Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[Imdanny]

Even at HW. Go look at their site.

LOL.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

The surprise- and might be a mistake - is cushion, at 1746, number two on this particular list.

It is not so surprising, first there was the princess cut, then the asscher and now the cushion and antique cuts are in vogue.
But I am sure you know the number that are crushed ice is a small % RD.

 

[Rockdiamond]

From what I see here in NY most of those cushions are not all that well cut. That includes a lot of chunky, and also crushed ice- and variants in between.
Of those that are well cut, many will be Cushion Modified- which is more prevalent that Cushion Brilliant.
Therefore I generally see more well cut crushed ice than chunky.
I think the H&A Cushions, unquestionably, are harder to find than crushed ice.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here is an example of a well cut crushed ice stone that is slightly lesser in cut.
There's a larger refelction in the table that you want if you're looking for consistent crushed ice.


In this case, we can see a clear correlation with the aset


Still- the area in the center does not allow you to see through the diamond- you won't see skin through it.
AS the stone moves that area is not very obvious.
Not the very best in crushed ice, but still quite nice to my eye in person.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Here is an example of a well cut crushed ice stone that is slightly lesser in cut.
There's a larger refelction in the table that you want if you're looking for consistent crushed ice.


In this case, we can see a clear correlation with the aset


Still- the area in the center does not allow you to see through the diamond- you won't see skin through it.
AS the stone moves that area is not very obvious.
Not the very best in crushed ice, but still quite nice to my eye in person.

RD your fingers are reflecting in the top of the stone - try a white glove?
And the dark center and some of the dark near the bottom of the stone that are red in ASET might be because of the lens or some other obstruction. As always, if you can tell us what the exact distances to lens, size of lens and color of camera body etc - then we can identify why the green in the center is dark in your pic.
If you are worried about giving away trade secrets, then email info to me - it will not be passed on - I have intimate knowledge of several vendors lighting and camera set ups and I do not pass the info on. Besides, I think with the LBox, it would be clear that I have no need to copy

 

[AGBF]

Hi Garry, Karl, and other diamond tradespeople and engineer types-

I wish I could say that I come in peace, but I'm really a little annoyed. I started a thread about using cushion cut stones for earrings here:

rockytalky/are-cushion-cut-diamonds-used-as-stud-earrings-t149158.html

and if I do buy the stones I will be an actual diamond consumer, the type Pricescope is supposed to help, but I find you guys in a huddle talking to each other for 18 pages because that's more interesting.

Look...I know it's more interesting to talk to your peers, but I need some information here. I actually read some of this thread in desperation and it scared me even more. I wanted (past tense) to buy cushion cut stones to use in earrings because I wanted square stones that didn't have sharp edges like Princess cut stones and weren't cut looking like radiants and Asschers. But I don't want a "crushed ice" look. That reminds me of a broken glass look. Can't I buy a cushion cut that has a big table and big facets and looks good under candlelight and all that?

Have you tuned me out?

Hello?

Deb/AGBF

 

[Cehrabehra]

Deb, the reason that you don't have the info you seek is because everyone is still arguing about what it is. You dared to dip your toe into the cushion frontier and it's buyer beware over here. Sure you could get the advice of a dozen people, but they won't all agree anyway. And don't interrupt them, this is the debate I have been pushing for for 4 years now and they're just getting warmed up! I'm sure CCL can c&p his spiel.

 

[risingsun]

Hi Garry, Karl, and other diamond tradespeople and engineer types-

I wish I could say that I come in peace, but I'm really a little annoyed. I started a thread about using cushion cut stones for earrings here:

rockytalky/are-cushion-cut-diamonds-used-as-stud-earrings-t149158.html

and if I do buy the stones I will be an actual diamond consumer, the type Pricescope is supposed to help, but I find you guys in a huddle talking to each other for 18 pages because that's more interesting.

Look...I know it's more interesting to talk to your peers, but I need some information here. I actually read some of this thread in desperation and it scared me even more. I wanted (past tense) to buy cushion cut stones to use in earrings because I wanted square stones that didn't have sharp edges like Princess cut stones and weren't cut looking like radiants and Asschers. But I don't want a "crushed ice" look. That reminds me of a broken glass look. Can't I buy a cushion cut that has a big table and big facets and looks good under candlelight and all that?

