Radiant Diamond Cut Evaluation Education

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan
Are you suggesting that a cutter takes the diamond worth $100,000 and makes it into a slightly better cut diamond, yet a smaller one that cost $110,000 to the consumer is not trying to maximize profits?
In the end, the consumer pays for this.
Part of evaluating cut of a radiant cut diamond is deciding if it's worth it.
That's why comparing these first two stones should provide an interesting point of discussion. As I mentioned earlier it's not a clear-cut choice. There are very good reasons to go either way.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan
Are you suggesting that a cutter takes the diamond worth $100,000 and makes it into a slightly better cut diamond, yet a smaller one that cost $110,000 to the consumer is not trying to maximize profits?
In the end, the consumer pays for this.
Part of evaluating cut of a radiant cut diamond is deciding if it's worth it.
That's why comparing these first two stones should provide an interesting point of discussion. As I mentioned earlier it's not a clear-cut choice. There are very good reasons to go either way.

David,
I am saying that the cutter, with essentially the same costs, and selling at essentially the same price to the consumer,can choose to bring to the market a 5 ct commercial or a smaller stone optimized for beauty. What we know to be true is that there are some consumers who would much prefer to sacrifice a little weight for the best cut quality they can get.

The cutter's tendency is to do business they way they have always done business. But in many cases they are failing a segment of the consumer market who truly believe "Cut is King". Old habits die hard. Al Gilberson chronicled this pattern beautifully. For anyone interested in cut quality and how we arrived at the place we are today in this regard, I highly recommend this book.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan
Are you suggesting that a cutter takes the diamond worth $100,000 and makes it into a slightly better cut diamond, yet a smaller one that cost $110,000 to the consumer is not trying to maximize profits?
In the end, the consumer pays for this.
Part of evaluating cut of a radiant cut diamond is deciding if it's worth it.
That's why comparing these first two stones should provide an interesting point of discussion. As I mentioned earlier it's not a clear-cut choice. There are very good reasons to go either way.

David,
I am saying that the cutter, with essentially the same costs, and selling at essentially the same price to the consumer,can choose to bring to the market a 5 ct commercial or a smaller stone optimized for beauty. What we know to be true is that there are some consumers who would much prefer to sacrifice a little weight for the best cut quality they can get.

The cutter's tendency is to do business they way they have always done business. But in many cases they are failing a segment of the consumer market who truly believe "Cut is King". Old habits die hard. Al Gilberson chronicled this pattern beautifully. For anyone interested in cut quality and how we arrived at the place we are today in this regard, I highly recommend this book.

Bryan- The stone not a hypothetical example. It's not the same price for the stone as is, or the stone recut to be slightly better cut. The second version is more expensive to the consumer. Start with the same piece of rough, polish it to a smaller carat weight, slightly better cut to get a higher price.
You're also discounting the cost of labor and risk. We're not talking about bad cutters, we're talking about the worlds best cutters. It's very expensive to put a 5 carat diamond on the wheel.
Also, generalizations don't help anything. A lot of the cutters we deal with are on the cutting edge. Stone #2 was cut by someone who is a genius with diamonds and has all the latest technology.
Generalizations about cut don't help consumers either. Saying people should look for only the best cut without showing them what something that slightly less will cut looks like is a disservice to them.
I think that's part of the point of this thread. To show the variations in radiant cut and what they mean.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan
Are you suggesting that a cutter takes the diamond worth $100,000 and makes it into a slightly better cut diamond, yet a smaller one that cost $110,000 to the consumer is not trying to maximize profits?
In the end, the consumer pays for this.
Part of evaluating cut of a radiant cut diamond is deciding if it's worth it.
That's why comparing these first two stones should provide an interesting point of discussion. As I mentioned earlier it's not a clear-cut choice. There are very good reasons to go either way.

David,
I am saying that the cutter, with essentially the same costs, and selling at essentially the same price to the consumer,can choose to bring to the market a 5 ct commercial or a smaller stone optimized for beauty. What we know to be true is that there are some consumers who would much prefer to sacrifice a little weight for the best cut quality they can get.

The cutter's tendency is to do business they way they have always done business. But in many cases they are failing a segment of the consumer market who truly believe "Cut is King". Old habits die hard. Al Gilberson chronicled this pattern beautifully. For anyone interested in cut quality and how we arrived at the place we are today in this regard, I highly recommend this book.

