Brilliancescope and ACA diamond

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/28/2007 10:33:57 AM
Author: loudway
so what is the negative side of the ''too short''? can''t be sparkling enught?

from the other thread...

Forgetting that these are oversize because its the ratio that''s important not the exact size that matters.
The shorter LGF% diamond have more dark area than the longer lgf% diamonds and under the table is where it is most visible.
With greater head shadow this is even more apparent.
Therefore the longer lgf% diamonds until you get too long(starting at 85% and apparent at 90% below) then it reverses a little have a better light to dark ratio that is visible at any size.

 

[strmrdr]

The b-scope review is turning into a monster...
it involves diamond 808, electronics 808 and optics 808 and i''m trying to tone it down to 101/202 and get the info across it may be next week before I get it done.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/28/2007 10:33:57 AM
Author: loudway
so what is the negative side of the ''too short''? can''t be sparkling enught?

Thats the down side...
The plus side is in direct light they tend to return more fire than white light when combined with the right crown and pavilion angles.
Some people like that but its not a free lunch.

 

[starryeyed]

double..

 

[starryeyed]

Date: 1/28/2007 10:33:57 AM
Author: loudway
so what is the negative side of the ''too short''? can''t be sparkling enught?

According to John on the thread I referenced, "In general terms broad flashes get more visible as LGF get shorter and needlelike flashes more visible as they get longer."

It''s not like the diamond is ugly or dark or anything negative. Seriously.

Storm, perhaps you didn''t intend it, but through your comments, you are giving the impression that a 75% LGF is a "woofer" stone with a dark table. You have a lot of authority on PS and people respect what you say. On Jan 26th on this THREAD, you said:

"75 to 77 is a larger difference...
Once you get to the edges small changes make more different in my opinion....
When you hit the extremes 75.x and 82.x the difference adds up quicker."

The impression of this statement is that anything below 76% is extremely short and undesirable. To me reading your statements, it''s NOT entirely clear that this is your personal opinion. It sounds more like a rule that the average consumer should follow, which just isn''t true. I respect you, but I ask that you be more careful about differentiating "fact" and "preference". No offense intended, ok?

 

[dhog]

Date: 1/27/2007 12:13:23 PM
Author: belle
kenny, i don''t think there are ''allegations''

i would think that if you have a device that rates diamonds and you sell diamonds, that you will intentionally pick stones that will score well on it.

that does not mean that diamonds that don''t score well on it aren''t beautiful, it just means they don''t fit the metric that the machine was designed for.

for example, if i design a machine that grades chocolate

you''re probably going to notice that dark chocolate doesn''t score as well because to me, milk chocolate tastes better. since i designed the machine according to my tastes, the preference is going to be towards that. milk chocolate vendors will absolutely LOVE my new device because, man...milk chocolate looks like the best stuff ever! triple vh on the milk chocolate!


dark chocolate lovers don''t need my machine to tell them it''s good or even better than milk chocolate


aca lovers don''t need brilliancescope

this is a great explanation

dark chocolate and ACA''S go hand in hand together

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 1/28/2007 11:13:31 AM
Author: starryeyed

To me reading your statements, it's NOT entirely clear that this is your personal opinion. It sounds more like a rule that the average consumer should follow, which just isn't true. I respect you, but I ask that you be more careful about differentiating 'fact' and 'preference'. No offense intended, ok?

I hear ya I'm always getting "yelled" at for that..
I always consider it my opinion without the need to specify that where it is sometimes taken as you said as rules.
I in general try to explain it so people know where my opinion is coming from and this is an incredibly complicated subject that hits a emotional nerve with some people because they may prefere it.
Trying to take this subject down to rules is never going to work.
Mainly because even if the technical answer is currect it will get over ridden by the emotional one and since beauty is in the eye of the beholder thats ok.
But it doesnt change the technical answer or someone elses preferences.
Then you factor in nice guys and gals(and cheerleaders) who in general are trustworthy but with an agenda to sell you what they produce it gets even messier.

 

[belle]

Date: 1/28/2007 3:02:45 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 1/28/2007 11:13:31 AM
Author: starryeyed

To me reading your statements, it's NOT entirely clear that this is your personal opinion. It sounds more like a rule that the average consumer should follow, which just isn't true. I respect you, but I ask that you be more careful about differentiating 'fact' and 'preference'. No offense intended, ok?

