Why I love 60/60 diamonds- compared to AGS0 IS/ASET and photos

[denverappraiser]

I knew i could use HDR with 3.0 but I hadn't noticed a new version was released. I always like to stay with the current version on these things. DiamCalc rocks. 65 Euro is fine. As a US customer, do I buy this from you, Garry, Dave or someone else entirely?


Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Serg]

Date: 5/22/2009 2:54:39 PM
Author: denverappraiser
I knew i could use HDR with 3.0 but I hadn''t noticed a new version was released. I always like to stay with the current version on these things. DiamCalc rocks. 65 Euro is fine. do I buy this from you, Garry, Dave or someone else entirely?



Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

Professional Appraisals in Denver

From Dave or Garry, for your choice.

I think delivery from Dave will much faster for you.

 

[oldminer]

Neil, You my order the Hasp Key license device via Datlas.com or from Ideal-Scope.com. The software comes from a download on the Internet, regardless. I make all the USA deliveries of the Hasp Key no matter who it is ordered from.

 

[diagem]

Date: 5/22/2009 12:58:12 PM
Author: denverappraiser

Date: 5/22/2009 12:54:52 PM
Author: DiaGem

same with the short (I think)?

The instruction page on the download says that''s for the short hasp only.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

either I did something wrong..., but I dont have the HDR option...
When I open DC it shows DiamCalc 3.0HL (and that is after attempting a download).

Any tips?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Send me a screen capture of the Help>Registration window DG

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 5/22/2009 3:19:16 PM
Author: oldminer
Neil, You my order the Hasp Key license device via Datlas.com or from Ideal-Scope.com. The software comes from a download on the Internet, regardless. I make all the USA deliveries of the Hasp Key no matter who it is ordered from.

Done. Thanks. And I apologize for the distraction from the discussion at hand (such as it is).


Neil Beaty

GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA

Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/22/2009 12:50:04 AM
Author: Rockdiamond
Cool Storm!
Can you please explain what we''re seeing...why are there colors on the AGS 0 stone in the virtual model?

David have you bothered to download and install the free Gem Adviser from OctoNus.com?

Then you will see the colours are dispersion that will appear if you look at the stone in the same environment as the computer modeled light.

 

[strmrdr]

Here is the gem file for the 60/61 pavilion and ags0 top

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

What is the point Storm?

It is clear however that this would be a superior looking stone to the 60 61 in a bigger variety of lighting sit''s

But it would work better in a 5ct plus stone

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/23/2009 6:22:20 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
What is the point Storm?


It is clear however that this would be a superior looking stone to the 60 61 in a bigger variety of lighting sit's


But it would work better in a 5ct plus stone

David said he likes the splintery look, I said that is not because of the 60% table and proved it earlier using virtual diamonds and now using the pavilion of the 60/61 and the top of the ags0
that is the point.

That it is a much better performer than the original 60/61 is just icing on the cake lol

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 5/23/2009 6:26:22 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/23/2009 6:22:20 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
What is the point Storm?


It is clear however that this would be a superior looking stone to the 60 61 in a bigger variety of lighting sit''s


But it would work better in a 5ct plus stone

David said he likes the splintery look, I said that is not because of the 60% table and proved it earlier using virtual diamonds and now using the pavilion of the 60/61 and the top of the ags0
that is the point.

That it is a much better performer than the original 60/61 is just icing on the cake lol

Yes, i have fought back mentioning that smaller table, steeper crown and longer LP''s = more splintery.

But i never bothered because I suspected this was not a great example - just the only one David could find that had a "different look" that could convey some sort of smoke and mirrors "artisitic preference".

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 5/17/2009 5:24:41 PM
Author: strmrdr
David,
This image is showing exactly what I would expect to see under those conditions based on the ASET iamges.
Can I get the sarin data please?

Can you explain what we are seeing?

Can you explain what about the diamonds and the environment the diamonds are in is causing the difference in appearance?

Storm also wrote
"That it is a much better performer than the original 60/61 is just icing on the cake lol"
HI Everyone!
Storm- by what basis can you assure us your virtual stone will look better than the real one I have here?

Just to sum up the conversation, based on the images, and the observations of people interested in forwarding the conversation.