Bryan- The stone not a hypothetical example. It's not the same price for the stone as is, or the stone recut to be slightly better cut. The second version is more expensive to the consumer. Start with the same piece of rough, polish it to a smaller carat weight, slightly better cut to get a higher price.
You're also discounting the cost of labor and risk. We're not talking about bad cutters, we're talking about the worlds best cutters. It's very expensive to put a 5 carat diamond on the wheel.
Also, generalizations don't help anything. A lot of the cutters we deal with are on the cutting edge. Stone #2 was cut by someone who is a genius with diamonds and has all the latest technology.
Generalizations about cut don't help consumers either. Saying people should look for only the best cut without showing them what something that slightly less will cut looks like is a disservice to them.
I think that's part of the point of this thread. To show the variations in radiant cut and what they mean.

Sir, you are the one who prefaced your comments about the 5ct vs the 4.5 with the phrase "hypothetically speaking".

The risks of putting a 5ct stone back on the wheel would be moot if the rough had been planned to optimize for beauty rather than to hit a specific weight. Moreover, talking about the risks on the part of the cutter just sounds like apology for producing mediocre diamonds. How is that a benefit for a consumer?

All the economics that are involved on the part of the cutter are interesting, but not particularly relevant to a consumer shopping for a diamond. What is important is that they understand the various quality factors well enough to make an informed decision. Price becomes relevant at the point the consumer has options that can be compared intelligently. And at that point it makes little difference to the consumer what the cutter's cost was or what risks he took to bring his stone to market.

I have bolded the last line in your post. I will tune back in when you decide to "show the variations in radiant cut and what they mean".

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sir-The price was hypothetical – the stone is an actual diamond. To that end – what do you think of the diamond? Based on ASET and photos. What's your thoughts?

 

[Karl_K]

To get back on track starting with the regular photos of the second diamond.
It looks like there are more large mushy areas with little light return compared to the first.
The light return is less even over the stone.
That is the biggest difference I see.
Then I look at the ASET and I see large dark zones and that the red areas is not even across the stone.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Sir-The price was hypothetical – the stone is an actual diamond. To that end – what do you think of the diamond? Based on ASET and photos. What's your thoughts?

The ASET looks watery, perhaps more so than the first one, but has a fair amount of red with some green scattered about. The face up image looks nice, but you say it windows out with a small amount of tilt. That is a bad trait for a stone that you indicate is well cut.

Because you say the first ASET it tilted and the second ASET is "horrible" because you could not get it level, I don't think anyone is able to derive much insight at this point. Rather than say things that may sound negative because of image problems, I will withhold further comment until I see more examples, including some radiants that you consider poorly cut.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

While we are waiting for other examples, I do have a question. Given that the radiant cut faceting design produces a more subtle visual appeal arising from a myriad of small virtual facets which you have described as both "a bottomless bucket of crushed ice" and "a gazillion little sparkles", is there a minimum diamond size for radiant to be able to fully appreciate its unique type of light performance?

That is, would you say radiants in general need to be larger than other facet designs? At what size would the virtual facets become too small to produce uniquely desirable effects?

 

[RADIANTMAN]

I agree that David's point about why a cutter might choose to cut a diamond a certain way is, and ought to be, of little or no interest to the consumer who buys it. All that matters is the final product.

I think David's other point (at least what I think he's saying) is correct. There are many components to a great cut, not only in radiants but in diamonds generally, but the two that I believe most consumers care about are brightness (however they perceive it) and spread. Sometimes a diamond will sacrifice a little bit of one for the other but where that balance should be struck is not something "science" can answer. Its pretty easy to rule out the extremes - when the diamond is just way too small or lifeless but in the middle there's a range of good choices that are a matter of taste not a magical scientifically validated right answer.

A diamond that sacrifices a little (but not too much) brilliance for better "spread" is not necessarily a "swindled" stone or even a "less than optimal" stone. It may well be better choice for a customer for whom visible size is a high priority as it is for many people.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Stan- the reason I felt the reasoning behind the diamond was important is that there's a common thread on Pricescope.
The greedy diamond cutters are cutting bad stones and ripping off the consumer.
Example#2 is NOT badly cut by any means- and the reasoning behind it looking as it does are not nefarious. Nether is the diamond itself.
Guys- I agree that staying on track is important so let's just look at the stones.
Stan- you and I looked at example #2 together- what were your impressions?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I agree that David's point about why a cutter might choose to cut a diamond a certain way is, and ought to be, of little or no interest to the consumer who buys it. All that matters is the final product.