Have you tuned me out?

Hello?

Deb/AGBF

What about a pair of AVC? They will be nice and chunky and should sparkle like crazy. Give Jon a call and see what he has to say. FWIW, I'm listening...

ETA: A cushion brilliant should do the job, if you don't want the AVC.

 

[kenny]

Deb, the reason that you don't have the info you seek is because everyone is still arguing about what it is. You dared to dip your toe into the cushion frontier and it's buyer beware over here. Sure you could get the advice of a dozen people, but they won't all agree anyway. And don't interrupt them, this is the debate I have been pushing for for 4 years now and they're just getting warmed up! I'm sure CCL can c&p his spiel.

Yeah, I'm glad I'm not pursuing a cushion.
It would be like entering a boxing ring.
Better to be in love with asschers where nobody really says much of anything.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Garry, Karl, and other diamond tradespeople and engineer types-

I wish I could say that I come in peace, but I'm really a little annoyed. I started a thread about using cushion cut stones for earrings here:

rockytalky/are-cushion-cut-diamonds-used-as-stud-earrings-t149158.html

and if I do buy the stones I will be an actual diamond consumer, the type Pricescope is supposed to help, but I find you guys in a huddle talking to each other for 18 pages because that's more interesting.

Look...I know it's more interesting to talk to your peers, but I need some information here. I actually read some of this thread in desperation and it scared me even more. I wanted (past tense) to buy cushion cut stones to use in earrings because I wanted square stones that didn't have sharp edges like Princess cut stones and weren't cut looking like radiants and Asschers. But I don't want a "crushed ice" look. That reminds me of a broken glass look. Can't I buy a cushion cut that has a big table and big facets and looks good under candlelight and all that?

Have you tuned me out?

Hello?

Deb/AGBF

HI- even though you did not ask me- it's important to remember that when a question involves a specific vendor, or branded stone you're not going to get experienced tradespeople commenting. Were not allowed to.
That makes this type of "hypothetical" discussion far more fertile for the exchange of ideas.

A large part of what I find odious about much of the "knowledge" base, and how it's handled here is that it creates a situation where consumers get scared into thinking they need to become rocket scientists to purchase a diamond.
Cushion diamonds come in a wide variety of shapes, and cutting styles.
That does not make them bad- it adds a lot of variety.
Whatever I, Garry, Karl- or any of the "prosumers" think is really irrelevant as it relates to what YOU will love.
Look at actual stones- research the vendors, and speak to those you feel comfortable with.
Sometimes they may have different ideas than what's written here.
Don;t get scared, or confused, just understand that there is no "right" answer to these questions- and there never will be.

 

[Rockdiamond]

If I might add, the OP asked about a crushed ice cushion. Can we add one to the mix? I would like to see the difference in performance between the cushion and the radiant. Thanks.

Here's the aset for a cushion that exhibits a nice crushed ice look

Here is an example of a well cut crushed ice stone that is slightly lesser in cut.
There's a larger refelction in the table that you want if you're looking for consistent crushed ice.


In this case, we can see a clear correlation with the aset


Still- the area in the center does not allow you to see through the diamond- you won't see skin through it.
AS the stone moves that area is not very obvious.
Not the very best in crushed ice, but still quite nice to my eye in person.

RD your fingers are reflecting in the top of the stone - try a white glove?
And the dark center and some of the dark near the bottom of the stone that are red in ASET might be because of the lens or some other obstruction. As always, if you can tell us what the exact distances to lens, size of lens and color of camera body etc - then we can identify why the green in the center is dark in your pic.
If you are worried about giving away trade secrets, then email info to me - it will not be passed on - I have intimate knowledge of several vendors lighting and camera set ups and I do not pass the info on. Besides, I think with the LBox, it would be clear that I have no need to copy

Garry- the front of the camera is grey( not shiny)
I watched your youtube describing how to use the IS( but you mentioned it works with the aset- and it does)
I placed the camera directly on the aset, as you instructed.

PS- I really would love your email address Garry- I don't have it.

 

[risingsun]

If I might add, the OP asked about a crushed ice cushion. Can we add one to the mix? I would like to see the difference in performance between the cushion and the radiant. Thanks.

