The Private Reserve
Ideal Cut Diamonds
In-Stock & Available:
Diamond Inventory

Ideal Cut Classifications
AGS Ideal 0 Cut
AGS-000/Triple 0 defined
Eighternity Diamonds
GIA Excellent / Ideal
Hearts & Arrows Ideals
Just Plain "Ideal"
The Ideal Differences

Fancy Shape Desc.
Asscher Cut Diamonds
Cushion Cut Diamonds
Princess Cut Diamonds

Private Reserve Terms:
Glossary of Terms
Inventory Introduction
No Sales Tax!    0.00%

Engagement Rings:
Overview of Styles
Tiffany Solitaires
Gold Solitaires
Platinum Solitaires
Knife Edge Solitaires
Cathedral Solitaires
Comfort Fit Solitaires
Half Round Bands
3 Stone Rings (DeBeers)
3 Stone Rings (Fancy)
Anniversary Rings
Eternity Rings

Designer Collection:
Designs by Tacori
Designs by D. Vatche
Designs by Viachi

Jewelry For Sale:
Diamond Earrings
Pearls
Colored Gems
Fashion Jewelry

Diamond Grading
The Expanded 4C^s
1. Cut = Light Return
2. Color
3. Clarity
4. Carat Weight
Clarity Characteristics
Degrees of Magnification
Diamond Grading Tools
Evaluating A Diamond
Fast Track to Brilliance
FireScope™
Fluorescence
Gem Ex Brilliance Scope
Grading for Real People
Holloway Cut Advisor
Polish
Proportions
Proportions Analysis
Sarin DiaMension
Symmetry
SymmetriScope™
The 60/60 Farce
Tolkowsky Range

Buyer Beware!
Chipped Diamonds
"Empty House Listers"
Re-Cut Diamonds
Secret Stuff
Treated Diamonds
When is "Ideal" not?

Diamond Price Tools
Paid Report Access
A word about pricing...
What is the "Rap Trap"?
What is Ho-Ho-Wholesale
What is a Site Sale?

Independent Laboratories
The GIA vs. the AGS

Important Stuff
100% Satisfaction Guarantee
0.00% Sales Tax!  Oh yea!
FAQ's or Fiction
Find an Appraiser
Kimberly Diamond Act
Ordering Information
Platinum Tips & Care
Privacy Policy
Ring Size Conversion
Shipping Information
Terms & Conditions
Time Zone 101
Trade-in Policy
What Do I Do Next?

Who Are These Nuts?
About Us
Ask A Fellow Netite
Contact Us
General Information
The Benefits of NiceIce
N.Y.D. Magazine says...
Services Offered
Visit Our Store!

Investigate Us
Jewelers Vigilance (JVC)
The Public Eye
Epinions.com

Interesting Stuff
Canadian Diamonds
Diavik Mine Canada
$295M DeBeers Settlement
Blood Diamond Movie
Sierra Leone Diamonds

The Legal Stuff
Copyright Notice
Terms & Conditions

Trade Affiliations:

Jewelers Vigilance

Jewelers of America

Manufacturing Jewelers
& Suppliers of America

Friends, Competitors
& Shopping Favorites!

Exchange Links w/Us!

*

*

Read This Before You Read This Article:

This specific page was written in 2001 and was the subject of much debate at that time on several Public Diamond Forums.  While much has changed in our industry since that time, this page has not been altered or removed from our server simply (with exception of the contents column that appears to the right) because it is essentially a part of history and valid links to this page remain within the depths of the various archives of these diamond chat rooms and we felt that removing the page would leave "holes" in the fabric of those threads which would result in a rather confusing read.  The equipment and concepts discussed on this page were in the early stages of development in 2001 and a lot has changed since then.  With regards to the Holloway Cut Advisor our current opinion of the program can be found here.  Note that no link to this page is available from the main pages of our web site.  This page does not reflect our current opinion of the Holloway Cut Advisor and exists solely for historical purposes.  We feel that removing the page or altering the content would be equivalent to tearing pages out of an old technical manual in a library simply because technology has changed.  If you choose to read the following, please do so from a historical perspective with the realization that so much has changed since this page was originally written.

Brilliance Score?  We're still waiting...
For real accuracy on a consistent basis...

"Come one, come all, step right up and have all of your brilliant questions answered by the magical cut advisor...  Enter just five little numbers and Mr. Wizard will magically provide you with a measure of a diamonds brilliance, fire, scintillation and overall visual performance..."

