Radiant Diamond HELP! Fish eye or Bowtie?

[kenny]

Finally, citing the ASET to conclude that radiants "scientifically" simply don't "perform" as well as other diamond cuts, as Milisende repeatedly has, is a statement reflecting either his personal taste (to which he is certainly entitled) or his commercial self interest. It has little to do with either science or the objective reality of consumer preferences.

Commercial self interest?

Uhm ... this is a thread about the cut quality of Radiants ... Uhm ... have you read your sigline? ...


Maybe there's wrong with using PS to make more money ... but he who lives in glass houses ... or ... Pot, Kettle ?

 

[Gypsy]

Unfortunately, the universe of people who can look at an ASET for a fancy shaped diamond and truly understand what the actual diamond looks like is extremely small. Generally the advice consists of "this one has a better "ASET" or 'That ASET shows alot of leakage" or "that's the best ASET I've ever seen for a radiant." That kind of advice doesn't give the consumer any actual help in understanding what the diamond in question actually looks like and I'm not sure that the folks rendering the advice, no offense intended, have necessarily compared enough ASETs to actual diamonds to really know what the diamond is likely to look like. They are simply comparing the ASET image to what they believe, not always correctly, is the "ideal."

Okay. So I'm going to take exception to this, Stan.

You are mistaking expedience for ignorance.

There are quite a few of people, including the hobbyist consumers on this board, not just the experts, that CAN actual look at a diamond image, video, or an in person evaluation and predict what the ASET will say. Or look at an ASET and know what that means in terms of performance and how it will translate to the stone performing in person. Case in point: [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-need-opinions-about-this-cushion-cut-diamond-pics.206771/page-2']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/help-need-opinions-about-this-cushion-cut-diamond-pics.206771/page-2[/URL] On page 1 and 2 you will see where I break that down for a poster. And I am not, by any means, the only one with the skill to do that, even on this site.

Here's the thing though. Most posters on here don't WANT that level of detail. They don't want us to break down the minutia of an ASET. They want a quick and dirty evaluation of the stones they are considering, not a thesis treatise on them.

The purpose of most posters on this site is to 'wham bam thank you ma'am' the diamond buying process. They want a quickie, not love affair. And that's what we provide them. It's a VERY rare poster that wants more than that. And when they do, we provide them with that information happily.

So the REASON you see comments like "it shows a lot of leakage" is that. It's not ignorance. It's not that we don't have the skill to evaluate, backwards and forwards the performance of a diamond. Because some of us, especially the regulars who post advice and recommendations of stones, do actually have this skill.

If you look at old thread archives, particularly of cushions cuts and step cuts, you'll see a long history of posters like Charmy, Cehra, Yssie, Dreamer... the list is actually too long to LIST here, that can do exactly what it is you claim that we cannot.

It's actually NOT that hard.

SO please, refrain from ascribing lack of skill or ignorance to the posters of this board, when what you are actually seeing is expedience and customer service.

It takes a lot of patience, understanding and knowledge to post here day after day, WITHOUT GETTING PAID IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, and helping people who are completely ignorant of anything to do with diamonds and walk the fine line between giving them ENOUGH information so that they can make an educated decision, and overwhelming them with too much information that results in analysis paralysis.

I don't notice that the OP here has posted on this thread since it's inception. Why? Because I'll bet all your highbrow analysis and "discussion' has scared the poor thing off. That's what we try to AVOID doing as consumers on this board. We want to help people, not scare them off. And not line our own pockets.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Finally, citing the ASET to conclude that radiants "scientifically" simply don't "perform" as well as other diamond cuts, as Milisende repeatedly has, is a statement reflecting either his personal taste (to which he is certainly entitled) or his commercial self interest. It has little to do with either science or the objective reality of consumer preferences.

Commercial self interest?

Uhm ... this is a thread about the cut quality of Radiants ... Uhm ... have you read your sigline? ...


Maybe there's wrong with using PS to make more money ... but he who lives in glass houses ... or ... Pot, Kettle ?

Kenny,

Astute Observation. Just to put into context your comments take a look.

