Radiant Diamond Cut Evaluation Education

[RADIANTMAN]

Bryan - contrary to popular opinion, David and I are different people. David is doing the image posting - I do not even have the faintest idea how to do that. I've treked across the street to see the diamonds live and am giving my impressions. I have not seen the ASETs or the photos until David posts them and my impressions are based entirely on seeing the diamond live. I think that's the most informative approach since it means I am not biased by the ASET or the photo. I agree that it would be helpful to see the ASETs side by side with photos to compare both to David's and my impressions about the diamond itself.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan you are correct, it's kind of difficult to tell which one is which the way they've been spread over pages. I will make the composite photos and put a label on each to avoid confusion. Sorry but this all takes a bit of time

 

[marylongslot]

I came to learn more about Radiants and this title seemed so interesting.

It just seems like Rockdiamond and Radiantman are selectively presenting the virtues of these examples but hardly anything on their weaknesses or the reason why they are not as popular as other cuts.

It doesn't seem that anyonelse is providing any balance or critical interpretation of what they are presenting.
How do these compare to other types of cut cornered squares cut with different goals?

I don't see this thread as educational it seems more like promotional.

 

[Karl_K]

I came to learn more about Radiants and this title seemed so interesting.

It just seems like Rockdiamond and Radiantman are selectively presenting the virtues of these examples but hardly anything on their weaknesses or the reason why they are not as popular as other cuts.

It doesn't seem that anyonelse is providing any balance or critical interpretation of what they are presenting.
How do these compare to other types of cut cornered squares cut with different goals?

I don't see this thread as educational it seems more like promotional.

different goals for different threads.
The goal of this thread is providing examples to help learn how to separate a nice radiant from a not so great one based on David's and Stan's knowledge, experience and opinion.
Comparing them to other cuts is really another thread.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

I came to learn more about Radiants and this title seemed so interesting.

It just seems like Rockdiamond and Radiantman are selectively presenting the virtues of these examples but hardly anything on their weaknesses or the reason why they are not as popular as other cuts.

It doesn't seem that anyonelse is providing any balance or critical interpretation of what they are presenting.
How do these compare to other types of cut cornered squares cut with different goals?

I don't see this thread as educational it seems more like promotional.

Mary - from my perspective the purpose of the thread is to help people better understand radiants, and the strengths and limitations of the online tools available for evaluating them. It is not to compare radiants to other cuts and persuade anyone that a radiant is somehow "better" or "worse"than other cuts. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the rules bar me from even participating in that kind of thread?

 

[marylongslot]

I came to learn more about Radiants and this title seemed so interesting.

It just seems like Rockdiamond and Radiantman are selectively presenting the virtues of these examples but hardly anything on their weaknesses or the reason why they are not as popular as other cuts.

It doesn't seem that anyonelse is providing any balance or critical interpretation of what they are presenting.
How do these compare to other types of cut cornered squares cut with different goals?

I don't see this thread as educational it seems more like promotional.

separate a nice radiant from a not so great one based on David's and Stan's knowledge, experience and opinion

These ASET images are all over the place. Some look badly taken as they are badly tilted.

The way the diamonds handle light seems so different, some have large solid patches of red and blue(dark zones?), others dont.
Some have large patches of what looks like solid white under the table. Others have predominantly green/grey throughout the table.

Some have mostly small and medium patches, others have large and small patches.

Some of these are square, some much more rectangular. It seems counter intuitive that they would each handle light the same way.

I just don't get it, what conclusion can I draw?

 

[marylongslot]

I came to learn more about Radiants and this title seemed so interesting.

It just seems like Rockdiamond and Radiantman are selectively presenting the virtues of these examples but hardly anything on their weaknesses or the reason why they are not as popular as other cuts.

It doesn't seem that anyonelse is providing any balance or critical interpretation of what they are presenting.
How do these compare to other types of cut cornered squares cut with different goals?

I don't see this thread as educational it seems more like promotional.

