post is a simulated one.
Here's a photo if the same marquise in the aset taken in a sorting tray.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply John.
What if the choice is between photos, videos, and a vendors well earned reputation versus aset...

You're welcome. Your next posts seem to go away from the original topic? You asked whether ASET images are used as "Proofiness" (aka "The Dark Arts of Mathematical Deception" as described in your link). As stated, I don't think any metric that is repeatable, well-defined and published falls into a such a category. There are other trees to bark-up, however. Perhaps it is those systems we should identify and try to help toward evolution and improvement.

John- as we see here in this very thread, it's not the metric itself, but the interpretation of it by consumers that is the problem- especially so in the case of self proclaimed consumer experts here on PS who claim to be able to advise other unsuspecting consumers that they can indeed make substantive judgments on the cut of a diamond based on aset.


Aside from again providing ample evidence of "disestimation", the only other point of ccl's insulting post worth noting is that the term "light performance signature" is again abused.
We don't need a 25 page dissertation when simple explanations are called for.
It's a really simple device.

 

[Karl_K]

Gaby, I believe the diamond in ccl's post is a simulated one.
Here's a photo if the same marquise in the aset taken in a sorting tray.

Clearly shows that the first image below is not indicative of its real world appearance.
It loses a lot of its appeal when you remove it from spotlights and back lighting.


guess what, aset predicted exactly that.
It is nice if someone wants to wear a wristband with a 75 watt halogen on their wrist all the time so it looks like the first photo you posted.

 

[LadyBlue]

Karl, I'm very interested in see side by side one diamond with great cut and one with not. Rock diamond's picture does not look that bad, but I don't to what compare the stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Gaby, I believe the diamond in ccl's post is a simulated one.
Here's a photo if the same marquise in the aset taken in a sorting tray.

Clearly shows that the first image below is not indicative of its real world appearance.
It loses a lot of its appeal when you remove it from spotlights and back lighting.


guess what, aset predicted exactly that.
It is nice if someone wants to wear a wristband with a 75 watt halogen on their wrist all the time so it looks like the first photo you posted.

I disagree with the part in bold Karl. I think the stone looks good in the tray as well- and it shows a different view of the bowtie effect- which is part of what draws some people to marquise diamonds in the first place.
I agree that stones look different in bright lighting, when the pavilion is unobstructed, as opposed to when they are laid in a tray- which is part of my objection to the manner in which aset images are interpreted here.
It shows a single potential, when the variations of how a diamond looks in real life are so varied.

ETA- Karl- I believe that if the aset is close to a photo, it's the photo with the open pavilion in bright lighting. The one you say makes the diamond look better.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl, I'm very interested in see side by side one diamond with great cut and one with not. Rock diamond's picture does not look that bad, but I don't to what compare the stone.

I am putting the word out to see if anyone has a well cut one sitting in their safe someplace.
It is not a popular cut with the vendors who provide a lot of pictures.
ccl will likely provide some virtual images, if not I will over the weekend.
Im spose to be working not playing today :{

 

[LadyBlue]

Karl, I'm very interested in see side by side one diamond with great cut and one with not. Rock diamond's picture does not look that bad, but I don't to what compare the stone.

I am putting the word out to see if anyone has a well cut one sitting in their safe someplace.
It is not a popular cut with the vendors who provide a lot of pictures.
ccl will likely provide some virtual images, if not I will over the weekend.
Im spose to be working not playing today :{

Thanks Karl ,

I will be around, Time to go back to work

 

[Rockdiamond]

We can get our hands on another marquise- even one Karl might consider well cut- we can take the photos, videos, and aset images.
I believe that real images are a lot more valuable than virtual ones.

Any particular proportion set you'd like me to find Karl?

By the way, the marquise I'm using is on loan, no need to worry about insulting it- do you find it to be badly cut Karl?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Gaby,

For now I think its really uncessary to use a marquise I've already done it for Radiants http://www.vimeo.com/14985843
The same principals of ASET and interpretation apply for most brilliant cuts.