Here's the aset for a cushion that exhibits a nice crushed ice look

Here is an example of a well cut crushed ice stone that is slightly lesser in cut.
There's a larger refelction in the table that you want if you're looking for consistent crushed ice.


In this case, we can see a clear correlation with the aset


Still- the area in the center does not allow you to see through the diamond- you won't see skin through it.
AS the stone moves that area is not very obvious.
Not the very best in crushed ice, but still quite nice to my eye in person.

RD your fingers are reflecting in the top of the stone - try a white glove?
And the dark center and some of the dark near the bottom of the stone that are red in ASET might be because of the lens or some other obstruction. As always, if you can tell us what the exact distances to lens, size of lens and color of camera body etc - then we can identify why the green in the center is dark in your pic.
If you are worried about giving away trade secrets, then email info to me - it will not be passed on - I have intimate knowledge of several vendors lighting and camera set ups and I do not pass the info on. Besides, I think with the LBox, it would be clear that I have no need to copy

Garry- the front of the camera is grey( not shiny)
I watched your youtube describing how to use the IS( but you mentioned it works with the aset- and it does)
I placed the camera directly on the aset, as you instructed.

PS- I really would love your email address Garry- I don't have it.

Thanks for the post, RD Can someone compare the ASETs for the cushion and the radiant? What are we seeing and what should we be seeing on a well cut crushed ice cushion

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for the post, RD Can someone compare the ASETs for the cushion and the radiant? What are we seeing and what should we be seeing on a well cut crushed ice cushion

I'm just going to throw this out there:
The past few days using the aset and light, have strengthened my conviction that the information provided by this tool can just as easily mislead consumers as help them- possibly more likely to mislead than help. I don't belive this is intentional on anyone's part. It's a scientifically designed tool which provides objective informaiton. Context is the problem- it's just like asking people to read xrays- you need to be trained to do so- and having the patient at hand for physical examination is crucial to the analysis.
Regardless, I too am interested in the answer to Marian's question.
Here's an actual photo, next to the aset


eta- I can see a reasonable correlation between the aset, and areas of slight darkness in the real diamond. Still does not change my opinion on aset

 

[Rockdiamond]

For comparison- a Four Main Cushion Brilliant which shows a combination of crushed ice and patterning ( to my eye)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks for the post, RD Can someone compare the ASETs for the cushion and the radiant? What are we seeing and what should we be seeing on a well cut crushed ice cushion

I'm just going to throw this out there:
The past few days using the aset and light, have strengthened my conviction that the information provided by this tool can just as easily mislead consumers as help them- possibly more likely to mislead than help. I don't belive this is intentional on anyone's part. It's a scientifically designed tool which provides objective informaiton. Context is the problem- it's just like asking people to read xrays- you need to be trained to do so- and having the patient at hand for physical examination is crucial to the analysis.
Regardless, I too am interested in the answer to Marian's question.
Here's an actual photo, next to the aset


eta- I can see a reasonable correlation between the aset, and areas of slight darkness in the real diamond. Still does not change my opinion on aset

For starters you can see the photo's need to be switched vertically. Get it RD - have a close look

 

[Rockdiamond]

I will fix that and repost Garry

I'm still waiting for the answer to the following question:
For the purposes of this conversation, what difference does it make where the light is coming from, and how the stone is using it?
That is to say: A stone that shows a lot of green on the aset is utilizing light from lower angles. OK, so what?
Seriously, I ask with all due respect. Why should consumers worry about a diamond that is utilizing light from lower angles.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

If I might add, the OP asked about a crushed ice cushion. Can we add one to the mix? I would like to see the difference in performance between the cushion and the radiant. Thanks.

Thanks for the post, RD Can someone compare the ASETs for the cushion and the radiant? What are we seeing and what should we be seeing on a well cut crushed ice cushion

RisingSun,

First I am talking objectively about potential brightness and am ignoring any beauty evaluations they are irrelevant to your question on the interpretation of white background ASET.

If you have already accepted that you are looking for small virtual facets and a disordered and assymetric brightness signature than you will be accepting more leakage(white) and more regions that receive light from only lower angles(green).

Even within these more broad standards you would still be looking for more green and red and less white. You want a greater surface area of the crown to at least be returning light to the viewer from lower angles.