Mary - from my perspective the purpose of the thread is to help people better understand radiants, and the strengths and limitations of the online tools available for evaluating them. It is not to compare radiants to other cuts and persuade anyone that a radiant is somehow "better" or "worse"than other cuts. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the rules bar me from even participating in that kind of thread?

Without using your eyes or Rockdiamond's how can I tell what a "well cut" radiant is by myself when I look at it on my finger?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

I came to learn more about Radiants and this title seemed so interesting.

It just seems like Rockdiamond and Radiantman are selectively presenting the virtues of these examples but hardly anything on their weaknesses or the reason why they are not as popular as other cuts.

It doesn't seem that anyonelse is providing any balance or critical interpretation of what they are presenting.
How do these compare to other types of cut cornered squares cut with different goals?

I don't see this thread as educational it seems more like promotional.

separate a nice radiant from a not so great one based on David's and Stan's knowledge, experience and opinion

These ASET images are all over the place. Some look badly taken as they are badly tilted.

The way the diamonds handle light seems so different, some have large solid patches of red and blue(dark zones?), others dont.
Some have large patches of what looks like solid white under the table. Others have predominantly green/grey throughout the table.

Some have mostly small and medium patches, others have large and small patches.

Some of these are square, some much more rectangular. It seems counter intuitive that they would each handle light the same way.

I just don't get it, what conclusion can I draw?

At this point none of us can really draw any conclusions. As Stan explained the stated purpose here is to see if there are ways to evaluate the cut quality of radiants with the tools that are widely used here to understand the light handling ability of various other diamond cuts. The ASET signatures of radiants are different from the other cuts which we have more familiarity with, and those differences need to be understood.

RockDiamond who started this thread has persistently and vociferously agued that ASET is of no value in understanding radiant cuts and other crushed ice cuts because people here do not know how to interpret them properly. He frequently rails against prosumers who give what he considers misguided advice to consumers as a result. We are hoping that he, with Stan's assistance, can shed some light so that consumers coming here looking for help in selecting a radiant can get the best possible guidance.

The jury is still out whether that will happen in this thread.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

I came to learn more about Radiants and this title seemed so interesting.

It just seems like Rockdiamond and Radiantman are selectively presenting the virtues of these examples but hardly anything on their weaknesses or the reason why they are not as popular as other cuts.

It doesn't seem that anyonelse is providing any balance or critical interpretation of what they are presenting.
How do these compare to other types of cut cornered squares cut with different goals?

I don't see this thread as educational it seems more like promotional.

Mary - from my perspective the purpose of the thread is to help people better understand radiants, and the strengths and limitations of the online tools available for evaluating them. It is not to compare radiants to other cuts and persuade anyone that a radiant is somehow "better" or "worse"than other cuts. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't the rules bar me from even participating in that kind of thread?

Without using your eyes or Rockdiamond's how can I tell what a "well cut" radiant is by myself when I look at it on my finger?

If your looking at it on your finger, use your own eyes. Ideally use eyes that have been educated by looking at as many radiants as you can, side by side when possible. There's no better tool.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Mary, your questions are perceptive, and I'm sure you're not alone.

I'm taking the ASEt pics- and the shape of the stones makes it inherently more difficult to get them perfectly level under the ASET scope.

I am looking at the stones through the aset and comparing them to the pictures. What you're seeing is very close to what I see first hand.

Bryan- let's make a deal. I won't speak for you, please don't speak for me.
It's true I have found that what I see in the ASET to be extremely difficult to correlate to what I see in real life with Radiant and other fancy shapes.
At first that did lead me to question the value of the tool itself.
But that's years ago.
I've learned a tremendous amount participating here over these years.
Since ASET is a valid tool, we need to incorporate it into how we discuss the shape here. To this day, I strongly disagree with some of the published conclusions about ASET images- but that is a critique of interpretation, not the tool itself.
The point of this thread is to try to guide consumers how to select what they love in a square or rectangular modified brilliant- aka Radiant.
Truth is, we could actually separate square and rectangular, as they pose different considerations to some degree. We need to start someplace instead of just saying "It's hard to select a radiant"
Any impartial reader of this thread can see there's been some very dedicated efforts to stop the discussion at all.