First I posted the ASET/IS, then this image- you can see Storm''s response- it''s exactly what he expected to see. From what I''ve seen, Storm is quite experienced in reading ASET/IS images.
1) The stone on the right in the photo above can be said to be a "better performing" diamond. We are using ASET/IS to prove this claim.
It is agreed that the use of reflector technology is extremely efficient at picking out the best performing diamond based on scientific principles of light performance.
2) I have stated that, to my eye, the stone which can be proven to be "less well cut" looks better in real life. In the photo above, you can see what I''m talking about.
The stone on the left appears a little larger. This is absolutely accurate in reality.
The photo also shows the slight difference in the type of brilliance each one displays.
Show these two diamonds- or other similar juxtapositions-to 100 interested people. People who love diamonds, and have never heard of this conversation. Even those that have.
A fair percentage will pick the larger table diamond - with less perfect optical symmetry.
No one is addressing that point. Does that have any bearing on the use of ASET/IS?
Add to this the fact that the better performing diamonds usually cost somewhat more than the "very good" performing diamonds. This means that if someone was in the group picking the larger table, and could pay less, they gave nothing up whatsoever.
The two diamonds will perform differently in different lighting situations. That''s a given in any diamond cut. As well cut round diamonds, either of these stones will look very good in just about any lighting condition.

In terms of "performance"- there''s no "ring of death" nor any smoke or mirrors. In terms of visual performance, there''s no clear cut winner here at all.
I prefer the larger table diamond- surely others will too. Of course some people will prefer the near tolk with better optical symmetry.

It really comes down to an interpretation of the word "performance".
Say someone paid $1000 for one of these, and $1100 for the other, and each one gave it''s owner a great deal pleasure under a wide range of viewing conditions- even after it got dirty.
Sounds like they both performed equally.
If the consumer who bought either was forced to sell, each would perform like a diamond. It''s not a great investment, but it''s better than a lot of things people buy. ON the secondary market, a great IS ASET is not going to get the typical buyer a higher price than a typical well cut stone that does not perform well on ASET/IS.

My point is that saying the stone on the right is "better" by virtue of reflector images and it''s performance misses the essence of why many people love diamonds.
As has been mentioned many times here on PS- use your eyes as the main barometer.
And don''t let other''s idea of what is beautiful influence what YOU see.

 

[strmrdr]

If your going to quote me also mention that I said that that pic did not represent the real world.

You look at that diamond and see its pluses I "see" it and see its flaws and would see them in person.
Franky the flaws would overshadow the good for me.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Storm,
Can you show us what flaws you see?

I''m looking at the same picture, and I can''t figure out what visual aspects bother you.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/28/2009 5:44:37 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hi Storm,

Can you show us what flaws you see?


I''m looking at the same picture, and I can''t figure out what visual aspects bother you.

no optical symmetry
Not as nice contrast patterns
table leakage
painting sux

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you Storm!

My intent is truly one of illustrating the different aspects of how we look at cut.
I have nothing but respect for the work done by you- not to mention John Pollard- Paul, Garry- and others.
That we see it differently is not a bad thing at all.
I''d like to see if I am completely understanding what you are seeing

Date: 5/28/2009 6:27:11 PM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 5/28/2009 5:44:37 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Hi Storm,

Can you show us what flaws you see?


I''m looking at the same picture, and I can''t figure out what visual aspects bother you.

no optical symmetry- in this I assume we''re talking about how the facets line up in the NT ( Near Tolk, or Ideal Cut) stone, while they are not arranged that way on the 60% table stone.
Not as nice contrast patterns: Here, it seems that you are pointing to the arrow patterns created from the better alignment of the facets on the NT.
table leakage: This one I have more trouble understanding what it is you see. In person, I do not see any problem with the way the 60% table diamond is bouncing back light. What you pointed out as less contrast , to me, means a brighter stone overall.
What in the photo indicates a problem with brightness- either on the table, or top corners or crown of the of the stone? If you could copy the photo, and notate it , that might help.

painting sux. Here again- I see nothing in the photo- or in real life- to indicate the stone is "painted" in a negative way. I am familiar with what is terms " A painted stone" but this .54 60% table stone is NOT an example of it. In my experience it''s done to a negative effect to save weight- if you look at enough stones, you''ll notice it primarily on stones that just met the weight mark- such as a 2.00ct

The facet alignment issue is directly related to contrast as the alignment is one of the causes the heart and arrows pattern.

My suggestion is that this as a preference, as opposed to one being better than the other.
In the excellent article written by John Pollard- I prefer the stones that don''t have all the arrow and hearts.

I believe that this preference- if one wants superior optical symmetry, and heart and arrows, or not- is one that is divided- possibly somewhat equally in the population of diamond lovers overall.
On PriceScope we have a far more refined, and knowledgeable population of diamond lovers.
But I still feel that a fair percentage would pick the .54ct based on it''s visual properties.