ASETs and fancy cuts

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The point of my post was that it doesn't matter what a word like brilliance means to me or you or to the AGSL or to the cut group. What matters is what it means generically to people generally and whether whatever it is that we are objectively measuring matches people's visual understanding of the label we are applying to the measurement. If it doesn't we need to measure it differently or describe the characteristic we are measuring differently. I asked whether consumer testing had been done to confirm whether the measurement matched the public's intuitive understanding of the label being used to describe it. My personal opinion matters not at all nor does it matter what my father meant in his patent application or what the phrase on my website means to me. Consumers who see our diamonds and disagree with me and consider cut cornered princesses brighter will buy those instead but they are unlikely to disbelieve their eyes because of something I have said or frankly that the AGSL or the cut group says. They will trust their eyes and any standard that doesn't match what people see will not ultimately be accepted as credible. We need to learn to measure what people like not try to use science to convince them to like something else. Any attempt to develop a standard that does that simply will not succeed. Even if all the experts on here were to agree (which I doubt is the case) it wouldn't matter. Words need to be used in the manner people not in the trade understand them and any grading standard that doesn't do that will not well serve it's intended purpose.

I am not saying that this is the case with the cut group's definitions only that without testing we don't know.

To me the whole thing points up the difficulty in actually creating a light performance evaluation system. You have to define some properties that make up the system, then measure them, do it in a scientifically sound way, then create some framework for people to compare one diamond against another. I imagine that Serg and Garry would agree that it is difficult work.

On the other hand it's much easier to find faults in any system and point to weaknesses in its definitions, assumptions or judgments. And rather than work to build a better mousetrap many folks find it serves their purposes to simply denigrate the constructs of established systems. But a better use of time and energy is often to try to adapt an established system that is fundamentally useful to one that more fully accounts for the variances that may exist in real life.

Its worth another look at the foundation work of AGSL to see the definitions and assumptions that are laid out as the basis for their system. http://www.agslab.com/spie/spie_lo_res.pdf

I see that Garry has meanwhile posted a retrospective on definitions over time, including those of AGS. The takeaway (for me at least) is that any system has to make choices of how they are going to approach the subject. As long as the methodology is consistent with the definitions and assumptions, the system has a chance to be useful and adaptable.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

.

I think there is an unfortunate aspect to the way the market has embraced AGSL grading- i.e. only the Zero is highly valued. Some of the debate here would probably not be as heated if you had a situation where people appreciated AGS 1 and 2 grades as being high end. But there seems to be a sense of pass/fail with regards to Zero. That leads to resentment against the system, even though it is really a continuum of 10 possible grades. So the problem may lie more in market perception of the system than with the system itself.

Bryan I think that is just a commercial reality. GIA XXX is probably going to fetch more $$$ than AGS 1-10.
So AGSL have painted themselves into an exclusive corner. Its nothing really about resentment.

No doubt about comercial realities Garry. It was probably a bit audacious to think that the market wouldn't simply take the best of the the new system, no matter how sophisticated, and spit out the rest. I'm sure that amongst the scientists, gemologists and industry professionals that made of the working group there was a sincere belief that the system would be adopted in the holistic way it was designed. Markets have a way of imposing their own rules however!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Back to topic



Got the new ASET Garry- kudos, it's a seemingly small change that nets a huge improvement!

The stone in the image is a reject, for me.
Although it's got a decent crown, there is a bulging pavilion. So it's a minus on the spread-meter. it's just above a size barrier...bingo.
But honestly- from 12 inches- and further, it's got a bit of life. A lot less than a really well cut "crushed ice" example in the same color range- but some sparkle and life. Not totally unattractive.

It was submitted by the cutter to an EGL somewhere that called it H - it's more likely an L.
Although it's not for me, someone will buy it from a chain store, or wherever- hopefully they'll get a good deal ( meaning the stone is priced like an L- which is how the cutter themselves valued it).
It's not a "bad" diamond- but I demand more personally.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Bryan the newness that the Cut Group added is based on Sergey's realization that stero vision and the processes in the mind make a huge difference. That changes everything in all the other systems that I am aware of. And the data that I have seen on anaylysis of fire in individual diamonds really makes sense.
Sergey was reading a big heavy text book during a road trip from Italy via Swarovski in Austria to Antwerp about 8-10 years ago that we did with Drena. It was far more than anyone else I know in the industry would do to crack a nut.

David, glad you like the markII ASET. For others - made some changes to the design in last years production run to imporve ease of photography and blue reflections and red green boundary.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Garry - what exactly do you mean by crowd sourcing? How will this process be undertaken and what aspects of the cut groups conclusions will be tested this way? Will the methodology and the results be published?

 

[Serg]

What grading system values on their PGS results would all the fancy and old cut variants they give AGS 0 grades for recieve on the RBC scale?
Is that not misleading if say an AGS0 cushion gets AGS 3 on the round scale?

As I understand it the cut group chose to use the Tolk round as a reference for spread and other properties and that is their choice.
AGSL recognizes that the theoretical maximum of each property is dependant upon physical facet structure.

The maximum a radiant cut design can get for brightness is not the same as a round brilliant. They recognize that and they don't penalize the radiant for its inherent limitations and lower order of symmetry.

Now I would agree the template and optimization for a new design is not transparent to the public due to its proprietary nature and that is a challenge to the understanding and acceptance of the AGSL cut grading system. But it isn't a consumer comparison system its a grading system used primarily these days for brand within a brand type of evaluations(within the same facet stucture) not comparing one brand to another or one shape to another.

I generally agree with this characterization of the AGSL approach to fancy shapes. At least that is also my general understanding.

I think there is an unfortunate aspect to the way the market has embraced AGSL grading- i.e. only the Zero is highly valued. Some of the debate here would probably not be as heated if you had a situation where people appreciated AGS 1 and 2 grades as being high end. But there seems to be a sense of pass/fail with regards to Zero. That leads to resentment against the system, even though it is really a continuum of 10 possible grades. So the problem may lie more in market perception of the system than with the system itself.