Here's my take on how we can build this:
First, we need to continue here, and hopefully have folks give their impressions.
We can think of this thread a a work in progress.
After we've examined examples, pictures and impressions, we can begin to make some sort of a chart.
Eventually a new thread ( without all the attacks), or a guide of some sort

With regards to the "promotional" aspect of this thread.
As I explained earlier, the design created by Stan's dad is open source- so helping consumers understand better how to select such stones will help every seller of Radiant cuts- including Bryan and every other vendor on PS that carries them.

 

[Ella]

A reminder that vendors found to have second accounts for shilling or posting questions they can't ask as Trade will be removed from the forum permanently, please do not make me do that.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Let's call this #4- IMO the leakage indicated by the ASET indeed is not something I like to see. There's way too much in the way of concentration and it really does manifest more on one side than the other. This is one of the stones both Stan and I agree would be considered badly cut.

large continues leakage zones are usually bad news in any style of cut.

What's interesting about this diamond is that it's dead in the center but really has quite a bit of brilliance around the rest of the diamond. Unfortunately the intensity of the brilliant zones serve to make the dead zone in the middle more obvious.

In my opinion this is why evenness (is that a word?) of life is actually more important than intensity. The elements creating contrast must be distributed evenly throughout the diamond.

my apologies on any confusion regarding images.
Stan, I believe you confused this ASET with another square stone we looked at
From here on I'll make sure every image has a number to correspond with it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Henceforth I'll post the pics like this. Please bear with me, as all this does take a lot of time.

One aspect of photography that bears a bit of discussion: Many of the sites that feature pictures have a fixed methodology. They photograph each and every diamond using the same setup.
I have found that different types of stones require different methods to capture. My goal as a photographer is to have the viewer see what I'm seeing.
If the diamond looks better in the photo than it does in real life, buyers will be disappointed.
If the looks worse than the real life diamond ( as I think is indeed the case on many of the sites showing radiant cuts) then no one wants to buy it.

This has also had a great effect on PS recommendations where our prosumers use not only ASET but the available photography on the sites that have it. I have seen a great many cases where a stone spinning on a turntable is immediately dismissed. A fair percentage of the time I believe that a given stone that was dismissed based on that video might be very pretty in person.
Prosumers- this is NOT a knock on the job you guys do- if I was not more familiar with how a stone photographs in those type of setups, I would dismiss such stones too.
I will try to photograph the stones as consistently as possible- but my goal will remain to convey what my eyes see, best as I can. But the photos may not all be exactly alike.
This, by the way, is a great argument FOR the aset.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Henceforth I'll post the pics like this. Please bear with me, as all this does take a lot of time.

One aspect of photography that bears a bit of discussion: Many of the sites that feature pictures have a fixed methodology. They photograph each and every diamond using the same setup.
I have found that different types of stones require different methods to capture. My goal as a photographer is to have the viewer see what I'm seeing.
If the diamond looks better in the photo than it does in real life, buyers will be disappointed.
If the looks worse than the real life diamond ( as I think is indeed the case on many of the sites showing radiant cuts) then no one wants to buy it.

This has also had a great effect on PS recommendations where our prosumers use not only ASET but the available photography on the sites that have it. I have seen a great many cases where a stone spinning on a turntable is immediately dismissed. A fair percentage of the time I believe that a given stone that was dismissed based on that video might be very pretty in person.
Prosumers- this is NOT a knock on the job you guys do- if I was not more familiar with how a stone photographs in those type of setups, I would dismiss such stones too.
I will try to photograph the stones as consistently as possible- but my goal will remain to convey what my eyes see, best as I can. But the photos may not all be exactly alike.
This, by the way, is a great argument FOR the aset.