"Unmatched Brilliance. Our strict adherence to Mr. Grossbard's cut standards, means every one of our diamonds possesses unparalleled brilliance."

http://radiantcut.com/OriginalGeneric.aspx



Exact same physical facet design left and right.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Gypsy
I'm very intrested in your real life impressions.
Have you ever seen an Original Radiant cut and compared it to a generic radiant?
Im taking about in real life.
How many stones have you compared in real life to their ASET signatures? Let's take branded and generic radiant and also cushions - how many have you correlated in real life to their ASET?
We have a few extremely seasoned professionals here flat out stating that ASET interpretIon requires experience.
What is your experience to be able to contradict such statements.
You're also implicating some well respected members that I seriously doubt share your views.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan - the ASET would certainly have revealed the problem with the diamond most likely by showing a concentration of red where the black circle is. Unfortunately, the universe of people who can look at an ASET for a fancy shaped diamond and truly understand what the actual diamond looks like is extremely small. Generally the advice consists of "this one has a better "ASET" or 'That ASET shows alot of leakage" or "that's the best ASET I've ever seen for a radiant." That kind of advice doesn't give the consumer any actual help in understanding what the diamond in question actually looks like and I'm not sure that the folks rendering the advice, no offense intended, have necessarily compared enough ASETs to actual diamonds to really know what the diamond is likely to look like. They are simply comparing the ASET image to what they believe, not always correctly, is the "ideal."

This advice is rendered despite the fact that there no consensus on what the "Ideal" ASET is for radiants and despite the fact that the visual consequences of deviations from whatever the "ideal" might be are extremely complicated to understand.

Finally, citing the ASET to conclude that radiants "scientifically" simply don't "perform" as well as other diamond cuts, as Milisende repeatedly has, is a statement reflecting either his personal taste (to which he is certainly entitled) or his commercial self interest. It has little to do with either science or the objective reality of consumer preferences.

Stan, it is pretty clear from this and previous threads that you and David are both frustrated by the fact that you feel the PS community does not have the expertise to interpret ASET signatures of radiant cuts correctly. And therefore, commenting on them when they are presented or suggesting to a consumer that they obtain an ASET image is somehow a disservice to the consumer. But this only begs the question of why those in the trade who have an interest in educating on this cut and providing guidance on proper interpretation are not engaged in doing so in any meaningful way. It seems like we only hear the "it's too complex, you have to look at it with your eyes" chorus over and over.

You and David both acknowledged in this thread that an ASET on the OP's diamond would have revealed the problem with the stone. Does that fact, in and of itself, not prove that ASET is of value - even for radiant cuts?

The point I am trying to make is that while ASET is not conclusive for beauty or definitive of which stone is "best' for a particular consumer, it does provide useful information that can help consumers understand some important aspects of the stones they are considering. It seems to me that ASET can be used effectively to help them narrow down the field of stones likely to meet their individual expectations and tastes. Or at the very least to help avoid disappointments such as the OP has experienced.

We would all benefit from understanding of how to better interpret the various ASET signatures that we see in different cutting styles and facet patterns. In the final analysis everything we do here is about interpretation; from reading the lab report to looking at pictures and videos to analyzing light performance images. So the goal should not be to ignore a test that provides some useful information, but rather to incorporate what can be learned by that test into a comprehensive assessment of a diamond, with the knowledge that the eye is always the final arbiter of what is beautiful.

 

[sarahb]

.

 

[sarahb]

Hi Gypsy
I'm very intrested in your real life impressions.
Have you ever seen an Original Radiant cut and compared it to a generic radiant?
Im taking about in real life.
How many stones have you compared in real life to their ASET signatures? Let's take branded and generic radiant and also cushions - how many have you correlated in real life to their ASET?
We have a few extremely seasoned professionals here flat out stating that ASET interpretIon requires experience.
What is your experience to be able to contradict such statements.
You're also implicating some well respected members that I seriously doubt share your views.

All right Rockdiamond, your last post just pulled me out of lurk mode on this thread. I don't think I've ever seen someone in the trade go so far out of the way to denigrate & imply a member of this forum, almost a quasi-family member in the family of forums, as not knowing what they are talking about.

Even though her real-life hands on experience may not equal that of trade, Gypsy is a phenomenal & valued member of this forum primarily because of her knowledge, & her willingness to help others.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Bryan
I can't speak for Stan but I don't think either of us is negating the usefulness of the tool. The problem is in the interpretation- we all agree on that. But it's a big problem – look at the charts showing that red is better than green and that leakage is just bad. All of these are incorrect conclusions.
So there's a lot of work to do, and frankly I don't even know where to begin.

 

[WinkHPD]

HI Byran,
I think it's in all readers best interest to "debunk" myths that sometimes permeate the forum.
ASET is great for those who know how to interpret them- but as I have advised Misty, the advice that one "needs an ASET" is not really going to assist in this case.
She has a stone she does not love- for reasons that are clear to her visually.
Finding a stone she loves will involve actually looking at the diamond, as opposed to having an ASET.
Furthermore, in her case, she has to work things out with a jeweler, who probably does not even know what ASET is.
This does not make them a bad jeweler, although it might seem that way reading a post telling her she needs an ASET.