More widespread areas of red is preferred to green and you want to avoid blue areas sorrounded by white areas as they will most commonly be areas of darkness or lack of life.

It should be pointed out an ASET image alone cannot tell you the general virtual facet pattern, regions that are the same color in the ASET are receiving light from the same angular range but those ranges are broad and one solid color may contain many smaller virtual facets breaking up the pattern in the ASET.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I will fix that and repost Garry

I'm still waiting for the answer to the following question:
For the purposes of this conversation, what difference does it make where the light is coming from, and how the stone is using it?
That is to say: A stone that shows a lot of green on the aset is utilizing light from lower angles. OK, so what?
Seriously, I ask with all due respect. Why should consumers worry about a diamond that is utilizing light from lower angles.

You cannot be serious RD?
Think about the direction the light comes from and your post here
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...s-stud-earrings.149158/#post-2701698#p2701698

Read my advice to Deb. and turn your brain on

And turn one of the images upside down and have a good look.
You can search for Gilbertsonscope and make one out of colored card board and you will see even more becuase there are more colors.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I will fix that and repost Garry

I'm still waiting for the answer to the following question:
For the purposes of this conversation, what difference does it make where the light is coming from, and how the stone is using it?
That is to say: A stone that shows a lot of green on the aset is utilizing light from lower angles. OK, so what?
Seriously, I ask with all due respect. Why should consumers worry about a diamond that is utilizing light from lower angles.

You cannot be serious RD?
Think about the direction the light comes from and your post here
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...s-stud-earrings.149158/#post-2701698#p2701698

Read my advice to Deb. and turn your brain on

And turn one of the images upside down and have a good look.
You can search for Gilbertsonscope and make one out of colored card board and you will see even more becuase there are more colors.

If that doesn't work reread Karl K and Diagem's comments made to you and Doc_1 on pages 16 and 17 of this thread until you do get it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great point- let's forget about that stupid concept called "beauty" and instead focus on scientifically superior diamonds.

If people want to know what they should look for in a cushion, how can we separate what we think is beautiful- or ignore what the person asking thinks is beautiful?

Even in the way this is phrased is pejorative to crushed ice look- and those who love it.

If you have already accepted that you are looking for small virtual facets and a disordered and assymetric brightness signature than you will be accepting more leakage(white) and more regions that receive light from only lower angles(green).

"accepting leakage" - again, you're using terminology that makes it seem there's something deficient about the crushed ice look.
The crushed ice stones I've posted ( the ones I'm calling "good") have minimal leakage. And it's distributed differently than "chunky" stones.
Not better- or worse- differently.
Someone looking for that is not "accepting" any deficiencies. They are choosing what they want.

ETA- Garry- you're bringing in a different thread, yet not answering the question.
Your implication is that earring stones need to be differently designed as compared to ring stones.

That, in itself, does nothing to answer the question, as I asked it.
Say I'm a consumer, and I want a "crushed ice Cushion"
What difference does it make if such stones are taking light from lower angles and utilizing it?

Can't we agree that each type of cut will have different ( or, better and worse, if we want to be judgmental) light signatures depending on the light we're looking at it in?
For example, well cut rounds don't handle direct sunlight very well.
Should we call them less well cut due to this fact?

Garry- my advice to you is to "open your mind"

 

[stone-cold11]

For example, well cut rounds don't handle direct sunlight very well.

Wrong!

Well cut rounds handle direct sunlight too well. Your eyes are responding to the overwhelming light return by closing up the iris, decreasing the pupil size, allowing less light to enter, thus everything goes dark.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry- the way it seems to me:
I've opened my mind and looked at aset differently.
I got one, and have used it and posted images.
I've acknowledged a correspondence to the images on numerous occasions.
I've complimented the device, and it's utility.
I'd say it makes a great tool to have, so people can look at their diamonds first hand. I am not discouraging people from buying one- rather, questioning the way they are interpreted

In regards to crushed ice stones- and how aset relates to this discussion: Can't you at least acknowledge the criticism of interpretation I've introduced?
Just so happens that the type of stones we're talking about here- that being non patterned stones with large amounts of tiny virtual facets that do indeed seem to utilize light coming in at an angle quite well seem to call out for an entirely new interpretation method of aset.