Score system creates better opportunities for marketing than penalty system.
Too strict penalty system would penalises any improvements, innovations and finally destroys itself.

Serg,
You mentioned the wine tasting analogy earlier. Try this; think of a stereo equalizer. Some folks like music with a driving base - others the crispness associated with high levels of mid range and treble. Or you might like a straight line where all frequencies have equal prominence. Certain genres of music (like facet arrangements) might be best enjoyed with specific equalizer settings (brightness, fire, contrast). Digital equalizers have presets for rock, jazz, sports arena, etc. No pattern of relative values is necessarily good or bad. It depends on the type of music you like to listen to and how a particular combination of levels sounds to your ear.

The challenge is understanding the metrics and learning what the different levels mean for your particular listening tastes.

Bryan,

A) Music is great sample for diamond industry.
there are many musical events, concerts , competitions , supports for young talents and of course :
1) Coordinate System for professionals =( music note).
2) Language for consumers , musicians, critics ,= ( Classical, blues, jazz, rock , pop, folk, country ) . This language did not come from instrument Type( diamond shape) .

Musical instrument-Light environment
Music(song)-polished diamond
Musician-?? who is Musician in diamond industry? sales persons ?
what is about musical events-Sale?


B)about Tolkowsky cut as reference .
We need Coordinate system ( firstly for communication between professionals , and to create new nice diamonds).
Tolkowsky cut just creates origin of coordinates , scale , coordinate axis’s .

see Color space samples. White( Tolkowsky cut) creates origin of coordinates and together with Red( Fire), Blue(Brilliancy), Green(Scintillation) points creates scale, coordinate axis’s=Coordinate System for Professionals( for communication Consumers we need Classic, Jazz, Rock,... a few consumers may read notes )

Tolkowsky cut as reference of coordinates does not penalty any other cut.
Same as white does not penalty red color. white is just combination of Red, Blue, Green in certain proportions.
Tolkowsky as reference cuts shows that Emerald has bigger size of color flashes( Bigger size, less quantity ).
Coordinate system does not tell you which point is better. (0.5Brilliancy, 2 Fire or 1Brilliancy, 1 Fire.)
But it is show direction and distance from reference cut.
So we may build the Map of Cut appearances, start communication in one coordinate system.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Garry - what exactly do you mean by crowd sourcing? How will this process be undertaken and what aspects of the cut groups conclusions will be tested this way? Will the methodology and the results be published?

Stan, not speaking for Garry- he's probably asleep down under- my understanding is that by creating tightly controlled high definition 3D stereo videos (simulations and actual movies) that viewers around the world could access via the web, they could vote for their preferences. If the viewing technology was widely available you could have an almost unlimited pool of opinion to draw from. And you could compare tastes over a range of cut styles, see tastes change over time and by region and culture and so forth. I'm not entirely sure that is the concept but it sounds pretty cool to me.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Serge if the information is provided in a manner that makes clear that the goal is the proper balancing of factors not the maximization of one or all factors, and which acknowledges which conclusions are objective and which are subjective then that would help prevent misconceptions. This is, of course easier said than done. Correctly communicating exactly what research really means can be as challenging as doing the work itself, and since it involves a very different skill set than the research itself it often doesn't receive the focus it should. I am confident that you guys will do your best to accomplish this. I don't believe other researchers have done a particularly good job of it.

It's important to remember that your research will help cutters make more educated decisions in attempting to predict what people will like, but at the end of the day the proof of the pudding is in the eating and real people will look at real products and decide whether they like them enough to buy them. If your research leads to conclusions that do not match people's tastes that means that your research (or conclusions) need to be tweaked. It doesn't mean people's perceptions are wrong. Cut standards can and will be used as marketing tools but in designing them we need to be conscious that creating or diminishing a market for a particular look that the researcher might subjectively prefer or dislike should not be the purpose of the standards.

In my opinion, research should be intended to reflect peoples tastes (or in the case of new designs to help predict them), not to attempt "correct" them.

Bryan - it does sound pretty cool and I've seen the quality of the 3D videos and it is pretty amazing. And that certainly would be a great way to preliminarily test the viability of new designs easily and inexpensively. I don't think it would be particularly useful in testing the efficacy of the grading system.

 

[Serg]

Serge if the information is provided in a manner that makes clear that the goal is the proper balancing of factors not the maximization of one or all factors, and which acknowledges which conclusions are objective and which are subjective then that would help prevent misconceptions. This is, of course easier said than done. Correctly communicating exactly what research really means can be as challenging as doing the work itself, and since it involves a very different skill set than the research itself it often doesn't receive the focus it should. I am confident that you guys will do your best to accomplish this. I don't believe other researchers have done a particularly good job of it.

It's important to remember that your research will help cutters make more educated decisions in attempting to predict what people will like, but at the end of the day the proof of the pudding is in the eating and real people will look at real products and decide whether they like them enough to buy them. If your research leads to conclusions that do not match people's tastes that means that your research (or conclusions) need to be tweaked. It doesn't mean people's perceptions are wrong. Cut standards can and will be used as marketing tools but in designing them we need to be conscious that creating or diminishing a market for a particular look that the researcher might subjectively prefer or dislike should not be the purpose of the standards.

In my opinion, research should be intended to reflect peoples tastes (or in the case of new designs to help predict them), not to attempt "correct" them.

Bryan - it does sound pretty cool and I've seen the quality of the 3D videos and it is pretty amazing. And that certainly would be a great way to preliminarily test the viability of new designs easily and inexpensively. I don't think it would be particularly useful in testing the efficacy of the grading system.

In my opinion, research should be intended to reflect peoples tastes (or in the case of new designs to help predict them), not to attempt "correct" them.

I think this demand is against whole human history.
People develop technologies, science , art . Technologies, art develop, change, improve human taste, change culture.
We may see it in any design( house, car,,), vine, music ,painting,, everywhere .
Why diamonds have to follow different rules?


Btw. Round cut become possible new cutting technologies ( Bruiting ).
it is quite new cut in compare with whole diamond industry history.
RBC design had been improved even in last 30-50 years.
It changes consumer Taste in any case.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

I think we will have to agree to disagree Serge. Technology helped create new genres of art. It did not teach us how to quantify whether art was more beautiful or less and modern art is not superior to the art of the masters.