David,
If I can make a suggestion which may save you some time. How about you just do the two pics on the right for each example as the default. They are captured more or less face up with the light coming from more or less overhead. The glamour shot in the tweezers is nice but it is taken with the light at whatever angle makes the stone look as pretty as possible. Since this is an educational exercise we can trust your (and Stan's) descriptions of what the stone looks like in real life.

The two images on the right, if captured in a fairly consistent manner across all the samples would help us to understand how the ASET signature is correlating. If there is something else that you think is informative about a sample that can be illustrated from a different angle, for instance the tilt windowing problem, then post extras of those.

Make sense?

*it would also be good if you could post the data from the cert including how the shape is classified by the lab. Posting the cert would even be better as we could see the diagram. However, I do understand that may or may not be possible for one good reason or another.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yes and no Bryan.
If I can demonstrate how badly cut stones look, as I photograph them, I believe it will be informative.
Also- my methods mean that it may be impossible to truly replicate each photo. For example the middle shot in stone one has the diamond sitting on the pavilion- like the photos on the turntables I've mentioned don't show the stone well. This shot does not have that particular problem as I was able to get the lens perpendicular to the table of the diamond.
This was possible due to the pavilion shape of the diamond. Other stones will not be as cooperative- those will have to be shot with a tweezers.

As far as what you are referring to as "glamour shots"- they certainly do NOT make all diamonds looks "as pretty as possible" nor is that the intent.
I stand behind my pictures as being very indicative of how the diamond looks. For better or worse.

ETA- I agree Bryan, GIA shape classification and table depth would be informative and should not pose any considerations I can think of ( at this moment)

 

[Karl_K]

David, the comments about other posters here are not only uncalled for but extremely counter productive.
Don't piss off your audience if you want anyone to give any weight to what you say.

 

[canuk-gal]

I came to learn more about Radiants and this title seemed so interesting.

It just seems like Rockdiamond and Radiantman are selectively presenting the virtues of these examples but hardly anything on their weaknesses or the reason why they are not as popular as other cuts.

It doesn't seem that anyonelse is providing any balance or critical interpretation of what they are presenting.
How do these compare to other types of cut cornered squares cut with different goals?

I don't see this thread as educational it seems more like promotional.

separate a nice radiant from a not so great one based on David's and Stan's knowledge, experience and opinion

These ASET images are all over the place. Some look badly taken as they are badly tilted.

The way the diamonds handle light seems so different, some have large solid patches of red and blue(dark zones?), others dont.
Some have large patches of what looks like solid white under the table. Others have predominantly green/grey throughout the table.

Some have mostly small and medium patches, others have large and small patches.

Some of these are square, some much more rectangular. It seems counter intuitive that they would each handle light the same way.

I just don't get it, what conclusion can I draw?

HI:

Mary, in one breath you suggest the title of this thread drew you as it "was so interesting"--and yet you know about "ASET images and that they are all over the place". In another breath you talk about "self promotion".

5 posts and you know about ASET images???--and history of posters who might be "self promoters"?

Remarkable.

Like Amy and Seth from an old SNL skit..."really"? Although you are "new" you sound like an old (yet hidden) "PS"'er to me.

cheers--Sharon

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl- I know, from years here that the people giving advice here genuinely want to assist the people coming to ask questions.
If a given piece of information that is commonly being used is not producing correct results, I'm sure the people giving advice would want to know that.
When a diamond is spinning at an angle to the camera- especially in stones using leakage as part of their recipe- it may make a nicely cut stone look bad.
I'm not sure why that would piss anyone off

 

[Karl_K]

Karl- I know, from years here that the people giving advice here genuinely want to assist the people coming to ask questions.
If a given piece of information that is commonly being used is not producing correct results, I'm sure the people giving advice would want to know that.
When a diamond is spinning at an angle to the camera- especially in stones using leakage as part of their recipe- it may make a nicely cut stone look bad.
I'm not sure why that would piss anyone off