About all the greedy diamond cutters-
I happen to have a lot of friends that ARE diamond cutters.
Sorry if my comment was snarly- but insults unfairly aimed at a broad group of people, yes it gets old.

I have been reading this exchange this morning and have been wondering how best to interject my opinion. I will enter the conversation here and apologize if my questions have been answered after this post.

Rock, I agree with much of what you have to say, and not so much with other parts of it. I agree, our OP does not NEED an ASET if she is to choose with her eyes. She may need one if seeking verification of her choice on this forum, although a great picture could also let us tell her if the stone is at least beautiful. Her medium picture was certainly all we needed to tell her RUN AWAY from this, "Want to be pretty but failed," diamond.

However, now that she knows about an ASET, she may want to ask for one. The fact that this jeweler may or may not even know about them is in fact a statement about that jeweler. If he knows, but does not care, that says something. If he knows and does not use them because they would expose the poor cuts he is selling, that says something. I he does not even know, that says something about his lack of caring to stay properly educated about his chosen profession. None of these make him a bad jeweler per se, but they do say something about him, and it not something that reeks of confidence building. The very fact that he sold our OP's significant other a diamond so poorly cut that she hated it all on her own, without needing anything to tell her she hated it, tells us something about him. Especially since he also told her the incorrect information that setting it on top of a mounting with pave' diamonds would make the "reflection of the mounting disappear." (If it does, it is even more poorly cut than I think it is.)

And yes, I believe that we who sell top cuts, as well as those who make them, are in business to make a profit. We just have to work harder to do it, since so many just want to sell on price and the ignorance of the uneducated visitors who are their customers. They are not their clients, since they are not protecting them as they would a genuine client. (From the old world "client states" who were under the protection of their larger allies.)

I do agree with you that fancy cuts are not cut to formula as are rounds, but clearly this is a poorly cut diamond, with or without ASET or other instruments. I do agree with you that there are many different flavors of diamonds and that not everyone will only want the most sparkly cuts, hence those who love the stately emerald cuts, but even those clients will generally choose one that has been cut for beauty rather than for light leakage. (and weight retention)

All of that having been said, this is a forum for the well educated about diamonds and those who wish to become well educated. Their are large numbers of cutters who only cut for weight and who do not care one whit that they could charge a few more dollars for a properly cut diamond, since they seem to be making more money selling drek. Those are the cutters to whom Kenny properly refers. Fortunately, that vast majority is shrinking and will continue to shrink as the Internet makes it so easy to research prior to actually buying.

When the "average" retail jeweler starts to realize that and get proactive in learning his trade and how to properly treat people that come in the door with information from the "BIG SCARY NASTY INTERNET," they will start "stealing business" from us nasty Internet vendors. So long as they continue to flog a dying horse, we Internet vendors will continue to turn their supposed customers into our valued clients. When we on the Internet are better educated than our brethren in the B&M stores and willing to treat people as clients rather than numbers, then we are going to continue to gain those clients and keep the ones that we have.

You are one of us, you know this! You are even one of the few who sells many flavors of shapes and cuts and does well at it. I for one, admire you and respect you for this. I just think that you are wrong in thinking that Kenny does not realize that we also make a profit at the end of the year, or we would not continue to be here. I also think that he is right, and obviously right with the jeweler involved in this thread. (Just my opinion of course, I could be wrong about this jeweler, but I have seen no evidence of it so far.)

I also think that there is a HUGE ISSUE here that has not been addressed, at least to the point of this post of yours that I am responding to.

How is the question of "How Does the Fiance Feel About All of This?" Is he okay with it, or does he now feel like a sap for wanting to improve the size of the diamond that represents his love, admiration, and commitment to our OP?

Call me a sentimental old man, but I think that this is an important consideration. Does he know of your disappointment? Is he okay with it? Does there need to be some form of triage, or is he leading the charge to rectify the delivery of a substandard cut stone under the guise of a "good" cut?

This may be as important a question as is the cut of the current diamond.

Wink

 

[kenny]

If he knows and does not use them because they would expose the poor cuts he is selling, that says something.

Clearly, IMO that's why these two pros are threatened by ASET.

 

[Jamileau]

Hi Gypsy
I'm very intrested in your real life impressions.
Have you ever seen an Original Radiant cut and compared it to a generic radiant?
Im taking about in real life.
How many stones have you compared in real life to their ASET signatures? Let's take branded and generic radiant and also cushions - how many have you correlated in real life to their ASET?
We have a few extremely seasoned professionals here flat out stating that ASET interpretIon requires experience.
What is your experience to be able to contradict such statements.
You're also implicating some well respected members that I seriously doubt share your views.