Let's shift your wine analogy to my beverage of choice - beer. When I was younger those of us who liked beer had few choices and I, like pretty much everyone I knew, drank Budweiser. Today, the world is filled with an astonishing array of new choices. My two favorite beers are Chimay Blue and Ommegang Abbey Ale - a great belgian style beer brewed in Cooperstown NY. I no longer consider Budweiser to even deserve the status of being called beer.

But way more people still choose Bud (and even, heaven forbid Bud Light) than choose the beers I like. A beer "grading standard" that ranked beers for the purpose of driving consumers away from lagers and toward Belgian Ales would certainly reflect my taste but it would be a marketing tool not a true grading standard.

Now diamonds grading is different than beer. There is no such thing as an objectively "good" or "bad" beer. There is only what I like and what I don't and to the extent that my tastes differ from the mass market I am neither "right" or "wrong." But with diamonds there are actually objective characteristics that I think can be objectively and fairly graded. Pretty much everyone wants their diamond to sparkle in some way and every one wants their diamond to look bigger as long as it still sparkles. If two diamond cuts are designed to sparkle in a particular way, one set of parameters might objectively and measurably do a better job of it. Nobody cuts a 1 carat diamond with the objective of making it look like 3/4 carat, that's always a bad thing. Unless a design specifically incorporates it into its design, nobody likes uneven life or prominent bowties or concentrations of black. Objective grading systems can be designed to help consumers evaluate these things.

But a system designed to tell consumers that they ought to prefer the way a princess reflects light to the way a radiant or a cushion does, or vice versa, is not in my opinion technological advance. Helping people understand why the two styles reflect light differently to help them understand why they are seeing what they are seeing is useful. Characterizing one style or another as better (or using adjectives to describe measurable characteristics for the purpose of implying that) is to me not useful and in my opinion not the kind of conclusion true science can objectively reach.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I think we will have to agree to disagree Serge. Technology helped create new genres of art. It did not teach us how to quantify whether art was more beautiful or less and modern art is not superior to the art of the masters.

Let's shift your wine analogy to my beverage of choice - beer. When I was younger those of us who liked beer had few choices and I, like pretty much everyone I knew, drank Budweiser. Today, the world is filled with an astonishing array of new choices. My two favorite beers are Chimay Blue and Ommegang Abbey Ale - a great belgian style beer brewed in Cooperstown NY. I no longer consider Budweiser to even deserve the status of being called beer.

But way more people still choose Bud (and even, heaven forbid Bud Light) than choose the beers I like. A beer "grading standard" that ranked beers for the purpose of driving consumers away from lagers and toward Belgian Ales would certainly reflect my taste but it would be a marketing tool not a true grading standard.

Now diamonds grading is different than beer. There is no such thing as an objectively "good" or "bad" beer. There is only what I like and what I don't and to the extent that my tastes differ from the mass market I am neither "right" or "wrong." But with diamonds there are actually objective characteristics that I think can be objectively and fairly graded. Pretty much everyone wants their diamond to sparkle in some way and every one wants their diamond to look bigger as long as it still sparkles. If two diamond cuts are designed to sparkle in a particular way, one set of parameters might objectively and measurably do a better job of it. Nobody cuts a 1 carat diamond with the objective of making it look like 3/4 carat, that's always a bad thing. Unless a design specifically incorporates it into its design, nobody likes uneven life or prominent bowties or concentrations of black. Objective grading systems can be designed to help consumers evaluate these things.

But a system designed to tell consumers that they ought to prefer the way a princess reflects light to the way a radiant or a cushion does, or vice versa, is not in my opinion technological advance. Helping people understand why the two styles reflect light differently to help them understand why they are seeing what they are seeing is useful. Characterizing one style or another as better (or using adjectives to describe measurable characteristics for the purpose of implying that) is to me not useful and in my opinion not the kind of conclusion true science can objectively reach.

Interesting philosophical discussion here. I think it is important to de-couple a few things that tend to get intertwined and cause some of the dissonance that we see in this thread. It is true and it has been stated by several people in this discussion that we are really not that far apart in our viewpoints.

Seems to me we have three separate but related aspects that need to be untangled in talking about evaluation standards and tools: the science, the resulting standards, and marketing.

The science seeks to identify, understand and quantify the aspects for evaluations. Creating a standard is an attempt to use what is learned in order to help the market make informed comparisons about products. Marketing seeks to sell products using selective information.

The main problem stems from the marketing that is inevitably done around any grading standard. "ours is the best, we can prove it with this certificate or that tool". This activity by nature will be subjective, even when grounded in objective fact. And truth is often a casualty of marketing claims. So, a grading standard should be judged on its own merits and not by what some marketers choose to do with it.

And the science behind the grading standard should likewise be judged apart from the constructs of the grading standard. As we have seen with the selective ways in which manufacturers, dealers and jewelers use different lab reports, there is no precise way to predict how the market will adopt a certain system, or if it will at all.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

HI Serg,
We agree that in terms of raw brilliance, larger reflections that bounce less before exiting the diamond are brightest. Not best, but brightest.
I know exactly what you mean when you say "less chaotic"
But sometimes you get a more even sparkle- if somewhat less brilliant, by making sure all the VF's are small.
Basically, when he VF's are larger, we increase brightness, but also contrast that sometimes look like dark areas in a sea of sparkle.

I missed this Rockdiamond as it wasn't quoting one of my posts, but I still appreciate that you have acknowledged this point and appear to be applying a similar definition of brilliance as AGSL does below.

"brilliance refers to the ability of a stone to redirect light to the eyes of an observer so that the gem’s crown appears illuminated"

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

start communication in one coordinate system.

If you don't mine me asking.
What lighting will you use for comparison for consumer display, crowdsourced opinions, or for your coordinate system?

Do you think your opponents will attack your chosen lighting as unsuitable or "not flattering for the diamonds they prefer" or just plain biased? (Similar to comments made by the cut group pointing out flaws in the lighting used by the GIA Diamond Dock?)