David, if you said that diamonds laying on their side is not always indicative of face up appearance in fancies you would have been right and its good info. Taking a shot at prosumers is not.
fwiw they know that and ask for aset images as a check.
I have been trying to help you get your information/data out there but I will not be associated with taking shots at prosumers.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl- it's really unfortunate that you choose to mischarachterize my statements.
There is no insult intended at you or anyone else- and I really don't understand how anyone would be insulted.
I honestly believe we are both sharing a goal of education. You might express things differently but we both want to assist consumers. As do the vast majority of people who populate this site and offer advice.
I have no "dog in the race" - we don't have videos of diamonds spinning on a disc.
But I do watch this forum as well as other diamond sellers closely.
If someone was using the standard PS methods -with the best of itentions based on things they have read here- they would never advise a consumer to ask for an ASET if the stone looked "leaky" on the video.
In the unlikely event they did advise the consumer to get an aset and it looked like some of the ones we have discussed here- the advice would have to be to avoid leaky stones - that would be based on the way this subject has been handled till this thread.
I hope you continue to add input -I do believe it's important.

 

[distracts]

Gypsy- while I agree with your points, I do think it's important to note that the Dream and Lucida both have strong facet patterns, which imo is a very different type than the bucket-of-crushed-ice look. I'd be interested in seeing a crushed ice radiant with a classically good ASET (if there is such a thing?) compared one that David asserts has great light performance but a not-classically-great ASET. I think that's what all of us want to see so that we can judge for ourselves whether or not we agree with David's "sometimes leakage is necessary for a nice radiant of this type" assertion.

David, I know this is more work for you, but shots on the back of the hand are imo very informative as to performance, or a shot in those white slotty tray thingies, if your hand is too unprofessional. But I like the hand since the skin color showing through can make leakage readily apparent.

 

[petrock<3]

Gypsy- while I agree with your points, I do think it's important to note that the Dream and Lucida both have strong facet patterns, which imo is a very different type than the bucket-of-crushed-ice look. I'd be interested in seeing a crushed ice radiant with a classically good ASET (if there is such a thing?) compared one that David asserts has great light performance but a not-classically-great ASET. I think that's what all of us want to see so that we can judge for ourselves whether or not we agree with David's "sometimes leakage is necessary for a nice radiant of this type" assertion.

David, I know this is more work for you, but shots on the back of the hand are imo very informative as to performance, or a shot in those white slotty tray thingies, if your hand is too unprofessional. But I like the hand since the skin color showing through can make leakage readily apparent.

That is so funny I was just thinking about that. I'm glad you mentioned it. I looked at lucidas and while I think their facet pattern is attractive I preferred the less distinct look of the radiant.

I like to think of it as a hall of mirrors that are cracked. It is mesmerizing. If the radiant is super optimized for light return, would that effect be lost? Maybe you have to allow that your diamond will be less brilliant but you gain a cool optical effect? I don't know just thinking aloud. Perhaps one of the scientists can touch on that.

Thanks for bringing that up distracts!

 

[Karl_K]

I like to think of it as a hall of mirrors that are cracked. It is mesmerizing. If the radiant is super optimized for light return, would that effect be lost? Maybe you have to allow that your diamond will be less brilliant but you gain a cool optical effect? I don't know just thinking aloud. Perhaps one of the scientists can touch on that.

Thanks for bringing that up distracts!

No, it can be optimized for that.
There is a difference between optimizing a design for what is unique about that diamond with more light return and RBasising a cut.
From what I am learning here I would consider optimized to be even but broken up light return over the face of the stone, great tilted light return, and play with the ratio of leakage to light return ratio to find the best ratio.
The last would require designing then cutting then a lot of testing then redesign/recut as needed.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

An important aspect to this discussion about cut evaluation of radiants is understanding the differences in facet design among the cut generally known as radiant. ASET signatures will have distinct characteristics between facet arrangements, and need to be judged against others of the same basic arrangement.