The only other shape besides round that you see any number of AGS Cut graded stones is princess cut.
AGS 0 Cut graded stones- that I've seen- have smaller table large crown- which leads to a nice patterning.
Here's a "Crushed Ice" Princess cut. Surely would not score well with AGS I suspect.

I'll get a scan for you, if you wish

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Garry the way it seems to me
I'll get a scan for you, if you wish

The only thing you think you changed was the camera focus?
Try again RD take a look at the brightness of the tweezers in both shots carefully.

You changed the amount of light the diamond is receiving, probably, by a slight tilt of the tweezers.
Once again you are flooding the pavilion with light even more on the left than the centre.

Noone is fooled anymore by the way you are lighting the diamonds, totally unrealistic photographs for judging brightness.

 

[Rockdiamond]

There is no method without drawbacks.
I actually love using the aset- and have started to include aset images in our videos- some listings may also follow suit.

The princess cut I used- and others similar to it- are very bright perceptibly. Though I'm sure we can prove rounds ( for example) are brighter- or return more light.

How's this for a series of shots taken with the diamonds held close under the diamond grading lamp, the camera in the position a head would be in looking at them.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I am also not suggesting that the princess cut would be considered well cut in the diamond grading community overall.
There's a large table, and shallow crown.
It's likely that the stone was cut from a "waste piece"- that is to say: when they saw an octahedron, they don;t split it halfway down- they saw off the top, making an approximate diamond shape below.
The top piece is kind of flat -especially with smaller rough.
What to do with it. This might have been the best possible use of that piece of rough diamond.
Say we start with a 5.75ct piece of rough. We saw it, to get the best yield.
Say it's a 1.75ct top piece and a 4.00ct bottom
If the princess cut is 1ct, it might have been about 1.75cts in the rough. Say it is Y-Z natural Light yellow.
The bottom piece might have started as a 4carat piece of rough and have been polished into a 3.00ct Fancy Yellow Radiant.

If we include fancy colors in this discussion, crushed ice takes on a whole new life......

But it also does something else interesting.
Stones that would be considered "wrong" in the world of colorless, are accepted- and sometimes cherished, in the world of fancy colors.
More artistic freedom for the cutters as the goals are not exactly the same. So we would consider more different leakage patterns, for example. Maybe consider styles of cutting we would not if the color wasn't there.
Then, if we did that, and opened our minds to different styles- and leakage patterns in colorless diamonds, we'd have a far more balanced viewpoint.

Just saying......

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

There is no method without drawbacks.
I actually love using the aset- and have started to include aset images in our videos- some listings may also follow suit.

The princess cut I used- and others similar to it- are very bright perceptibly. Though I'm sure we can prove rounds ( for example) are brighter- or return more light.

How's this for a series of shots taken with the diamonds held close under the diamond grading lamp, the camera in the position a head would be in looking at them.

The lighting you are using now is very directional.
Look at 10 - 11 - 12 position on the crown of the round, lots of brightness in that area not much else anywhere.

Also a lot of extra contrast making them both have dark regions that shouldn't be so prominent.
Camera is too close to the diamonds. (Focus on the diamonds and then move the camera back , and then crop more before you upload them). I know you are limited with your P&S, you really need a lightbox and a good macro lense at least 60mm, 150mm would be even better.

For once I can say that you are making them look much worse than I would expect.
ASET image of round is either tilted, or the diamond has serious assymetry issues(less likely)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks for the post, RD Can someone compare the ASETs for the cushion and the radiant? What are we seeing and what should we be seeing on a well cut crushed ice cushion

I'm just going to throw this out there:
The past few days using the aset and light, have strengthened my conviction that the information provided by this tool can just as easily mislead consumers as help them- possibly more likely to mislead than help. I don't belive this is intentional on anyone's part. It's a scientifically designed tool which provides objective informaiton. Context is the problem- it's just like asking people to read xrays- you need to be trained to do so- and having the patient at hand for physical examination is crucial to the analysis.
Regardless, I too am interested in the answer to Marian's question.
Here's an actual photo, next to the aset


eta- I can see a reasonable correlation between the aset, and areas of slight darkness in the real diamond. Still does not change my opinion on aset

For starters you can see the photo's need to be switched vertically. Get it RD - have a close look

RD regarding why you would not want earrings to draw from the green on ASET - others have already answered on AGBF - Deb's thread. It is too simple to be called science.