Will miracles never cease?  Yea, right...  We can't believe that anybody with an I.Q. higher than 12 would fall for this...  But not a day passes that somebody doesn't call us (while obviously scratching their head in confusion) asking about the results of their on-line cut advisor search engine query...  Do you really think that a number crunching software program can measure the brilliance, dispersion, and scintillation of a diamond when actual laser ray tracing can barely do it?  At best, this on-line "toy" will leave you with results that are truly Hollow.  And yes, many of our diamonds do score quite high when entered into the damn thing, but that is beside the point...  It is simply inaccurate.

In order to estimate the light return of a diamond by mathematical calculation, at least forty measurements are required...  Are you entering 40 measurements into the cut advisor?  No, you're entering five...  Thus 7/8th's of the required input for the equation is missing...

And if the software crunching the numbers behind the scenes is a certain diamond calculator program out of Russia, as we suspect it is, then the margin for error is whopping out there!  We have a full blown registered version of the program and have yet to actually be able to get the program to hold the actual variables that we've entered into it, even when the form fields are locked...  So when you enter in those five out of forty little magical numbers, it is likely that the program is adding and changing the numbers behind the scenes to match the most common denominators entered by the programmer, not the actual numbers you've entered...  So how accurate can those results be?

For instance, we had a 1.854 carat, H, SI-1 ideal cut diamond, AGS #0002500409 and wanted to run a "ray tracing" analysis on the diamond for one of our customers...  We entered the measurements of the stone as 8.02 - 8.06 x 4.82 mm and then entered 60.0% and 1% for the girdle, locking the field variables along the way...  We entered the crown height of 14.9% and the crown angle of 33.9 degrees once again locking the field variables so that they can not change...  This is what we've been told to do by the creators of the software to prevent the following scenario from occurring...  Next we tried to enter the table measurement of 56% but the program insists that the table measurement must be 58.2% and refuses to accept the actual measurement...  So with the program insisting that the table measurement is 58.2% instead of the actual 56% the pavilion depth of the diamond then becomes 44.1% instead of the actual 42.9% which is a dramatically different measurement...  But which apparently fits the program code and mathematical "theory" of what the diamond "should" be rather than what it actually is...  And this is what the full blown version of the program does, even when we lock the field variables which results in the program not allowing the correct information to be entered if it does not "like" it...  Software glitch?  Mathematical error?  Who knows...  Who cares...  It's simply inaccurate...  But this type of inaccuracy is just one of the reasons that we find the results of the program to be unacceptable...  Where is the control in a program intent on changing the variables in the background to fit with the program faults?  You're keying in the factors for one diamond while it is thinking of twelve others...  Leading you to believe that it's talking about the one you've found the whole time...  Is that the kind of visual summary that you want to base your purchase on?  We hope not...  That's why we're sticking our neck out and sharing this information with you...  We're tired of watching you guys get duped by a hollow study.  Here's a screen shot of the scenario described above:
 

Remember, this is how the program sees the diamond, these are not the measurements represented on the AGS Diamond Grading Report, AGS #0002500409

It has recently been suggested that the reason the program changes the variables is because we've been entering the information into the program incorrectly, apparently we're supposed to do so from top to bottom (which we've been doing) and NOT lock the field variables at all...  Which makes us wonder why there are locks next to each field to begin with, but whatever...  So here's a screen shot of the same diamond with the variables entered from top to bottom and the field variables left unlocked...
 

So let's see...  The girdle measurement of 0.9% is certainly within tolerance, but the crown angle went from 33.9 degrees down to 32.83 which is practically a whole degree of variation...  And while the table measurement remained at 56% the pavilion depth went up to 44% instead of the 42.8% reported on the diamond grading report although the angle remained at 40.8 degrees...  Does this have any of you engineers tossing and turning while you sleep?  Or don't sleep for that matter...  So the current "explanation" (excuse) for this is that the Sarin works on averages...  That's true...  Which means that the Sarin machine takes the high and low measurements for each category and averages it to the measurements reported on the diamond grading report...  So is this program re-calculating the averages that were calculated by the Sarin based on actual measurements to theoretical averages based on imaginary measurements?  Hmmm...  Put stone in Sarin...  Diamond spins around...  Sarin takes measurements of an actual diamond...  Averages those results and produces a label displaying those averages...  Kind of makes sense that those averages should remain relatively constant since they are based on a physical stone...  Reality versus fantasy...  However you look at it, the "hard shell" of the shape of the diamond is being altered without actually being measured.