 

[Serg]

start communication in one coordinate system.

If you don't mine me asking.
What lighting will you use for comparison for consumer display, crowdsourced opinions, or for your coordinate system?

Do you think your opponents will attack your chosen lighting as unsuitable or "not flattering for the diamonds they prefer" or just plain biased? (Similar to comments made by the cut group pointing out flaws in the lighting used by the GIA Diamond Dock?)

A good diamond has to be good in different light conditions. We do not use just one light environment.
the reason of weakness GIA diamond Dock( BS,...) is clear for us, we tried avoid same reasons in Vibox lights.
Technical requirements for Vibox include possibility to model different real light environments. we have plans to use 2-3 Default light environments and custom light settings ( cutters, designer who disagree with our default lights may use custom light . if some Custom light will more reasonable than our Default light than we add it to Default list)

of course we have opponents and they will attack us. It is typical. if they show our weak points then we improve our work.
I also know many our weakness points. It is reason why we did not introduce any score system until now( we had technical possibility to do it better and before Labs. we are working in quite different directions than typical Lab grading system)
I sure in 10 years we will see better system to take stereo movies in different light environments. we just are opening door .

 

[Rockdiamond]

md - there's only one participant here acting as an "opponent"-have a look in the mirror please.
Discussing concepts that we might not all agree on does not make us opponents.

 

[Serg]

I think we will have to agree to disagree Serge. Technology helped create new genres of art. It did not teach us how to quantify whether art was more beautiful or less and modern art is not superior to the art of the masters.

Let's shift your wine analogy to my beverage of choice - beer. When I was younger those of us who liked beer had few choices and I, like pretty much everyone I knew, drank Budweiser. Today, the world is filled with an astonishing array of new choices. My two favorite beers are Chimay Blue and Ommegang Abbey Ale - a great belgian style beer brewed in Cooperstown NY. I no longer consider Budweiser to even deserve the status of being called beer.

But way more people still choose Bud (and even, heaven forbid Bud Light) than choose the beers I like. A beer "grading standard" that ranked beers for the purpose of driving consumers away from lagers and toward Belgian Ales would certainly reflect my taste but it would be a marketing tool not a true grading standard.

Now diamonds grading is different than beer. There is no such thing as an objectively "good" or "bad" beer. There is only what I like and what I don't and to the extent that my tastes differ from the mass market I am neither "right" or "wrong." But with diamonds there are actually objective characteristics that I think can be objectively and fairly graded. Pretty much everyone wants their diamond to sparkle in some way and every one wants their diamond to look bigger as long as it still sparkles. If two diamond cuts are designed to sparkle in a particular way, one set of parameters might objectively and measurably do a better job of it. Nobody cuts a 1 carat diamond with the objective of making it look like 3/4 carat, that's always a bad thing. Unless a design specifically incorporates it into its design, nobody likes uneven life or prominent bowties or concentrations of black. Objective grading systems can be designed to help consumers evaluate these things.

But a system designed to tell consumers that they ought to prefer the way a princess reflects light to the way a radiant or a cushion does, or vice versa, is not in my opinion technological advance. Helping people understand why the two styles reflect light differently to help them understand why they are seeing what they are seeing is useful. Characterizing one style or another as better (or using adjectives to describe measurable characteristics for the purpose of implying that) is to me not useful and in my opinion not the kind of conclusion true science can objectively reach.

Stan,
Chimay Blue and "Ommegang Abbey Ale" have very high rating, many beer fans agree with your taste . see here
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/215/2512/?ba=bros

http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/42/142/
I like Chimay blue also, but it a little be strong for me. Did not yet taste yet "Ommegang Abbey Ale" .

if you like Chimay then BeerAdvocate advices to test from below list
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/56/

did you try ?
Trappistes Rochefort 8
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/207/1696/

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

md - there's only one participant here acting as an "opponent"-have a look in the mirror please.
Discussing concepts that we might not all agree on does not make us opponents.

Edit: I'm not going to respond to that provocation its not worth our time.

You wrote this and at least in which we agree on the bolded part.

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...is-radiant-aset.203611/#post-3706262#p3706262

The stones on the page Bryan linked to are one type of radiant- and in such cases, the aset may be interpreted in a manner similar to a round brilliant.
But there are other types of radiant cuts where aset needs to be interpreted differently.
Put simply, light bounces around less in a round brilliant, as compared to what is sometimes referred to as a "Crushed Ice" type of stone- Radiant Cut, in this case.
There's no debate that the individual flashes coming off the larger facets in a round brilliant are brighter than light which has bounced around inside the diamond a few times off of much smaller facets.
BUT- that single, provable aspect does not determine beauty.
Many people prefer smaller, more numerous flashes. Many people do not like the patterning.
Therefore implying that the "brighter the better" based on reflector technology misses a very important point about taste.
And specifically, sometimes red in the middle of a radiant cut stone cut to behave more like a round brilliant, will look like a dark hole in the middle of the stone, when viewed real life.
Red is not always good, green- and even white- is not always bad

I wish you had stated the same in this thread.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

I think we will have to agree to disagree Serge. Technology helped create new genres of art. It did not teach us how to quantify whether art was more beautiful or less and modern art is not superior to the art of the masters.

Let's shift your wine analogy to my beverage of choice - beer. When I was younger those of us who liked beer had few choices and I, like pretty much everyone I knew, drank Budweiser. Today, the world is filled with an astonishing array of new choices. My two favorite beers are Chimay Blue and Ommegang Abbey Ale - a great belgian style beer brewed in Cooperstown NY. I no longer consider Budweiser to even deserve the status of being called beer.

But way more people still choose Bud (and even, heaven forbid Bud Light) than choose the beers I like. A beer "grading standard" that ranked beers for the purpose of driving consumers away from lagers and toward Belgian Ales would certainly reflect my taste but it would be a marketing tool not a true grading standard.