I think David's other point (at least what I think he's saying) is correct. There are many components to a great cut, not only in radiants but in diamonds generally, but the two that I believe most consumers care about are brightness (however they perceive it) and spread. Sometimes a diamond will sacrifice a little bit of one for the other but where that balance should be struck is not something "science" can answer. Its pretty easy to rule out the extremes - when the diamond is just way too small or lifeless but in the middle there's a range of good choices that are a matter of taste not a magical scientifically validated right answer.

A diamond that sacrifices a little (but not too much) brilliance for better "spread" is not necessarily a "swindled" stone or even a "less than optimal" stone. It may well be better choice for a customer for whom visible size is a high priority as it is for many people.

Agreed. There is a range, even in super ideal rounds, where you can trade off a little something here for a little more of something else there. Those differences are small but meaningful to some folks. I therefore think it is helpful to study the extremes by looking at examples of really well cut stones along with those that have significant problems.

If we can understand more accurately how to seperate likely good performers from those that clearly have issues, I believe prosumers will start to develop more confidence working with posters recommending radiants when appropriate.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan,
I'm going to go out on a limb here- I honestly believe if you saw example#2 in person, you'd understand that there's sight compromises- but you'd be blown away by it.
Wanna come to NY and play?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan,
I'm going to go out on a limb here- I honestly believe if you saw example#2 in person, you'd understand that there's sight compromises- but you'd be blown away by it.
Wanna come to NY and play?

I'll take your word for it David. I'm not exactly sure what sight compromises are but I imagine the stone makes quite an impression .

 

[Rockdiamond]

"Slight" compromises- sorry, it was a typo

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Okay this is my take on diamond #2
- good and bad -

Good -

1. Huge for its carat weight. The LXW of most 5 carat radiant is 90-95. On this diamond its 103. I did a rapnet search for radiants weighing 5.5 - 5.6 and this diamond looks bigger than more than 1/2 of them.

2. Beautiful even brilliance when viewed straight on. No concentrations of black or windowing. From a direct angle the brilliance holds its own against any radiant

Bad

1. Windows out a bit- but not too much - with relatively little tilt

2. Will likely lose its brilliance pretty readily when the pavilion gets dirty. It will be important for its ultimate wearer to keep it really clean and should be mounted in a ring style that makes it easy to clean

 

[kenny]

That's a great question Karl.
This stone really does act as a sounding board.
First of all, as I explained, the cost is lower, so the consumer should be paying less for this diamond than the smaller ever so slightly better cut one.
Hypothetically speaking the 5ct would be $100k, and 4.50ct would be $105- 110k and I'm only considering the labor. If we factor in risk it could justifiably bring the price even higher.
As we both know intimately well- it can cost a huge amount in both material, design and labor to get that final bit of improvement.
Point is, the stone really looks great as it is.
Another point- each stone needs to be judged on it merits.
We agree that cut is extremely important- but not to the total exclusion of color and clarity.
Sometimes a stone may have extremely desirable combination of size, overall shape, color and clarity.
And say the cutter took the path of the person who cut this diamond- a really nice cut, but not the absolute best.
If that diamond costs less than a slightly better cut stone, as it should based on cost- it definitely does represent a viable choice for a consumer.
Last point to remember to that the improvement in brightness we'd gain with that 10% weight loss is very subtle- by no means night and day

It's not really all that simple a choice.
I can see the appeal of both scenarios.

David,
Your economics lesson is confusing. Your hypothetical involves the decision by the cutter to stay at 5 ct with a less well cut diamond or sacrifice weight to produce a diamond with better light performance. The rough cost to the cutter is exactly the same whether he stops at 5 or goes to 4.5. The only difference is the additional labor cost which in the case of a stone this size is minimal. And the economic decision on the part of the cutter is that he can charge MORE for the 5ct, even though it was not cut as well as it could be, because it hits a magic mark. So while it may be in the cutter's interest to make this tradeoff, it is not necessarily in the consumer's interest.

So, while you have taken great pains to explain some of the considerations and challenges on the part of the cutter, the focus of this forum, and presumably this thread, is to teach consumers how to distinguish a well cut diamond (radiant) from one that has been compromised for weight retention or other reasons.