Another "theory" that we were presented with by those trying to help us figure out this program is that "angles are more important than percentages"...  This is something that we agree with 100% the angles of a diamond are far more important than the percentages...  Fair enough, here goes:
 

Closer...  But still no cigar...  Crown height percent went up just a little, but is definitely within tolerance...  But the table measurement increased to 57.4 instead of the actual 56% averaged by the Sarin machine...  And the Pavilion Depth percent increased to 44% instead of the 42.9% averaged by the Sarin machine...  So if you had this program at your disposal, how many times and different methods would you be willing to try in order to obtain the results you desire before you shit-can this concept and move on to something else?  Don't know about you guys, but we're sure trying pretty hard to make it work...  We think that this program has some real potential and can't wait to get a copy that really, really, really, holds the variables that are entered into it...  Fortune cookie say "ignoring the facts, does not change the facts"...  Sounds pretty wise to us and it was a good cookie too...  Ignoring the fact that this program does not hold the field variables, does not change the fact that it doesn't...

It's this simple...

If you enter 1 + 1 into a calculator, you expect the end result to be two...  What if the calculator decided that you really meant to enter 1 + 1.3 and changed the field variables to match it's interpretation of your entry?  Would that be acceptable?  Not by our standards...  That's really all we're talking about here, the desire to be able to have a program base results on the actual data being entered and not changing the data being entered to fit it's preferences.  After all, it is just a software program...  Remember the old computer adage "garbage in, garbage out"...  If the script doesn't accept the data as entered, how can the results be trusted?

Another suggestion is that the information should be entered into the program in "Russian mode" and then switched to AGS mode...  Um, yea...  How about just entering the @!##! numbers and having them stick?  Thus far, we've yet to have anybody who is trying to "defend" this program produce an actual example which displays the numbers displayed on the diamond grading report...  Here again, YES the Sarin works on averages of the high and low points of each measurement...  And we're entering those averages into this program, so why is the program changing (re-calculating) those averages?  And if the on-line cut analyzer that we're referring to is based on this program, can you trust the results?  Here again, many of our diamonds display very nice results on this program, we're just not comfortable with having field variables changed on us because it makes us doubt the accuracy of the results even if those results are often to our favor...

Back to the on-line cut analyzer that we were discussing earlier...  We punched in the parameters for a hypothetical "mutt" of a stone...  We gave it a 53% table, a 60.5% total depth, a 34.5 degree crown angle, and a 41.3% pavilion depth (depth % not angle) with a 0% culet and the program told us that the diamond would have excellent brilliance, excellent, dispersion, excellent scintillation, and would have a very good spread or diameter for it's weight...  Essentially we "rang the bells of excellence" by punching in just the right four numbers, but the reality is that the stone is a Class 4 Mutt with an extremely thin girdle edge that is subject to breakage...  An absolute nightmare for a diamond setter...  And a pavilion that is extremely shallow, about 39.02 degrees to be exact...  Even Tolkowsky was able to work up a better stone on his chalkboard in 1919, but it's enough to fool the program and you into thinking you've found a beauty!  Or perhaps worse, caused you to eliminate a diamond that truly was beautiful.

Another insult brought to us at the hands of the creators of the diamond calculator and marketing program is that it dares to create renditions of what a diamond should look like when viewed through a Fire Scope, Gilbertson Scope, Gems Fantasy Scope, etc. which is an absolute outrage... There is absolutely no way, regardless of how many measurements are actually entered, to determine what a diamond might look like through one of these instruments without actually viewing it under these instruments... Yet the program dares to produce such images and thus the public may be duped into thinking that the diamond they are considering has actually been evaluated by one of those tools when in reality they are looking at nothing more than a virtual rendition of the possibilities created by the software program under the guise of reality...