Now diamonds grading is different than beer. There is no such thing as an objectively "good" or "bad" beer. There is only what I like and what I don't and to the extent that my tastes differ from the mass market I am neither "right" or "wrong." But with diamonds there are actually objective characteristics that I think can be objectively and fairly graded. Pretty much everyone wants their diamond to sparkle in some way and every one wants their diamond to look bigger as long as it still sparkles. If two diamond cuts are designed to sparkle in a particular way, one set of parameters might objectively and measurably do a better job of it. Nobody cuts a 1 carat diamond with the objective of making it look like 3/4 carat, that's always a bad thing. Unless a design specifically incorporates it into its design, nobody likes uneven life or prominent bowties or concentrations of black. Objective grading systems can be designed to help consumers evaluate these things.

But a system designed to tell consumers that they ought to prefer the way a princess reflects light to the way a radiant or a cushion does, or vice versa, is not in my opinion technological advance. Helping people understand why the two styles reflect light differently to help them understand why they are seeing what they are seeing is useful. Characterizing one style or another as better (or using adjectives to describe measurable characteristics for the purpose of implying that) is to me not useful and in my opinion not the kind of conclusion true science can objectively reach.

Stan,
Chimay Blue and "Ommegang Abbey Ale" have very high rating, many beer fans agree with your taste . see here
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/215/2512/?ba=bros

http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/42/142/
I like Chimay blue also, but it a little be strong for me. Did not yet taste yet "Ommegang Abbey Ale" .

if you like Chimay then BeerAdvocate advices to test from below list
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/56/

did you try ?
Trappistes Rochefort 8
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/207/1696/

I have not tried the Trappistes Rochefort 8. I'll stop in on my way home tonight and see if they have it. If Chimay Blue is a little strong for you the Ommegang might be too - they're very similar beers.

I get that we have rankings for everything. But it's also true that people who drink Bud are unlikely to like Guinness no matter how much higher Guinness is "rated."

As Bryan has pointed out our actual disagreement here is actually pretty minor and probably pretty easily addressed. My concern is not in the value of the research - I'm just suggesting that it's important to be careful to consider carefully how information is conveyed and what conclusions should be presented as "objective scientific fact" vs. conclusions that more closely resemble the ranking of beer. It is not skepticism about the value of the research itself.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I think we will have to agree to disagree Serge. Technology helped create new genres of art. It did not teach us how to quantify whether art was more beautiful or less and modern art is not superior to the art of the masters.

Let's shift your wine analogy to my beverage of choice - beer. When I was younger those of us who liked beer had few choices and I, like pretty much everyone I knew, drank Budweiser. Today, the world is filled with an astonishing array of new choices. My two favorite beers are Chimay Blue and Ommegang Abbey Ale - a great belgian style beer brewed in Cooperstown NY. I no longer consider Budweiser to even deserve the status of being called beer.

But way more people still choose Bud (and even, heaven forbid Bud Light) than choose the beers I like. A beer "grading standard" that ranked beers for the purpose of driving consumers away from lagers and toward Belgian Ales would certainly reflect my taste but it would be a marketing tool not a true grading standard.

Now diamonds grading is different than beer. There is no such thing as an objectively "good" or "bad" beer. There is only what I like and what I don't and to the extent that my tastes differ from the mass market I am neither "right" or "wrong." But with diamonds there are actually objective characteristics that I think can be objectively and fairly graded. Pretty much everyone wants their diamond to sparkle in some way and every one wants their diamond to look bigger as long as it still sparkles. If two diamond cuts are designed to sparkle in a particular way, one set of parameters might objectively and measurably do a better job of it. Nobody cuts a 1 carat diamond with the objective of making it look like 3/4 carat, that's always a bad thing. Unless a design specifically incorporates it into its design, nobody likes uneven life or prominent bowties or concentrations of black. Objective grading systems can be designed to help consumers evaluate these things.

But a system designed to tell consumers that they ought to prefer the way a princess reflects light to the way a radiant or a cushion does, or vice versa, is not in my opinion technological advance. Helping people understand why the two styles reflect light differently to help them understand why they are seeing what they are seeing is useful. Characterizing one style or another as better (or using adjectives to describe measurable characteristics for the purpose of implying that) is to me not useful and in my opinion not the kind of conclusion true science can objectively reach.

Stan,
Chimay Blue and "Ommegang Abbey Ale" have very high rating, many beer fans agree with your taste . see here
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/215/2512/?ba=bros

http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/42/142/
I like Chimay blue also, but it a little be strong for me. Did not yet taste yet "Ommegang Abbey Ale" .

if you like Chimay then BeerAdvocate advices to test from below list
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/56/

did you try ?
Trappistes Rochefort 8
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/207/1696/

I have not tried the Trappistes Rochefort 8. I'll stop in on my way home tonight and see if they have it. If Chimay Blue is a little strong for you the Ommegang might be too - they're very similar beers.

I get that we have rankings for everything. But it's also true that people who drink Bud are unlikely to like Guinness no matter how much higher Guinness is "rated."

As Bryan has pointed out our actual disagreement here is actually pretty minor and probably pretty easily addressed. My concern is not in the value of the research - I'm just suggesting that it's important to be careful to consider carefully how information is conveyed and what conclusions should be presented as "objective scientific fact" vs. conclusions that more closely resemble the ranking of beer. It is not skepticism about the value of the research itself.

How high does the beer scale go? I see the Bros gave Trappistes a score of 100. Does that mean my home made margaritas will be like a 150? They get like 100 just for fire alone. Then at least another 50 points for the scintillation caused by the contrast of the blue agave tequila and sweet orange liqueur with the sublime tartness of my home grown key limes.

Is it Friday yet? Almost?

 

[RADIANTMAN]

LOL!!!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

LOL!!!

Although, to be completely objective I would have to accept a penalty of about 25 points for leakage of good sense (proportionate to the quantity).

Ok, here are the proper metrics:

1 part fresh squeezed lime juice. Use key limes or the small Mexican limes (they are best when yellow)
1 part Cointreau (or other orange licquer - Patron has a pretty good one called Citronge)
2 parts Blue Agave Tequila ( I have not found the super pricey ones to be worth it - Sauza Hornitos, El Jimador, or other value priced tequilas work fine- as long as the are 100% blue agave). The reposados or even anejos can be used for a bit more robust tequila flavor, but they don't make as pretty a margarita as the silvers. Remember, optics are important.