It is certainly interesting to fully understand how complicated the calculus is on the part of the cutter, and to appreciate the stress that must be involved in bringing a 5 ct diamond to life, but it only serves as a distraction to the goal of this discussion.

Bryan, don't be confused or allow him to distract you.
There's a word for what's going on here.

Wikisnip:
Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, willfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Kenny,
A given piece of rough cast $50k
Whichever cutter bough that piece of rough wants to sell it, after polishing, for more than $50k.
Let's use a hypothetical profit margin of $10k
If it's plotted out at maximum cut quality, it will come out to 4cts
Or, it can be cut to 90% cut quality and come out to 5cts.
Removing all other factors- both the 4 and 5 carat stones will sell for $60k- making the 5ct cheaper than the 4, on a per carat basis.
If we assume that the cutter who can do maximum cut quality is perfectly able to cut to 90% quality, there's a good likelihood if they put max effort in, they'd want to make more than the $10k they can make selling it as a 5ct.
Why? Well, the best is the best, and yes, this costs more. The best cutters charge a lot. They should, They are the best, and deserve more.
Ask Karl what it costs to repeatedly adjust a stone to get it to maximum cut quality.

To be very clear- I'm not suggesting the costlier, better cut stone is not worth more- it is worth more.
I love super well cut stones, and readily pay more for them
I just don't immediately reject a "normal" well cut stone because it's not super ideal.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Okay this is my take on diamond #2
- good and bad -

Good -

1. Huge for its carat weight. The LXW of most 5 carat radiant is 90-95. On this diamond its 103. I did a rapnet search for radiants weighing 5.5 - 5.6 and this diamond looks bigger than more than 1/2 of them.

2. Beautiful even brilliance when viewed straight on. No concentrations of black or windowing. From a direct angle the brilliance holds its own against any radiant

Bad

1. Windows out a bit- but not too much - with relatively little tilt

2. Will likely lose its brilliance pretty readily when the pavilion gets dirty. It will be important for its ultimate wearer to keep it really clean and should be mounted in a ring style that makes it easy to clean

That's instructive commentary Stan. Is there anything in either the ASET image or the photos that would give a clue to the tilt issue?

Can you also give your commentary on diamond #1?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

That's a great question Karl.
This stone really does act as a sounding board.
First of all, as I explained, the cost is lower, so the consumer should be paying less for this diamond than the smaller ever so slightly better cut one.
Hypothetically speaking the 5ct would be $100k, and 4.50ct would be $105- 110k and I'm only considering the labor. If we factor in risk it could justifiably bring the price even higher.
As we both know intimately well- it can cost a huge amount in both material, design and labor to get that final bit of improvement.
Point is, the stone really looks great as it is.
Another point- each stone needs to be judged on it merits.
We agree that cut is extremely important- but not to the total exclusion of color and clarity.
Sometimes a stone may have extremely desirable combination of size, overall shape, color and clarity.
And say the cutter took the path of the person who cut this diamond- a really nice cut, but not the absolute best.
If that diamond costs less than a slightly better cut stone, as it should based on cost- it definitely does represent a viable choice for a consumer.
Last point to remember to that the improvement in brightness we'd gain with that 10% weight loss is very subtle- by no means night and day

It's not really all that simple a choice.
I can see the appeal of both scenarios.

David,
Your economics lesson is confusing. Your hypothetical involves the decision by the cutter to stay at 5 ct with a less well cut diamond or sacrifice weight to produce a diamond with better light performance. The rough cost to the cutter is exactly the same whether he stops at 5 or goes to 4.5. The only difference is the additional labor cost which in the case of a stone this size is minimal. And the economic decision on the part of the cutter is that he can charge MORE for the 5ct, even though it was not cut as well as it could be, because it hits a magic mark. So while it may be in the cutter's interest to make this tradeoff, it is not necessarily in the consumer's interest.

So, while you have taken great pains to explain some of the considerations and challenges on the part of the cutter, the focus of this forum, and presumably this thread, is to teach consumers how to distinguish a well cut diamond (radiant) from one that has been compromised for weight retention or other reasons.

It is certainly interesting to fully understand how complicated the calculus is on the part of the cutter, and to appreciate the stress that must be involved in bringing a 5 ct diamond to life, but it only serves as a distraction to the goal of this discussion.