Given this new "technology" we have to wonder...  When you tell us about the Fire Scope image for the diamond you are considering, are you looking at an actual Fire Scope image of that diamond?  Or a computerized mock-up beamed up by Scotty at the bridge of a Russian software program?  What about the picture of the Hearts & Arrows pattern?  Was it really taken through a Gems Fantasy Scope or once again was it created by a piece of software?  The pictures of the Hearts & Arrows patterns displayed on our Private Reserve are authentic...  You can tell because they are not perfect...  They display variances in the tonal patterns and inconsistencies within the patterns...  Hand crafted gems are not perfect, computer created images tend to appear so...  We shouldn't have to explain this occurrence to you, but unfortunately a few unscrupulous on-line dealers have forced us to explain this by implementing the use of computer created images on their sites...  We're not going to just throw a computer generated picture at you and tell you "Sure, it's Hearts & Arrows, now go away and be happy" we're going to show you the real thing...  And while we're on the subject of "the real thing" we want to take a second to talk about all of the companies that have jumped on the Hearts & Arrows Bandwagon recently...  More than 85% of the ideal cut diamonds listed on our Private Reserve were sent to us as "perfect Hearts & Arrows" diamonds by the cutters...  Yet you'll notice that we describe most of them as ideal cut diamonds...  This is because we know the difference between an "industry grade pattern of hearts and arrows" and a true "Hearts & Arrows" pattern as graded by Japanese standards...  As one of the original importers and resellers of real Hearts & Arrows diamonds, we know the difference...  Almost everybody else is merely following in our footsteps trying to grab a piece of the market we created...

Now back to our rant on brilliance scores...  If you can't determine the visual performance of a diamond using an on-line calculator, perhaps there is a way to consistently and accurately measure the visual performance of a diamond using some "state of the art" equipment...  Well, not yet kids...  At least not without a room full of laboratory grade laser scanning equipment capable of reading zits on the surface of the moon in twenty seconds or less...  Get the point?  These projects are under funded by short sighted profiteers who are over zealous to get a return out of their mistake, um, we meant to say "investment" by blindsiding the not-so-brilliant public with pretty little pictures and diagrams that aren't worth the paper they are printed on because they are not a conclusive analysis... Yet...

If you get nothing out of our entire site, please get this concept...  If there was an accurate, conclusive, fail proof method of measuring the visual performance of a diamond, don't you think that the GIA Gem Trade Laboratory and the American Gem Society Laboratory would be all over it?  We are waiting for the major (MAJOR) laboratories to address this issue from a non-profit, non-judgmental, non-selling, non-leasing, viewpoint...   Thus far we are only aware of one laboratory using a machine to measure the visual performance of a diamond and it's not the GIA or AGS...  Here's the rip...  Rumor has it that the laboratory is funded by the company that created the machine...  And we know for a fact that the machine that they are using to measure the visual performance of diamonds was actually developed to assist in the grading of colored gems such as rubies, sapphires, emeralds, etc. and not white diamonds...  So why is it being used for diamonds?  They won't tell us why, but our guess is that the company couldn't make enough profit off of selling or leasing the machine to the colored gem sector of our industry...  But you're not supposed to know that, and we're not supposed to be telling you that...  You're just supposed to be awed by the pretty pictures and skip along happily down the how-to-buy-a-diamond trail and remain "chum" in our shark infested waters...

Here's some more B.S. (that's an abbreviation are you brilliant enough to get it?)  Does it make sense to you that an accurate reading on the visual performance of a diamond can be obtained by shining light up through the bottom of a diamond and taking a measurement of how much light passes through the top of the diamond?  Consider for a moment that by design, diamonds are cut to do exactly the opposite...  They are cut to reflect light that enters the diamond from the top, and which bounces around the inside of the diamond, and then passes back out through the top of the stone...  Perhaps we've been mounting diamonds wrong all of these years!  Since so many of these freaky little machines measure light from the bottom up, perhaps we should mount the diamonds upside down for maximum visual performance...  That would at least make the software more accurate.

We have considered the equipment many times over the years and still find the results to lack the repeatable accuracy that we crave... Here are the problems as we see it with "Machine X"...

1. It evaluates the diamond in an artificial environment and thus may not necessarily produce results which are realistic, nor duplicatable in a real world environment with real lighting.  Is your fiancé willing to spend the rest of her life in an artificially lit chamber so that you'll be happy?  No, the artificially lit chamber is not the dressing room at Nordstrom's (we know she'd do that)...  To make the study work, the diamond would have to be mounted upside down, your female would have to be stored in an artificially lit, sound proof chamber...  Sound proof?  Where did sound proof come from?  Well, it just seemed like a good idea...  Did we mention that Nice Ice is owned by a woman?  Most people don't know that...  Robin was quick to point out that this artificially lit, sound proof chamber with the upside down diamond thing wasn't going to fly.

2. We have been told that the dispersion readings are inaccurate because the stone is measured against a white background which causes an inaccurate reading due to the white background reflecting light back up into the stone.  The reading should be taken against a flat black background and that suggestion has been made to the manufacturer by gemologists "in the know" and that suggestion has been ignored thus far...  We have also been told that attempts to take readings against a black background did not produce sufficient results and thus a white background is necessary...  We're not saying which is correct, but it is a concern that requires further investigation...