It has been stated here that the original radiant design is "open source" and therefore a variety of facet arrangements have been developed that are generically known in the market as radiant cut. Are there any good references for the various facet arrangements similar to this article on cushion variations?
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/new_gia_and_agsl_naming_conventions_cushion_cut_diamonds

 

[Rockdiamond]

Gypsy- while I agree with your points, I do think it's important to note that the Dream and Lucida both have strong facet patterns, which imo is a very different type than the bucket-of-crushed-ice look. I'd be interested in seeing a crushed ice radiant with a classically good ASET (if there is such a thing?) compared one that David asserts has great light performance but a not-classically-great ASET. I think that's what all of us want to see so that we can judge for ourselves whether or not we agree with David's "sometimes leakage is necessary for a nice radiant of this type" assertion.

David, I know this is more work for you, but shots on the back of the hand are imo very informative as to performance, or a shot in those white slotty tray thingies, if your hand is too unprofessional. But I like the hand since the skin color showing through can make leakage readily apparent.

I'm happy to oblige distracts. Th photo below shows the aset for the diamond I'm holding between my ( very professional ) fingers in a light box


A do need to clarify something-
I totally understand why you might think it was my assertion- because its' not really discussed in an open forum anywhere but here. And there's certainly not a lot of tradespeople who talk about leakage as a positive aspect here on pricescope.

When I have spoken with cutters that understand these concepts the way we are speaking about them (leakage), they confirmed my suspicion that leakage is an essential element in a well cut radiant, which is cut with the light performance goals like stone #1.

We've already shown in this thread that nice looking radiant cuts, cut in the style of a true modified brilliant ( like the design invented by Henry Grossbard)) have white in the aset. White in the aset is known as leakage, a particularly poor choice of names, but that's what we're working with ( or against).
This is not my assertion. It's a fact. The stone below, stone #1 in this first attempt at putting together a guide, is as well cut as ANY Radiant diamond I've ever seen. It's got white in the table.
Yes, I really fell in love with it because I love the shape. But putting my own personal feelings aside- the stone had a remarkable even sparkle- and it was very bright. All over. And it looked sizable for it's carat weight.
Distract- if you were looking only at the ASET of this stone, how would you rate it?

 

[Karl_K]

Distract- if you were looking only at the ASET of this stone, how would you rate it?

looking at the ASET and the second pic there is room for improvement if one was being as picky as we are with h&a RBs around here.
The light return is not totally even under the table.
In brighter lighting like the tweezers shot it is not as evident.

 

[Gypsy]

RD I have to say the more this thread progresses the more I am growing concerned about your tweezer shot photography on your listings.

I've got to say it is becoming clear they are more 'glamour' shots meant to show the stones in the most flattering light, honestly a MORE flattering than they would be set or worn on the hand. And honestly the lighting in most of the pictures seems designed to hide flaws rather than expose or highlight them.

I had previously not had that made so clear to me, but this thread has really highlighted to me how advantageous the photography is to YOU, rather than to your customers. Especially coupled with the fact that unlike with our best vendors, who are most often recommended, you do not provide any information like ASETs or idealscopes or megascopes to aid the customer to understand the performance of the stone better.

And I have to say... I am very disappointed.

 

[starrylight]

What's interesting to me, is that in the picture of Stone 2 on your hand, we don't see the typical type of leakage seen in other stones.

I've seen other professional posters (Wink?) recommend putting the stone on top of a brightly colored piece of paper, so that the buyer (or in this case the people involved in the thread) can mimic an idealscope and see where leakage is present in the stone.

Would you consider doing a bit more photography for us in the thread and doing the same?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Distract- if you were looking only at the ASET of this stone, how would you rate it?

looking at the ASET and the second pic there is room for improvement if one was being as picky as we are with h&a RBs around here.
The light return is not totally even under the table.
In brighter lighting like the tweezers shot it is not as evident.[/quote]
Karl- I have never seen a better example of this type of light performance. Maybe you can design abetter one but i don't believe it's possible based on the way the stone performed and others I've seen.

 

[Rockdiamond]

About photography- my experience is based on my pictures and how I see the stone- and then how people react when they get the item.
If anyone wants to show other pictures of radiant cuts that they believe are better Id love to see them.
As Kenny already pointed out, my pictures are the best. But I'd love to see others.