Bryan, don't be confused or allow him to distract you.
There's a word for what's going on here.

Wikisnip:
Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, willfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.

If posts were graded like diamonds, some of them would be Imperfect and under comments it would say, "clarity grade based on beclouding not shown"

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan- do you understand my point about the economics now?
I am trying to clearly state my points.
While others seem heck bent in disturbing and preventing the open discourse.
As I pointed out earlier, this is important because the economics of it get distorted by incorrect assumptions, which tends to color discussions on the diamonds themselves.

 

[kenny]

That's a great question Karl.
This stone really does act as a sounding board.
First of all, as I explained, the cost is lower, so the consumer should be paying less for this diamond than the smaller ever so slightly better cut one.
Hypothetically speaking the 5ct would be $100k, and 4.50ct would be $105- 110k and I'm only considering the labor. If we factor in risk it could justifiably bring the price even higher.
As we both know intimately well- it can cost a huge amount in both material, design and labor to get that final bit of improvement.
Point is, the stone really looks great as it is.
Another point- each stone needs to be judged on it merits.
We agree that cut is extremely important- but not to the total exclusion of color and clarity.
Sometimes a stone may have extremely desirable combination of size, overall shape, color and clarity.
And say the cutter took the path of the person who cut this diamond- a really nice cut, but not the absolute best.
If that diamond costs less than a slightly better cut stone, as it should based on cost- it definitely does represent a viable choice for a consumer.
Last point to remember to that the improvement in brightness we'd gain with that 10% weight loss is very subtle- by no means night and day

It's not really all that simple a choice.
I can see the appeal of both scenarios.

David,
Your economics lesson is confusing. Your hypothetical involves the decision by the cutter to stay at 5 ct with a less well cut diamond or sacrifice weight to produce a diamond with better light performance. The rough cost to the cutter is exactly the same whether he stops at 5 or goes to 4.5. The only difference is the additional labor cost which in the case of a stone this size is minimal. And the economic decision on the part of the cutter is that he can charge MORE for the 5ct, even though it was not cut as well as it could be, because it hits a magic mark. So while it may be in the cutter's interest to make this tradeoff, it is not necessarily in the consumer's interest.

So, while you have taken great pains to explain some of the considerations and challenges on the part of the cutter, the focus of this forum, and presumably this thread, is to teach consumers how to distinguish a well cut diamond (radiant) from one that has been compromised for weight retention or other reasons.

It is certainly interesting to fully understand how complicated the calculus is on the part of the cutter, and to appreciate the stress that must be involved in bringing a 5 ct diamond to life, but it only serves as a distraction to the goal of this discussion.

Bryan, don't be confused or allow him to distract you.
There's a word for what's going on here.

Wikisnip:
Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, willfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.

If posts were graded like diamonds, some of them would be Imperfect and under comments it would say, "clarity grade based on beclouding not shown"

Exactly! ... and I want nothing to do with such diamonds or such posts.

But I will point out what's wrong with them to, hopefully, protect the public from being suckered in.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

I'm re-posting the below because it seems to have gotten buried behind what seems to me to be a bit of an unproductive pissing contest about how diamond cutters make money. Cutting or selling a badly cut diamond isn't dishonest unless you misrepresent it. Discussions about cut are not about integrity they are about educating people about their choices so they can choose wisely.

Can we please try to stay on track and not get distracted by people trying to score some kind of points. I'm learning that some folks on here have long standing personal grudges with each other and in blogging like in life everybody isn't going to like each other but none of this is helping consumers.

My post:

Okay this is my take on diamond #2
- good and bad -

Good -

1. Huge for its carat weight. The LXW of most 5 carat radiant is 90-95. On this diamond its 103. I did a rapnet search for radiants weighing 5.5 - 5.6 and this diamond looks bigger than more than 1/2 of them.

2. Beautiful even brilliance when viewed straight on. No concentrations of black or windowing. From a direct angle the brilliance holds its own against any radiant

Bad

1. Windows out a bit- but not too much - with relatively little tilt

2. Will likely lose its brilliance pretty readily when the pavilion gets dirty. It will be important for its ultimate wearer to keep it really clean and should be mounted in a ring style that makes it easy to clean.

I'll be happy to provide my take on each diamond David posts an image of provided I have an opportunity to see it. My office is across the street from his so I'm sure we can make that happen.