3. Unless calibrated weekly, the machine is known to return higher results than normal. Calibration of the machine is done by the owner / operator and thus the machine may be calibrated to return higher than average results. Thus the accuracy of the machine is only as good as the integrity of the operator and the accuracy of which they are capable of calibrating the machine.  Do you engineers really want to leave the calibration of a machine up to the person selling the stone?  How impartial can that be?  Rumor has it that more than a few of the dealers using this equipment have already been busted by the manufacturer for over calibrating and not calibrating their machines to obtain the "desired results" as opposed to the actual results...  Perhaps this is why Sarin sealed their unit...

4. Machine "X" takes measurements at six different angles, variations in the angle at which the light bounces off of the diamond will alter the readings of the machine resulting in a "scaling" problem because variance in position may result in inaccurate readings. In other words, the position at which the diamond is set by the operator of the machine is likely to vary each time a diamond is placed in the machine for measurement and thus one diamond is likely to get a different reading than another solely based on the starting position of the diamond...  For that matter, the same diamond may obtain a different reading each time it is placed in the machine depending on the consistency of placement...  Kind of like a girl getting into a bathing suit...  Tends to look different every time depending on placement (Robin said that)...

5. Additional "scaling" problems may result from a variation in the size of each diamond being measured (kind of like that bathing suit thing).  In other words, it is fair to assume that the light will bounce off of a one carat diamond at a different angle than it would bounce off of a third of a carat or five carat diamond, thus producing inaccurate results.  So that 1.25 "DD" carat diamond that seems to "perform" so much better than the 0.50 "AA" carat diamond may only be doing so because of a minor alteration in the angle at which the light bounces off of the surface of the diamond and the subsequent reflection off of the field that is read by the machine...  Robin says that this is kind of like putting different girls in the same bathing suit and expecting to be able to measure their performance equally...  We don't recommend quoting that last sentence if you plan on getting engaged any time soon...

6. Misalignment of the central axis of the diamond will affect the reading.  We've gagged Robin and tied her up in the closet to prevent any comment on this one...  The "central axis" of the diamond is the direct line between the exact center point of the table and the corresponding exact center point of the culet. While this may seem like a relative point, the reality is that being off center just a fraction of a millimeter would produce significant variance in the accuracy of the reading causing a higher than average or lower than average result...  Ask any proctologist...  Or try this...  Can you park your car within the white lines of a parking space the same way every time?  Of course not, either can we...

All of the above applies for the readings produced by "Machine Y" and any other method of "measuring" the visual output of a diamond developed thus far.  The reality is that while several companies that have produced equipment designed to measure the brilliance, dispersion, and scintillation, of a diamond are trying to create a market for their equipment, not one of these companies has produced a piece of equipment that is actually accurate on a constant basis.  Once again, we'd like to remind you that none of the equipment you are being hypnotized by at the hands of diamond retailers has been accepted by the independent, accredited, gemological laboratories such as GIA or AGS with the exception of the Sarin machine and it only measures the proportions of a diamond and not the visual output.  Perhaps the fact that not one of the independent gemological laboratories uses X,Y, or Z machines or any other method of measuring brilliance in their evaluation process should be a good indicator as to the accuracy of these pieces of equipment...  And the GIA has a Gem Tools division...  Thus if they thought the equipment was "bonafide" they would probably be trying to figure out a way to sell it and we would be figuring out a way to buy it and bring the results to you.  This is not to say that the results from the equipment being discussed should not be used in the selection process of finding your diamond...  Just that the results should be taken with a grain of salt and not as an absolute indicator of visual performance or beauty...  These machines and ideas are "works in progress" and there is still a lot to be learned and fine tuned with all of them...  We're not buying into the results at this time, nor are we suggesting that you do because we feel they are insufficient, problematic and without conclusive scientific evidence that they work...  As soon as the equipment and concepts in question reach the point of being scientifically conclusive, we'll be biting at the bit to implement them...  Until then, all we ask you to do is think about it...  Maybe you'll be the one to create the machine that produces the answers. 

May we help you find the diamond of your dreams?
Send us an email diamonds@niceice.com and tell us what you are looking for.
Or give us a call at 206.319.8152 or Toll Free 877.844.5443

Copyright © 1996 - 2007 Nice Ice, Inc.

AGS® is a registered trademark of the American Gem Society (702) 255-6500
GIA® is a registered trademark of the Gemological Institute of America (760) 603-4000