Consider this my gift to anyone who has read all 1500 pages of this thread.

You're welcome.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Sadly the beer advocate site was down.
Amazingly similar tastes discussed here - the only beers I will drink are abby beers. But its hard to get Abby beer here, so I mostly only have Leffe blonde as an option (if at all).Chimay is a bit heavy for me too.

Bryan your point is taken - Parker wine and such systems are limited with 100 as best - But Sergey out thought them and made his system open ended.
Stan and others, the systems and the lighting are well thought out and will be tested in many ways by buyers and peers, including you lot (when you are sober).
I have used some of the basic structures at my favorite consumer selling desk in my main store for 4 years.
We will let others make their judgements about which flavor cut is best. Remember our aim is diversification, not commoditization.

 

[Serg]

I think we will have to agree to disagree Serge. Technology helped create new genres of art. It did not teach us how to quantify whether art was more beautiful or less and modern art is not superior to the art of the masters.

Let's shift your wine analogy to my beverage of choice - beer. When I was younger those of us who liked beer had few choices and I, like pretty much everyone I knew, drank Budweiser. Today, the world is filled with an astonishing array of new choices. My two favorite beers are Chimay Blue and Ommegang Abbey Ale - a great belgian style beer brewed in Cooperstown NY. I no longer consider Budweiser to even deserve the status of being called beer.

But way more people still choose Bud (and even, heaven forbid Bud Light) than choose the beers I like. A beer "grading standard" that ranked beers for the purpose of driving consumers away from lagers and toward Belgian Ales would certainly reflect my taste but it would be a marketing tool not a true grading standard.

Now diamonds grading is different than beer. There is no such thing as an objectively "good" or "bad" beer. There is only what I like and what I don't and to the extent that my tastes differ from the mass market I am neither "right" or "wrong." But with diamonds there are actually objective characteristics that I think can be objectively and fairly graded. Pretty much everyone wants their diamond to sparkle in some way and every one wants their diamond to look bigger as long as it still sparkles. If two diamond cuts are designed to sparkle in a particular way, one set of parameters might objectively and measurably do a better job of it. Nobody cuts a 1 carat diamond with the objective of making it look like 3/4 carat, that's always a bad thing. Unless a design specifically incorporates it into its design, nobody likes uneven life or prominent bowties or concentrations of black. Objective grading systems can be designed to help consumers evaluate these things.

But a system designed to tell consumers that they ought to prefer the way a princess reflects light to the way a radiant or a cushion does, or vice versa, is not in my opinion technological advance. Helping people understand why the two styles reflect light differently to help them understand why they are seeing what they are seeing is useful. Characterizing one style or another as better (or using adjectives to describe measurable characteristics for the purpose of implying that) is to me not useful and in my opinion not the kind of conclusion true science can objectively reach.

Stan,
Chimay Blue and "Ommegang Abbey Ale" have very high rating, many beer fans agree with your taste . see here
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/215/2512/?ba=bros

http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/42/142/
I like Chimay blue also, but it a little be strong for me. Did not yet taste yet "Ommegang Abbey Ale" .

if you like Chimay then BeerAdvocate advices to test from below list
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/56/

did you try ?
Trappistes Rochefort 8
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/207/1696/

I have not tried the Trappistes Rochefort 8. I'll stop in on my way home tonight and see if they have it. If Chimay Blue is a little strong for you the Ommegang might be too - they're very similar beers.

I get that we have rankings for everything. But it's also true that people who drink Bud are unlikely to like Guinness no matter how much higher Guinness is "rated."

As Bryan has pointed out our actual disagreement here is actually pretty minor and probably pretty easily addressed. My concern is not in the value of the research - I'm just suggesting that it's important to be careful to consider carefully how information is conveyed and what conclusions should be presented as "objective scientific fact" vs. conclusions that more closely resemble the ranking of beer. It is not skepticism about the value of the research itself.

How high does the beer scale go? I see the Bros gave Trappistes a score of 100. Does that mean my home made margaritas will be like a 150? They get like 100 just for fire alone. Then at least another 50 points for the scintillation caused by the contrast of the blue agave tequila and sweet orange liqueur with the sublime tartness of my home grown key limes.

Is it Friday yet? Almost?

http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/beeradvocate-ratings-explained.184726/
"Ratings here at BeerAdvocate can be a bit daunting. The following will help explain the basics used for both Beers and Places.

BeerAdvocate Overall Score (BOS)
The BOS is a weighted point system that represents the final overall score for a beer or place. Its purpose is to help make some sense out of the rAvg (1-5 based review average) and provide consumers with a quick reference when comparing one beer or place to another.

BOS Range

95-100 = world-class
90-94 = outstanding
85-89 = very good
80-84 = good
70-79 = okay
60-69 = poor
< 60 = awful​

Notes:
A beer or place must have 10 or more reviews in order to receive a BOS.
Individual member reviews are not given a BOS.
WR (weighted rank)
A Bayesian estimate that pulls data from millions of user reviews and normalizes scores based on the number of reviews for each beer or place. The WR represents the beer or place's score against all others. WR is used to help generate the BOS.

What's the "BROS" score?
From 1996 to 2000 the only ratings and reviews on the site were from BeerAdvocate founders and brothers Jason & Todd Alström. It's a nod to those early days and provides some comparison to the BOS.

User Ratings (Beers & Places)
Beers and Places are rated using a 1-5, incremented, point scale.

User Reviews (Beers & Places)
Optional notes on your experience with a beer or place. Users must rate before they can review.

rAvg (review average)
The numerical review average, based on the sum of all user ratings divided by the number of reviews. It's range is 1-5 with a two decimal range for accuracy.

pDev (percent deviation)
Is the percentage of deviation within the ratings. In non-geek terms, it represents a kind of "average deviation from the mean," and helps to validate the review average. The higher the pDev the more overall deviation from the review average (rAvg), which would be a sign of wider spread within the distribution of ratings, while a lower pDev would indicate more of a consensus within the ratings.

rDev (review deviation)
The individual reviews current deviation from the review average (rAvg), represented as either a positive or negative percentage. As the rAvg changes, so does the rDev.