 

[Karl_K]

Bryan- do you understand my point about the economics now?
I am trying to clearly state my points.
While others seem heck bent in disturbing and preventing the open discourse.
As I pointed out earlier, this is important because the economics of it get distorted by incorrect assumptions, which tends to color discussions on the diamonds themselves.

David,
While interesting it is distracting from getting info on identifying a well cut radiant.
It is a cutter problem not a consumer problem.
It does not matter one bit why a diamond was cut less well than possible for the cut, just the fact that it was is all that matters when deciding on buying a stone.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan- do you understand my point about the economics now?
I am trying to clearly state my points.
While others seem heck bent in disturbing and preventing the open discourse.
As I pointed out earlier, this is important because the economics of it get distorted by incorrect assumptions, which tends to color discussions on the diamonds themselves.

David,
Do you understand my point that the economics are irrelevant to this discussion? We are only trying to understand cut quality of radiants.

The only economics that the consumer cares about is the price of the diamond relative to the market for other diamonds of like kind and quality. How the diamond arrived at it's present condition or what the cutter went through along the way is really relevant only to the cutter.

If you continue to give economics lessons you only serve to becloud the thread YOU started that some of us are trying to support because we are interested in learning.

 

[kenny]

I guess we should buy poorly-cut diamonds out of sympathy for the poor fellows who cut, market, and sell them.
Equal rights, and all that.

Pricescope directing people to well-cut diamonds is so mean.

 

[petrock<3]

Bryan- do you understand my point about the economics now?
I am trying to clearly state my points.
While others seem heck bent in disturbing and preventing the open discourse.
As I pointed out earlier, this is important because the economics of it get distorted by incorrect assumptions, which tends to color discussions on the diamonds themselves.

David,
While interesting it is distracting from getting info on identifying a well cut radiant.
It is a cutter problem not a consumer problem.
It does not matter one bit why a diamond was cut less well than possible for the cut, just the fact that it was is all that matters when deciding on buying a stone.

+1 interesting but too much for one thread

 

[Rockdiamond]

My apologies for getting drawn into the negativity guys.
Yes, please let's move forward

 

[kenny]

What's negative is you know that you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to diamonds with good cut, so instead of just going away you smell money here so you stand on your head and juggle brightly colored balls and bowling pins to distract, and confuse and get attention, name recognition, a higher google-rating for your site.
You intentionally act dumb (you are actually very clever), egg people on so you'll get beat up over and over which generates some sympathy sales from people who feel sorry for poor David.

Astonishing that admin doesn't get it and ban you.
Probably they don't have time to read your prolific posts.

For 10 years I've watched you play this game and exasperate Pricescope's most-knowledgeable pros and prosumers, who for some reason still give you the time of day.
(Yet, here I am giving you what you don't deserve, attention.)

You sell diamonds so poorly cut that they have to be lit from behind to conceal their leakiness, and have the temerity to call it proprietary lighting.
Like Gypsy said, that's your market; just own it like Zales and Kay's does.
They don't come here and obfuscate about light performance and cut.

This is a diamond forum all about education and good cut from an ungodly-expensive material uniquely capable of an astonishing light show ... but only if well-cut!
Give up your crusade against good cut (which you disguise as respecting diversity) and against knowledge itself.
Everyone sees right through it.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Kenny - I have (twice) provided my thoughts on David's diamond#2 based on seeing the diamond in person. If you disagree with my observations based on viewing the photo and the ASET, please share your reasons. I'd be happy to address them as best I can. But continuing to play out your grievances against David by attacking his integrity is not helpful to the folks who come here to learn. I don't know the backstory that has led to your attitude toward David and perhaps you have legitimate gripes against him, but I do know that beating this dead horse is distracting from a serious, and in my opinion important conversation.

 

[petrock<3]

Kenny - I have (twice) provided my thoughts on David's diamond#2 based on seeing the diamond in person. If you disagree with my observations based on viewing the photo and the ASET, please share your reasons. I'd be happy to address them as best I can. But continuing to play out your grievances against David by attacking his integrity is not helpful to the folks who come here to learn. I don't know the backstory that has led to your attitude toward David and perhaps you have legitimate gripes against him, but I do know that beating this dead horse is distracting from a serious, and in my opinion important conversation.

+ infinity
There are people who would like to see where this thread goes.