Leakage vs Azimuth misalignment in Ideal Scope image

[blueMA]

Or Diamonds like Pav 41.2 Cr34.5 ?
see similar diamonds Pav 41.1 Cr34.8
https://cutwise.com/diamond/25549


and compare
https://cutwise.com/compare/diamond-colorless?id[]=25549&id[]=26035

That is just a fantastic comparison @Serg
I remember that you've said you prefer 34.5/41/2/57 for fire-brilliance over other more top-heavy popular proportions on PS. I always felt the same way (love 34/41), but often felt as if I'm against the grain on these forums and wanted your opinion as one of the industry's top minds.

 

[yssie]

I wasn’t making any point.
Just out to learn more. I’ve never known much about scanning technology and was wondering if there were any jewellers in my vicinity that is a client. As Serg, indicated a list, i was just surprised there were mostly in India

Some boutiques keep all aspects of cutting their signature stones in-house - choosing and acquiring rough, planning the design, cutting the plan.

Some boutiques source some portion of acquisition of rough, plan of design, and/or cutting of plan to trusted third parties. In this case those third parties may cut for several vendors.

For some boutiques labelling signature stones is a wholly reactionary process - rather than soliciting specialty-cut stones, inbound stones from various sources are examined and sorted into tiers.


If you’re looking for information about a specific vendor your best bet is to ask that vendor how they create their signature stones.

 

[Athena10X]

That is just a fantastic comparison @Serg
I remember that you've said you prefer 34.5/41/2/57 for fire-brilliance over other more top-heavy popular proportions on PS. I always felt the same way (love 34/41), but often felt as if I'm against the grain on these forums and wanted your opinion as one of the industry's top minds.

Based on the comparison, it appears that the non-optically symmetrical diamond with 34.8/41 offers better fire, brilliance, and brightness than the more optically-symmetrical 35.5/40.6-40.7. However, table and depth %s are different for each. If table and depth were identical for both, would it change the light performance we’re seeing?

 

[gm89uk]

Based on the comparison, it appears that the non-optically symmetrical diamond with 34.8/41 offers better fire, brilliance, and brightness than the more optically-symmetrical 35.5/40.6-40.7. However, table and depth %s are different for each. If table and depth were identical for both, would it change the light performance we’re seeing?

Different table and depth are part of the characters of those diamonds and make them what they are. You can't 'standardise' for table and depth.

The large table lowers the crown height which is part of its personality in light performance. The low crown height contributes to the low depth.

Additionally large table and low depth with higher spread is one of the advantages of 60:60 style diamonds vs FIC, so again it would be wrong to standardise spread.

What I don't understand is how a 61.41% table with a 34.8 crown (13.41% Crown Height) manages to out fire a 54.5% table with a 35.5 crown (16.23% Crown Height) with reasonably complementary pavilion and far better optical symmetry @Serg

It goes against all the basics of diamond geometry I've learnt on pricescope and their relative advantages.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I wasn’t making any point.
Just out to learn more. I’ve never known much about scanning technology and was wondering if there were any jewellers in my vicinity that is a client. As Serg, indicated a list, i was just surprised there were mostly in India

If there was going to be apology, it would only be to the thread starter if they felt I had hijacked the thread in any way.

+70% by value of all diamonds are cut and polished in India. 90% of all diamonds by qty.
Mostly in Surat.
Indian's employed engineers and HiTech and wiped the floor with "I am your Father and I will teach you to cut and polish diamonds my son".

 

[Karl_K]

It goes against all the basics of diamond geometry I've learnt on pricescope and their relative advantages.

You would first have to look at how thaat data is gathered and the method behind it and see how it relates to the real world.
That said there is so much stuff online that is outdated, opinion passing as fact, agendas, or just plain cwap.
When it is said one combo tends towards fire what is meant not that it necessarily has bad brightness in lighting highly conductive to brightness but that it tends to want to show fire more often across a wide range of lighting than another combination.
Same the other way a combo may want to show brightness in 95% of the lighting environments but have great fire in lighting highly conductive for fire.