If you are interested in how the ASET can help you find the brighter marquise and under identical lighting conditionsthat are most common for jewlery wearers than I'm here to educate.

I will not participate in a thread designed to mislead consumers. One where RD chooses the lighting(but can't control it) and then fumbles by posting various photographs with different non standard lighting and angles and then draws various simplistic and often misleading conclusions from them.

That was the 20 page crushed ice thread where you can read his bumbling here
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-ice-look.147859/page-3#post-2712527#p2712527 that went nowhere with no chance of a consensus.

The only meaningful way forward is is with careful control of (lighting conditions, diamonds selected, photography conditions) or to use agreed upon simulated lighting from diamond sarin scans as I have done above. I am open to even using an HDR file created from photographs of RD's own office if he is willing.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I will not participate in a thread designed ...yada yada yada

So get the heck out of here and start your own thread

 

[LadyBlue]

Gaby,

For now I think its really uncessary to use a marquise I've already done it for Radiants http://www.vimeo.com/14985843
The same principals of ASET and interpretation apply for most brilliant cuts. CCL, I saw your video, I'm intersted in see real diamonds no simulated diamonds, maybe someone else can help with that. I think to really understand how a bad aset vs a good asset look, we need to see both. I will rather see both in person but I don't have that choice.

If you are interested in how the ASET can help you find the brighter marquise and under identical lighting conditionsthat are most common for jewlery wearers than I'm here to educate.

I will not participate in a thread designed to mislead consumers. One where RD chooses the lighting(but can't control it) and then fumbles by posting various photographs with different non standard lighting and angles and then draws various simplistic and often misleading conclusions from them.

That was the 20 page crushed ice thread where you can read his bumbling here
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-ice-look.147859/page-3#post-2712527#p2712527 that went nowhere with no chance of a consensus.

The only meaningful way forward is is with careful control of (lighting conditions, diamonds selected, photography conditions) or to use agreed upon simulated lighting from diamond sarin scans as I have done above. I am open to even using an HDR file created from photographs of RD's own office if he is willing.

As a consumer, there are 2 things I care the most to hear in this thread:

1. How a good aset marquese diamond looks agains a bad aset marquese diamond.

2. The cost of 1 ct good aset marquese diamond vs the cost of 1 ct bad aset marquese diamond.

If someone has the answer of this question that would be helpful.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I'm with you Gaby.
Basically, there's no "good aset/bad aset"

My point is that the information provided by the aset is not utilized properly here, in many instances.

In terms of the prices, it's a wide open question. There are so many places to buy diamonds, and many different scenarios are associated with different cost structures.
I'd be happy to provide rough numbers equated to the PS database using stones we are not offering to give some baseline.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Gaby,

For now I think its really uncessary to use a marquise I've already done it for Radiants http://www.vimeo.com/14985843
The same principals of ASET and interpretation apply for most brilliant cuts. CCL, I saw your video, I'm intersted in see real diamonds no simulated diamonds, maybe someone else can help with that. I think to really understand how a bad aset vs a good asset look, we need to see both. I will rather see both in person but I don't have that choice.

Those are real cut diamonds both of them were scanned from actual cut diamonds. RD had the one on the left and got it scanned and Jon at GOG ran the one on the right from his sarin machine.

You will see striking similarity between the simulated videos from scans and actual diamonds diamonds filmed in the lightbox itself
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57VUOrYkYaI&feature=channel
Its not perfect but better than some uncontrolled RD lighting scheme.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Gaby- you raise a very valid point.
Simulations of diamonds - or diamonds photographed in the Lightbox offer a limited perspective- as do any videos or photos.

The advantage with real diamonds, and lack of lbox is that you can vary things to more closely simulate what people actually see- thereby creating a context to allow the viewer a better interpretation of the photos, or video.
I love the Lbox images- but on their own, they too are not giving a complete picture.