Now to the nice crushed ice eg - see the image below:

1. Watch my youtube again and turn on the little light bulb for tungsten - it makes the light balance better for the ideal light tray.
2. I flipped the ASET image
3. from the top black line - this is higher up the red region near the border with blue - in your photo the camera or something is blocking light - we do not want these dark zones or blue in crushed ice. Agreed? We call them Dark Zones - in real life DZ's can come from leakage or obstruction.
4. second top line shows red - but there is no light source in that direction in your photo - if there was - you would have a lovely sparkle there.
5. The little dark spot is from the blue - it is probably the camera lens - too small to wory about, but see how it tells us stuff?
6. same as point 4.
7. this is the baddy - the bottom pointers mark out a leakage zone which is showing up bright. This spot would not sparkle like that when the stone was set in most types of setting.

Now the leakage thing is normal in crushed ice - the ray paths bounce around a lot more which is why these stones are not so bright (along with the fact they get light from lower angles and tend to 'miss' the directly overhead ceiling lights. And I have no problem with people liking crushed ice. It is the cut of choice for fancy color. And armed with your ASET and this tutorial - you can better select crushed ice and fancy colors with your ASET. The rules are almost totally opposite those for rounds etc.

Now please print this post and read it again, because I have spent as long as I can on this explanation and if you do not get it now I will be very very cross David.

 

[risingsun]

If I might add, the OP asked about a crushed ice cushion. Can we add one to the mix? I would like to see the difference in performance between the cushion and the radiant. Thanks.

Thanks for the post, RD Can someone compare the ASETs for the cushion and the radiant? What are we seeing and what should we be seeing on a well cut crushed ice cushion

RisingSun,

First I am talking objectively about potential brightness and am ignoring any beauty evaluations they are irrelevant to your question on the interpretation of white background ASET.

If you have already accepted that you are looking for small virtual facets and a disordered and assymetric brightness signature than you will be accepting more leakage(white) and more regions that receive light from only lower angles(green).

Even within these more broad standards you would still be looking for more green and red and less white. You want a greater surface area of the crown to at least be returning light to the viewer from lower angles.

More widespread areas of red is preferred to green and you want to avoid blue areas sorrounded by white areas as they will most commonly be areas of darkness or lack of life.

It should be pointed out an ASET image alone cannot tell you the general virtual facet pattern, regions that are the same color in the ASET are receiving light from the same angular range but those ranges are broad and one solid color may contain many smaller virtual facets breaking up the pattern in the ASET.

Thank you for your explanation, ccl. This makes sense to me. I am used to reading ASETs for RB H&A diamonds and needed some information about the type of stones under discussion. As Garry mentioned, in his post above, the ASET could be very helpful in assessing a fancy stone, but the evaluator must understand what they are seeing in the ASET. Would anyone like to write a journal article on this topic?...or we could sticky this thread!

 

[Imdanny]

Deb, the reason that you don't have the info you seek is because everyone is still arguing about what it is. You dared to dip your toe into the cushion frontier and it's buyer beware over here. Sure you could get the advice of a dozen people, but they won't all agree anyway. And don't interrupt them, this is the debate I have been pushing for for 4 years now and they're just getting warmed up! I'm sure CCL can c&p his spiel.

Yeah, I'm glad I'm not pursuing a cushion.
It would be like entering a boxing ring.
Better to be in love with asschers where nobody really says much of anything.

Word.

I found the most beautiful "square emerald" at Harry Winston's site.

I'm sending my cat to descend from the ceiling and grab it.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Thank you for your explanation, ccl. This makes sense to me. I am used to reading ASETs for RB H&A diamonds and needed some information about the type of stones under discussion. As Garry mentioned, in his post above, the ASET could be very helpful in assessing a fancy stone, but the evaluator must understand what they are seeing in the ASET. Would anyone like to write a journal article on this topic?...or we could sticky this thread!

I am working on something for Cushions but I want to use embedded videos and I'm not sure what is supported yet on pricescope so it is a long term work in progress.

For now I think this tutorial sums up what I was saying about the ASET. ASET reference chart