 

[Serg]

Different table and depth are part of the characters of those diamonds and make them what they are. You can't 'standardise' for table and depth.

The large table lowers the crown height which is part of its personality in light performance. The low crown height contributes to the low depth.

Additionally large table and low depth with higher spread is one of the advantages of 60:60 style diamonds vs FIC, so again it would be wrong to standardise spread.

What I don't understand is how a 61.41% table with a 34.8 crown (13.41% Crown Height) manages to out fire a 54.5% table with a 35.5 crown (16.23% Crown Height) with reasonably complementary pavilion and far better optical symmetry @Serg

It goes against all the basics of diamond geometry I've learnt on pricescope and their relative advantages.

Basic 2D geometry can not explain a difference between 3D diamonds with similar Optical performance.
Both the diamonds are nice and different in same time.
Basic geometry could be used only for explanations a difference between very bad cut and nice cut.

 

[gm89uk]

You would first have to look at how thaat data is gathered and the method behind it and see how it relates to the real world.
That said there is so much stuff online that is outdated, opinion passing as fact, agendas, or just plain cwap.
When it is said one combo tends towards fire what is meant not that it necessarily has bad brightness in lighting highly conductive to brightness but that it tends to want to show fire more often across a wide range of lighting than another combination.
Same the other way a combo may want to show brightness in 95% of the lighting environments but have great fire in lighting highly conductive for fire.

Thanks Karl, but diamond on the left has very little going for it to predict it to be a high performer.
1) HCA score (non rounded values) 3.8. @Garry H (Cut Nut)
2) optical symmetry is not good
3) arrows are washed out
4)ASET is not bad but a few clock hours of or weaker return under the table (although edge to edge brightness)

There is virtually no one apart from one or two that would recommend the high table diamond on PS, including maybe experts. I thought HCA would calculate theoretical light return. Is it freak diamond where the asymmetry and lack of optical precision works in its favour somehow?
It seems @Serg tool looks at the diamond on a variety of lighting environments to make its assessment.

I hear what you're saying, that in strong spot lights possibly the less fiery diamond may show more fire, but in remaining lighting environments it may show less than the FIC and vice versa.

But as online shoppers this is the only tool I've seen that would objectively help you choose the shallower diamond over the FIC. HCA ASET, proportions, symmetry all would select the FIC as the better performer in most lighting environments, including brightness (judging from HCA and ASET).

Serg, the 3D tool is very helpful, and my eyes agree with the assessment of your tool based on your video, but I prefer the contrast pattern of the FIC. I don't know if that's because I've learnt to like it from PS or I would have liked it if I was a complete diamond novice.

 

[Serg]

But as online shoppers this is the only tool I've seen that would objectively help you choose the shallower diamond over the FIC. HCA ASET, proportions, symmetry all would select the FIC as the better performer in most lighting environments, including brightness (judging from HCA and ASET).

Serg, the 3D tool is very helpful, and my eyes agree with the assessment of your tool based on your video, but I prefer the contrast pattern of the FIC. I don't know if that's because I've learnt to like it from PS or I would have liked it if I was a complete diamond novice.

@gm89uk
I believe It is most important the Question!
Some shallow RBC has almost "static black main facets " under table .
It create high static contrast but the diamond center is become to dark for my taste.
I do not see any advantages from static black facets.

 

[Karl_K]

@gm89uk
I believe It is most important the Question!
Some shallow RBC has almost "static black main facets " under table .
It create high static contrast but the diamond center is become to dark for my taste.
I do not see any advantages from static black facets.

Yea once the pavilion facets get under ~40.45 in a mrb they stay dark at extended distances that just makes the diamond look dark in a ring.
The greater viewing distances in an earring or pendant helps with the problem.

 

[Karl_K]

You would first have to look at how that data is gathered and the method behind it and see how it relates to the real world.