I hear ya I'm always getting 'yelled' at for that..
I always consider it my opinion without the need to specify that where it is sometimes taken as you said as rules.

those of us that have been around long enough know exactly where your 'opinions' come from. however, you do not state things as opinion. there is no 'opinion' whatsoever in the statement that you made refering to the 75% lgf on the stone maisie was looking at when you said 'lgf is too short'. that is not an 'opinion' that is a statement.

Date: 1/28/2007 3:02:45 PM
Author: strmrdr

I in general try to explain it so people know where my opinion is coming from and this is an incredibly complicated subject that hits a emotional nerve with some people because they may prefere it.

actually, you never try to explain where your 'opinion' is coming from. you put forth statements that leave no room for preferences except those you define. it is what those preferences are based on and the definitive way you put things forth that 'hits a nerve'. who does it hit a nerve with? those of us who actually OWN diamonds with characteristics that look nothing like what you describe.

Date: 1/28/2007 3:02:45 PM
Author: strmrdr

Trying to take this subject down to rules is never going to work.
Mainly because even if the technical answer is currect it will get over ridden by the emotional one and since beauty is in the eye of the beholder thats ok.

exactly, so please stop trying to be definitive.
the chocolate machine was right on and everyone gets it. there is no need to try and explain why the refractive angle of the minor facets combined with a certain crown/pavilion angle of one diamond 'scores' better than another on a machine based on a predefined metric. it doesn't matter. one is not better than another except that one fits the metric. simple.

Date: 1/28/2007 3:02:45 PM
Author: strmrdr

But it doesnt change the technical answer or someone elses preferences.
Then you factor in nice guys and gals(and cheerleaders) who in general are trustworthy but with an agenda to sell you what they produce it gets even messier.

the technical answer is: there is a defined metric that favors certain combinations. THAT IS ALL!
the messiness comes in when someone who has not actually seen all of these diamond combinations in real life makes statements as though they are fact.

 

[loudway]

As I posted before, I have ordered this one with 75% lgf (in Sarin''s report)
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-179762.htm
Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 1.283
. Depth %: 60.9
. Table %: 56.7
. Crown Angle: 34.8
. Crown %: 15
. Star : 53.9
. Pavilion Angle: 40.7
. Pavilion %: 42.9
. Lower Girdle %: 74.4


What kind of characteristics will be shown by this diamond? Will the table be too dark? is it going to perform better in restuarant light or in direct sunlight? Personally that''s my first time buying a diamond and don''t have a strong preference, and if my gf doesn''t like it we can always return or upgrade it. However, I do wanna know what type of diamond it is going to be.
BTW, are there any ACAs with longer (>78%) lgf? I browse a few, most of them are at the lower range.

 

[Ellen]

loudway, you picked a stunner, and I doubt once your girl sees it and spends time with it, that you'd be able to pry it off her finger if you wanted to.

Here's a post of mine from another thread, trying to explain the looks between shorter and longer. I'll also post the whole link also, you might find it helpful. Start with the last post on page one.



"My SIL's stone has longer lgf's, and when her stone rocks, imagine seeing a wave of very fine, skinny, needle like sparkles washing over it. Mine has shorter lgf's, and when my stone rocks, you see some of the smaller sparkles, but intermitently are huge POPS, with a very large, bold flash.

Also, the shorter really put on a show in ambient lighting."

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/hey-here-is-the-first-of-many.56866/

ETA, WF strives for 75-80, but they do tend to run more in the 75-78 range.

 

[loudway]

I really learn a lot from you guys!!
Could you guys take a look at this one? maybe I can exchange to this one if lgf is really a problem. it has a 77.6 lgf.
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-160977.htm#

However, I got 2 different HCA result(ex/ex/gd) and (gd/gd/ex) by using the numbers on the first page, or by using the number in the Sarin report.. which one is more accurate? does it mean it is at the borderline to be execellent? Really need you guys help!.


Uinsg the number on the web: ex/vg/vg/vg TIC=1.6
Uing the number on the sarin ex/ex/ex/vg TIC=1.3

. Report: AGS
. Shape: A Cut Above H&A
. Carat: 1.281
. Depth %: 61.5 61.5(sarin)
. Table %: 55.2 55.4(sarin)
. Crown Angle: 34.7 34.7(34.5-35.0) (sarin)
. Crown %: 15.5
. Star : 50.2
. Pavilion Angle: 40.9 40.8(sarin)
. Pavilion %: 43.1
. Lower Girdle %: 77.2 76(sarin)
. Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
. Measurements: 6.98-7.01X4.31
. Light Performance: 0
. Polish: Ideal
. Symmetry: Ideal
. Culet: Pointed

 

[strmrdr]

You will have 10 days to decide once you get it.
Look at it in every different kind of lighting when ya get it and decide then.