Quality Assurance
No system is perfect, however, we take several steps to ensure that our rating standards are fair and as high as we can currently make them.
A Beer or Place must have 10 or more ratings before being assigned a BOS.
Weighted ranks help curb abuse and reinforce the validity of the average by using the power of numbers (ratings).
Ratings that are bogus or attempt to undermine our system are deleted upon being reported or found. We take this very seriously, and often times the user account will be warned or banned. IP addresses may be cross-referenced to identify multiple accounts too.
Retired beers are no longer considered when calculating site-wide averages.
Neither advertisers, sponsorships, or industry relationships influence ratings/scores given by @BeerAdvocate and its founders, @Jason and @Todd. You don't have to believe us, but it's been a fact since 1996.
We're also constantly reviewing our standards and will make adjustments when needed."

 

[Serg]

I think we will have to agree to disagree Serge. Technology helped create new genres of art. It did not teach us how to quantify whether art was more beautiful or less and modern art is not superior to the art of the masters.

Let's shift your wine analogy to my beverage of choice - beer. When I was younger those of us who liked beer had few choices and I, like pretty much everyone I knew, drank Budweiser. Today, the world is filled with an astonishing array of new choices. My two favorite beers are Chimay Blue and Ommegang Abbey Ale - a great belgian style beer brewed in Cooperstown NY. I no longer consider Budweiser to even deserve the status of being called beer.

But way more people still choose Bud (and even, heaven forbid Bud Light) than choose the beers I like. A beer "grading standard" that ranked beers for the purpose of driving consumers away from lagers and toward Belgian Ales would certainly reflect my taste but it would be a marketing tool not a true grading standard.

Now diamonds grading is different than beer. There is no such thing as an objectively "good" or "bad" beer. There is only what I like and what I don't and to the extent that my tastes differ from the mass market I am neither "right" or "wrong." But with diamonds there are actually objective characteristics that I think can be objectively and fairly graded. Pretty much everyone wants their diamond to sparkle in some way and every one wants their diamond to look bigger as long as it still sparkles. If two diamond cuts are designed to sparkle in a particular way, one set of parameters might objectively and measurably do a better job of it. Nobody cuts a 1 carat diamond with the objective of making it look like 3/4 carat, that's always a bad thing. Unless a design specifically incorporates it into its design, nobody likes uneven life or prominent bowties or concentrations of black. Objective grading systems can be designed to help consumers evaluate these things.

But a system designed to tell consumers that they ought to prefer the way a princess reflects light to the way a radiant or a cushion does, or vice versa, is not in my opinion technological advance. Helping people understand why the two styles reflect light differently to help them understand why they are seeing what they are seeing is useful. Characterizing one style or another as better (or using adjectives to describe measurable characteristics for the purpose of implying that) is to me not useful and in my opinion not the kind of conclusion true science can objectively reach.

Stan,
Chimay Blue and "Ommegang Abbey Ale" have very high rating, many beer fans agree with your taste . see here
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/215/2512/?ba=bros

http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/42/142/
I like Chimay blue also, but it a little be strong for me. Did not yet taste yet "Ommegang Abbey Ale" .

if you like Chimay then BeerAdvocate advices to test from below list
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/56/

did you try ?
Trappistes Rochefort 8
http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/profile/207/1696/

I have not tried the Trappistes Rochefort 8. I'll stop in on my way home tonight and see if they have it. If Chimay Blue is a little strong for you the Ommegang might be too - they're very similar beers.

I get that we have rankings for everything. But it's also true that people who drink Bud are unlikely to like Guinness no matter how much higher Guinness is "rated."

As Bryan has pointed out our actual disagreement here is actually pretty minor and probably pretty easily addressed. My concern is not in the value of the research - I'm just suggesting that it's important to be careful to consider carefully how information is conveyed and what conclusions should be presented as "objective scientific fact" vs. conclusions that more closely resemble the ranking of beer. It is not skepticism about the value of the research itself.

Yes, if someone like Budweiser he most probably dislike Guinness .
But BeerAdvocate site helps anybody to find best for him Taste. it is advantages of coordinate system.

http://www.beeradvocate.com/beer/style/38/?start=0
Budweiser has rating just 80.
in List similar beers you may have samples with rating 88-89. so you need spend less money and time to find something better for you. and may be you may increase your beer short list.

Link to similar beers you may find on left side of beer page. see example

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Serge -I couldn't find the Trappists Rocheford 8 but I tried something new (don't remember the name) that was highly rated. I didn't like it - my wife loved it. Also if I was forced to drink one or another I'd always take a Corona (rated 47 by the bros) over a Bud (rated 80). So for me the whole beer rating system seems pretty useless though when looking for new beers to try it's an alternative to my usual practice of picking the funniest label or the coolest name.

That said, I totally agree that ratings comparing things within a category make more sense than ratings comparing categories to each other. We will never all agree on whether the diamonds you call "crushed ice" (I never use that term) are better, worse or just different but my guess is that we would have little difficulty agreeing on what a "nice" crushed ice diamond looks like vs. a less nice one, and that's, in my opinion, what an evaluation system should focus on. Which style appeals to you is very much a matter of taste but which set of proportions yields the best results within a style can be more objectively measured. I hope you'll consider going in that direction.

 

[Serg]

Serge -I couldn't find the Trappists Rocheford 8 but I tried something new (don't remember the name) that was highly rated. I didn't like it - my wife loved it. Also if I was forced to drink one or another I'd always take a Corona (rated 47 by the bros) over a Bud (rated 80). So for me the whole beer rating system seems pretty useless though when looking for new beers to try it's an alternative to my usual practice of picking the funniest label or the coolest name.