Ok I asked some questions to help answer that question.
The numbers are based on advanced pixel counting using video from DiBox 2 as the source.
Adding movement is an improvement over past pixel counters.
However all pixel counters suffer from a few issues.
1: they can only test a few light conditions.
2: the lighting and viewing distance and direction and the camera response creates an environment where some diamonds play to the tune of the machine in a way that does not translate into the real world.
a: highly directional diamonds score well over diamonds with a wide light gathering area and larger return area on pixel counters.

So the question comes up is if this combo is that good or does it just play to the machine?
How well is bias dealt with by the software that generates the scores?
Serg?

 

[blueMA]

Some shallow RBC has almost "static black main facets " under table .
It create high static contrast but the diamond center is become to dark for my taste.

THIS - 100% concur. This is why I prefer higher pavilion, because this allows the main facets to contribute more to the overall sparkle patterns and help brighter appearance of a diamond. To me, the dark patterns do not provide a pleasing contrast, but rather contribute to the overall darkness in relatively small stones especially when not magnified and posted 30-40x on photos.

I believe many prefer lower pavilion because it DOES allow them to see the arrow patterns more clearly that satisfies the innate desire and confirmation for crisp symmetrical arrows, and I tend to believe this is a learned preference because I've seen so many newbies put off by 'why is the center so dark?"

We all have our own unique preference. Some prefer blondes, some brunettes, and some have very liberal taste and like em all. I try not to think anyone's opinion is a pure crap - unless completely factually wrong - that's their perception different from mine.

 

[Serg]

Ok I asked some questions to help answer that question.
The numbers are based on advanced pixel counting using video from DiBox 2 as the source.
Adding movement is an improvement over past pixel counters.
However all pixel counters suffer from a few issues.
1: they can only test a few light conditions.
2: the lighting and viewing distance and direction and the camera response creates an environment where some diamonds play to the tune of the machine in a way that does not translate into the real world.
a: highly directional diamonds score well over diamonds with a wide light gathering area and larger return area on pixel counters.

So the question comes up is if this combo is that good or does it just play to the machine?
How well is bias dealt with by the software that generates the scores?
Serg?

I do not see questions here. I see biased statements only, even if its have interrogative form.

 

[Karl_K]

I do not see questions here. I see biased statements only, even if its have interrogative form.

My question is how have you dealt with the downsides(limited light conditions, favors some combinations that may not follow the real world) of past pixel counters?
Adding movement is a big step forward in my opinion.

 

[Serg]

My question is how have you dealt with the downsides(limited light conditions, favors some combinations that may not follow the real world) of past pixel counters?
Adding movement is a big step forward in my opinion.

How did you receive statement :"favors some combinations that may not follow the real world)"
Could you publish such combination or a way to receive its?

 

[Athena10X]

Just want to let everybody know that I’m still following this thread and appreciate the insights learned and ongoing discussion at the technical level, even if beyond my understanding at times.

 

[Athena10X]

You could find the list of Helium clients in the end of page http://www.lexus-com.com/gb-hpo.html
Few of them sold Helium scanners had been bought more than 10 years ago.

@Serg, could I send my recently purchased uncounted diamond to one of your labs to have it analyzed by your CutWise/DiBox 2.0/Helium system? I’m not questioning the beauty or performance of my stone. Just a fan of your technology. Thanks!

 

[Serg]

@Serg, could I send my recently purchased uncounted diamond to one of your labs to have it analyzed by your CutWise/DiBox 2.0/Helium system? I’m not questioning the beauty or performance of my stone. Just a fan of your technology. Thanks!

@Athena10X
Sorry, right now we can do it in Surat( India) only. I can not push our clients to work with 3d party diamonds, but I could ask them. There is your diamond?

 

[Athena10X]

@Athena10X
Sorry, right now we can do it in Surat( India) only. I can not push our clients to work with 3d party diamonds, but I could ask them. There is your diamond?

Thank you for your prompt reply. My diamond is stateside with Jonathan at August Vintage. I’ve located a few local jewelers who utilize the Sarin machine (not sure which version), but unfortunately only AGS and GIA labs have Helium and even though my diamond is GIA certified, I’m limited to their standard grading report.