 

[loudway]

hi strmrdr,
what do you think of this one comparing to the original one I post? aside from the longer lgf? I guess if I later on decide on swithing to this one, I don''t swith to something that is unfavorable in other aspect .

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/28/2007 5:54:04 PM
Author: loudway
I really learn a lot from you guys!!
Could you guys take a look at this one? maybe I can exchange to this one if lgf is really a problem. it has a 77.6 lgf.
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/A-Cut-Above-H-A-cut-diamond-160977.htm#

lgf''s are not a problem, they are a personal preference. Read my description again and decide which look you think you and your girl would like.


Also, you are looking at top notch diamonds with all the info you need, you don''t need to run them through the HCA.

 

[loudway]

but I think 74.4 might be too much for personal preference? I recalled yours is 75.6% , and it is already called a low one. so is 74.4 too much on the extreme side? like a 82% on the other extreme?

 

[Maisie]

I think there is an lgf panic happening

Maybe 'meeting' some of the diamonds might help you choose? I don't have that luxury so I will trust the figures

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/28/2007 6:31:49 PM
Author: loudway
but I think 74.4 might be too much for personal preference? I recalled yours is 75.6% , and it is already called a low one. so is 74.4 too much on the extreme side? like a 82% on the other extreme?

Yes, mine is shorter and I love the look. The 74.4 is going to have more bolder flashes, much less pin flash. the 77.6 is a nice mix of both. Again, it''s a matter of which you think you''d like.

If you can swing it, get both and decide.

 

[loudway]

Hehe, I guess I am a little bit over-studied, but it is also fun part. I know for sure both are ACA stones and must be the top quality on aspect. I just try to ask you guys do me the favor to pick the most favorable one you think from two of the best. I will definitely get an ACA as I really like their brand. I just try to get the best one and I don''t have the luxury to see it in person (the date is approaching .

So please, tell me which one you like, I now trust you guys more than my parents, on this topic, lol

 

[Maisie]

Date: 1/28/2007 6:44:30 PM
Author: loudway
Hehe, I guess I am a little bit over-studied, but it is also fun part. I know for sure both are ACA stones and must be the top quality on aspect. I just try to ask you guys do me the favor to pick the most favorable one you think from two of the best. I will definitely get an ACA as I really like their brand. I just try to get the best one and I don''t have the luxury to see it in person (the date is approaching .

So please, tell me which one you like, I now trust you guys more than my parents, on this topic, lol

Aww I completely understand how you feel. I find the whole thing really overwhelming. BUT then people like Ellen and Belle and JohnQ come along and make me feel lots better about my choice and then everything is ok again. They are the people who can advise you better than me. I don''t know enough - yet!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/28/2007 6:44:30 PM
Author: loudway
Hehe, I guess I am a little bit over-studied, but it is also fun part. I know for sure both are ACA stones and must be the top quality on aspect. I just try to ask you guys do me the favor to pick the most favorable one you think from two of the best. I will definitely get an ACA as I really like their brand. I just try to get the best one and I don''t have the luxury to see it in person (the date is approaching .

So please, tell me which one you like, I now trust you guys more than my parents, on this topic, lol

OK, since you are unsure, I''m going to suggest you go with the longer lgf, only because it will sparkle more like what you and your girl are probably used to seeing. In no way am I saying it''s going to be MORE beautiful, or that the other stone is LESS beautiful, it''s just a sure thing.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/28/2007 6:50:05 PM
Author: Maisiebelle


I don''t know enough - yet!

Ahhh, but you''re getting there grasshopper.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/27/2007 11:55:22 AM
Author: strmrdr
3 options...

1: buy from someone who provides b-scope scores.
2: have the stone sent to RockDoc for an appraisal and have him run it.
3: get one with lower girdles over 77% and it will do well enough on the b-scope not to worry about running it.

b-scope dont care for short lower girdles in the 75-76 range which gives some people fits.

Storm,

I have given you my opinion about the lgf "controversy" in the the "Here is the First of Many" thread

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/hey-here-is-the-first-of-many.56866/

and I don''t have the time or the energy to go into it all again. I dissagree with all three points of your post above.

1. I do not use, will not use and don''t see any reason to use a machine that has been discredited by both of the major laboratory players in our industry. Both looked at it and found it wanting.