That said, I totally agree that ratings comparing things within a category make more sense than ratings comparing categories to each other. We will never all agree on whether the diamonds you call "crushed ice" (I never use that term) are better, worse or just different but my guess is that we would have little difficulty agreeing on what a "nice" crushed ice diamond looks like vs. a less nice one, and that's, in my opinion, what an evaluation system should focus on. Which style appeals to you is very much a matter of taste but which set of proportions yields the best results within a style can be more objectively measured. I hope you'll consider going in that direction.

Stan,
Ranks systems are not for blind prompt buying. there are for quick searching the best for you goods.
it is not wise for RBC consumer to buy even AGS0 without personal checking.
Its are not Decision type systems, Its are Adviser type systems.
think about booking.com

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Well Stan, you really got Serg going with your beer analogy. I am expecting any minute for Garry to storm in and to call BS on the whole system for Fosters getting such a low rating.

I think there is a fundamental difference between a consumer rating system and a scientific grading system. However, the two can go hand in hand.

For instance, it would be helpful if in the BOS ratings there was a breakdown of some of the ingredients. Then you might be able to understand why certain beers were rated the way they are, and you would be able to tell better which of the beers you've never tasted would likely appeal to you. I like a beer that has a hoppy flavor. Therefore I might pass some, even if they have a high user rating, if they are low in hops. On the other hand, I might be inclined to try another one, despite it having a relatively low rating, if it had a high hops value. (more red, less green ?)

One thing is for sure. I will go thirsty before I drink Corona. That is as close as it comes, in my opinion, to a worthless adult beverage. I have some confidence in the BOS system seeing that it is rated appropriately! If it were not for an obviously brilliant marketing department I do not know how they could stay in business.

 

[Rockdiamond]

MD- my apologies for any provocation- my intention was that I don't see any of us here as opponents- rather cooperators.

Back to topic



Got the new ASET Garry- kudos, it's a seemingly small change that nets a huge improvement!

The stone in the image is a reject, for me.
Although it's got a decent crown, there is a bulging pavilion. So it's a minus on the spread-meter. it's just above a size barrier...bingo.
But honestly- from 12 inches- and further, it's got a bit of life. A lot less than a really well cut "crushed ice" example in the same color range- but some sparkle and life. Not totally unattractive.

It was submitted by the cutter to an EGL somewhere that called it H - it's more likely an L.
Although it's not for me, someone will buy it from a chain store, or wherever- hopefully they'll get a good deal ( meaning the stone is priced like an L- which is how the cutter themselves valued it).
It's not a "bad" diamond- but I demand more personally.

Again, back to topic.
The stone used for this picture is a kind of good example of what's possible.
I would not say the diamond is extremely well cut- yet it looks very nice to the eye ( aside from the fact it's small for it's weight)
Basically there's a lot more leeway allowed the cutter in this type of design.
Far more precision is needed to cut for LP.
This is of course a mixed blessing.
I just looked at a Radiant cut stone which I am extremely impressed with visually, and there was a lot of white in the ASET. Very little read and a lot of dispersed green.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Well Stan, you really got Serg going with your beer analogy. I am expecting any minute for Garry to storm in and to call BS on the whole system for Fosters getting such a low rating.

I think there is a fundamental difference between a consumer rating system and a scientific grading system. However, the two can go hand in hand.

For instance, it would be helpful if in the BOS ratings there was a breakdown of some of the ingredients. Then you might be able to understand why certain beers were rated the way they are, and you would be able to tell better which of the beers you've never tasted would likely appeal to you. I like a beer that has a hoppy flavor. Therefore I might pass some, even if they have a high user rating, if they are low in hops. On the other hand, I might be inclined to try another one, despite it having a relatively low rating, if it had a high hops value. (more red, less green ?)

One thing is for sure. I will go thirsty before I drink Corona. That is as close as it comes, in my opinion, to a worthless adult beverage. I have some confidence in the BOS system seeing that it is rated appropriately! If it were not for an obviously brilliant marketing department I do not know how they could stay in business.

I hear you on Corona - saying it's better than Bud is faint praise indeed! I think beer and diamonds are a great combination - don't you guys have pricescope conclaves where the two can truly come together? I'd love to attend the next one as long as I don't have to drink Bud or Corona. If we try your Margarita recipe I may have to insist on using crushed ice though.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Well Stan, you really got Serg going with your beer analogy. I am expecting any minute for Garry to storm in and to call BS on the whole system for Fosters getting such a low rating.

I think there is a fundamental difference between a consumer rating system and a scientific grading system. However, the two can go hand in hand.

For instance, it would be helpful if in the BOS ratings there was a breakdown of some of the ingredients. Then you might be able to understand why certain beers were rated the way they are, and you would be able to tell better which of the beers you've never tasted would likely appeal to you. I like a beer that has a hoppy flavor. Therefore I might pass some, even if they have a high user rating, if they are low in hops. On the other hand, I might be inclined to try another one, despite it having a relatively low rating, if it had a high hops value. (more red, less green ?)

One thing is for sure. I will go thirsty before I drink Corona. That is as close as it comes, in my opinion, to a worthless adult beverage. I have some confidence in the BOS system seeing that it is rated appropriately! If it were not for an obviously brilliant marketing department I do not know how they could stay in business.

I hear you on Corona - saying it's better than Bud is faint praise indeed! I think beer and diamonds are a great combination - don't you guys have pricescope conclaves where the two can truly come together? I'd love to attend the next one as long as I don't have to drink Bud or Corona. If we try your Margarita recipe I may have to insist on using crushed ice though.

Yes, indeed. But it's more of a "get together" than a conclave. It's been a great success and has built quite a following over the last couple of years. It is held during the JCK show in Vegas and is mainly for the benefit of the pricescope consumers and prosumers, but they do let us tradespeople in on occassion. Especially if we bring raffle gifts!

It would be great to share a drink or two with you. I should have mentioned that a real margarita should be served with a salted rim and with or without a few select pieces of ice (chunky). Frozen margaritas are for sissies. Crushed ice is a possibility. I thought you didn't like to call it crushed ice? How about "sparkling crystals".

However I serve it I make sure not to use a glass that leaks. That's just such a waste.