2. Whether or not you use RockDoc is up to you, but it is an unnecessary expense for most here as they are receiving a diamond with full documentation from one of the major labs. Some will want to spend the money, some will not. Most of my clients do not want any other confirmation, although I am happy to send a stone, at their expense, to anyone they like so long as that person has some bona fides for me to check.

3. Many stones with lgf over 77 degrees will not perform well, it is only one part of the puzzle, this is incorrect information on its face and should not be touted as fact. Sorry, but this really sets me off. You are stating a personal preference as fact and both of the major labs have found that the range goes much lower and much higher than you like while still retaining the qualifications for their top cutting grades.

RE: b-scope dont care for short lower girdles in the 75-76 range which gives some people fits.

This is a superfluous comment and sounds a little mean spirited. The machine has been found sadly lacking in repeatability and has other issues that cause the major labs to eschew using it. I should think you would have more disregard for those who tout a flawed tool as "The Answer" than for those who disregard it.

I like you Storm, but on this issue we are MILES apart.

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Hey Wink I think this is getting a little rickeydinkuless but I will address your points...

1. that is a debatable point with no solid proof that they rejected it for any reason other than not invented here.

2: I have stated that the b-scope report isn''t a requirement but if someone wants one on an ACA RockDoc is the way to do so.

3: the longer lgf% ACA''s will score in the top range on the b-scope.. other stones might not regardless of the lgf%. The specific topic of this thread is ACA''s and in that context its right.

That some shorter lgf% diamonds dont do as well does give some people fits.

I like ya 2 Wink and its kewl with me that we disagree on some things and agree on others. Would be a rather boring world if everyone agreed.

 

[WinkHPD]

I am going to bed now. I have many things in my head to say, but I am not sure they are appropriate.

I want you to think about one thing though. You have tremendous credibility here. As a consumer you can say things about a vendors stones that would get any vendor instantly banned. You often say things that destroy a buyer''s confidence in the stone he or she has chosen as if it were fact, witness the tizzy you have thrown poor Maisiebelle into. She has chosen or should I say, had chosen an incredible diamond, but you have her about 2/3rd''s convinced she is in error.

Why? Scientific fact? No, personal opinion stated as scientific fact. You are causing harm to people, intentionally or not, because you like something different. This is very akin to stating to someone who likes red, NO BLUE IS BETTER, DO NOT BUY RED.

You have spend a tremendous amount of time studying about diamonds and working with the Diamcalc software, but you are telling people who have spent their lives studying diamonds and looking at tens of thousands of them that they do not know what they are talking about.

Throw in a comment like, "Then you factor in nice guys and gals(and cheerleaders) who in general are trustworthy but with an agenda to sell you what they produce it gets even messier," and you slam people like Brian the Cutter for producing a product that he believes in. He could cut his stones with any lgf length he desires. He does them with the lengths that he does because he believes, with decades of experiance that this is what makes a great stone. It is not about forcing people to buy what he produces, it is about producing what he believes to be the best.

Heck, the guy is a competitor of mine, but he is also a friend, and I just see red when I see a comment like that.

You have earned some respect here with your hard work and your diligent study. It hurts my heart to see you damage people I care about with your careless statements of opinion as fact. I believe you need to search your heart and see if what you are doing is fair. I believe that you are abusing the trust you have to date worked hard to earn, and I think you can destroy that trust if you are not careful.

Please enter into discussion with us, agree or dissagree with us, but do not use your ability to say things about a vendor''s stones that another vendor could not say without getting banned to further your opinions. It is unfair, and frankly, unbecomming. You hold yourself out as an expert, please consider holding yourself to the same standards that we are held to.

I apologise if this seems harsh, but I do not know any other way to say what I am feeling.

Sincerely and with great caring

Wink

 

[strmrdr]

Wink,

1: I dont hold myself out as anything.
2: Maisiebelle, who by the way asked for my opinion, last I saw made an informed decision that she likes short lgf%. Thats kewl with me. Its a lot better than a uninformed decision.
3: yep Brian can cut the diamonds how he likes and I will comment on em how I like.
some of em I like a whole lot and some I like a little less.
4: if you believe that the other vendors and even your opinion isn't colored by what you and they sell that's just plain delusional. Think about it.
5: if your going to slam me come up with something better than "computer expert" its old and tired and frankly I'm rather sick of it, There are very few consumers here who have looked at more diamonds than I have. As matter of fact back in the day I bought into how great 8* was until I saw one.

That's all of what I want to say that I can say within the rules so I'm off to bed.
Hope you are having a good night.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 1/29/2007 2:09:29 AM
Author: strmrdr
Wink,

5: if your going to slam me come up with something better than ''computer expert'' its old and tired and frankly I''m rather sick of it, There are very few consumers here who have looked at more diamonds than I have. As matter of fact back in the day I bought into how great 8* was until I saw one.

Good morning. I am not slamming you, and I don''t remember saying anything at all about computers.

I am asking only that you think about the power that you have. You are perceived by many to be an expert and when you make statements of opinion as if they were statements of fact you cause actual financial harm to people who work hard to produce and sell good products.

You have studied hard to gain your knowledge and you know much more than the average consumer and alas, more than many many in the trade. That speaks well of your efforts and the knowledge that you have gained.

If you will differentiate between what is your opinion and what are the facts I think you will step up even further in the opinions of both professionals and consumers and your ability to help those wanting to learn will be far greater.

That was all I was trying to say, and all that I am hoping for now. Pricescope is a great place to be, and you are one of the reasons why. I am just asking for opinions to be clearly identified as opinions, rather than as facts. There is plenty of room for both here.

Wink

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/29/2007 8:10:49 AM
Author: Wink


Good morning. I am not slamming you, and I don''t remember saying anything at all about computers.

I am asking only that you think about the power that you have. You are perceived by many to be an expert and when you make statements of opinion as if they were statements of fact you cause actual financial harm to people who work hard to produce and sell good products.

You have studied hard to gain your knowledge and you know much more than the average consumer and alas, more than many many in the trade. That speaks well of your efforts and the knowledge that you have gained.

If you will differentiate between what is your opinion and what are the facts I think you will step up even further in the opinions of both professionals and consumers and your ability to help those wanting to learn will be far greater.

That was all I was trying to say, and all that I am hoping for now. Pricescope is a great place to be, and you are one of the reasons why. I am just asking for opinions to be clearly identified as opinions, rather than as facts. There is plenty of room for both here.

Wink

Well said Wink. And this goes for ALL of us here.

 

[Maisie]

I''m feeling pretty bad as I feel that I am the one who started all this off.

I have decided to stick with the stone I had chosen (if it doesn''t go before I get the chance to buy it).

If I lose that one I will stick with the ACA stones as I feel that they are the best I can get for my money and I will stop trying to understand the more complicated aspects of diamonds. Its just too hard for me to understand. If the ACA are the best that there are then thats fine for me.

Maisie

 

[Ellen]

Date: 1/29/2007 8:57:47 AM
Author: Maisiebelle
I''m feeling pretty bad as I feel that I am the one who started all this off.

I have decided to stick with the stone I had chosen (if it doesn''t go before I get the chance to buy it).

If I lose that one I will stick with the ACA stones as I feel that they are the best I can get for my money and I will stop trying to understand the more complicated aspects of diamonds. Its just too hard for me to understand. If the ACA are the best that there are then thats fine for me.

Maisie

Maise, please don''t feel bad, you didn''t "start" anything, you were merely a catalyst for something that has needed to be said for awhile. We all needed this reminder.

Also, while ACA''s are indeed beautiful, they are not exclusive. There are many beautifully cut diamonds on par with them, I happen to own one.

But you will certainly be "safe" in buying one!

 

[Maisie]

I agree with you Ellen that there are lots of beautiful stones around which aren''t ACA but for me it would be easier to choose one which has been graded to be ''a cut above'' or equivalent (I know other companies have their own name for this).

For me to be able to choose a great stone by having to use the figures is complicated. I thought I had chosen well and a few of you said I had, but then when the lgf part came into it thats when I started to get confused. I guess I wouldn''t have known any different if the stone had come and didn''t sparkle in the same way as one with longer lgf. I feel that because I have put a lot of effort into understanding the simpler parts of diamond choosing - I would have loved the diamond regardless of what length the lgf were.

There are some very educated and intelligent people on this forum. Its great to see so many people loving diamonds. I am the type who can love a diamond without having to understand why or how it is so lovely. I have tried to learn as much as possible but some of it is just that wee bit too hard for me.

I think I am happy to be one of the people who will celebrate when someone buys one, drool over the pictures on ''show me the ring'' and ask you to share in my excitement when I buy one.

Its ok that I''m not brilliant around the diamond stuff - heck I can''t be great at everything......... lol.....

Maisie