All right Rockdiamond, your last post just pulled me out of lurk mode on this thread. I don't think I've ever seen someone in the trade go so far out of the way to denigrate & imply a member of this forum, almost a quasi-family member in the family of forums, as not knowing what they are talking about.

Even though her real-life hands on experience may not equal that of trade, Gypsy is a phenomenal & valued member of this forum primarily because of her knowledge, & her willingness to help others.

+100

I have never posted but been lurking for a long time and can tell you that Gypsy is one of the most helpful and knowledgable people on this forum. For a trade member to put her down is a shame. Thank you for all you do Gypsy.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Wink- we agree on so much.
In this case I do not believe that the OP knows enough about ASET for it to be of any use at all.
Obviously there's plenty off badly cut diamonds out there. Obviously consumers need a way to differentiate
On these points we are in total agreement. Question is how can the ASET be used correctly.


My question to gypsy is honestly to find out what she has seen and how it relates to this discussion If one had never seen a really well cut radiant diamond, but based their opinion on the charts published here, they may actually be giving the wrong advice because they have never seen it firsthand

 

[Rockdiamond]

Kenny – again, I cannot speak for Stan. But I can tell you that I have no fear of aset whatsoever.
At the end of the day if the people that are buying our diamonds are not happy, ASET makes no difference whatsoever.
As someone who has participated here for years with the best of intentions, it is frustrating to see people get misguided advice.
In general this forum is excellent – but there are things that need improvement.

 

[WinkHPD]

Wink- we agree on so much.
In this case I do not believe that the OP knows enough about ASET for it to be of any use at all.
Obviously there's plenty off badly cut diamonds out there. Obviously consumers need a way to differentiate
On these points we are in total agreement. Question is how can the ASET be used correctly.


My question to gypsy is honestly to find out what she has seen and how it relates to this discussion If one had never seen a really well cut radiant diamond, but based their opinion on the charts published here, they may actually be giving the wrong advice because they have never seen it firsthand

Suggestion then my friend.

You know how to use an ASET. You have access to both well and poorly cut radiants. Why not take some good photos of them, and some good ASETs of them and analyze what we are seeing so that those who want to know what a good radiant in your opinion looks like both photographically and ASETly. (Yes, I realize that is not a real word, but it works...)

Tell us what we are seeing and why you think it represents a good diamond. Tell us how the white white area in the ASET actually assists with the observation of contrast in the radiant cut and when it is good and when it is bad.

Then we can have a good conversation about it and all learn something, which will allow both the prosumers here and the professionals here who do not normally deal with radiants better advice to those who are petitioning for our help.

I did not need to know anything about radiants to know that this one was a loser. It might indeed be very nice to know enough to be able to offer help if asked. It might be nice just to know I could refer a supplicant to your thread on, "Radiant Cut Diamonds and the ASETS that Love Them".

Wink

 

[Karl_K]

David and Stan there is a fundamental truth about pricescope, you gain far more by teaching than complaining and certainly far more than attacking one of the most respected prosumers.
I have been telling you that for years now and have yet to see anything.
So I will pound my head on the wall again and ask yet again for educational material on radiant diamonds and aset and in general.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Gypsy - First, let me say that there is no doubt in my mind that your goal is to use your knowledge to help others make better educated choices. Buying a diamond, especially on line can be scary - its a lot of money for something the buyers often don't understand and there are a lot of unscrupulous sellers out there taking advantage of that. This site, and people like you, provide an important service and that's why I take the time to post here.

I think the core of our disagreement lies in how helpful what you call the "expedient" answer is.

First, it is not my sense that the average consumer is simply looking for someone to tell them what to buy (this one good - that one bad) rather than information that helps them make their own better informed choice. While I agree that too much complexity isn't helpful to many consumers, they do want and need more than to be told "buy this diamond I'm recommending because the ASET is simply "better."

Second, In my opinion understanding an ASET includes understanding its limitations especially with regards to fancy cuts. Those limitations can make what you call "an expedient" answer to be colored by personal opinion and my sense is that you don't see that.

Saying "I like cushions with this kind of an ASET because I prefer the look that this ASET correlates to" is good educated advice. People are indeed interested in the preferences of others like you who have more experience at looking at diamonds than they have.

So is "based on the ASET that radiant is likely to not have even life."

Even better would be to say: "That radiant probably has a concentration of black around the culet that it shouldn't have, It would bother me and might bother you."

These opinions, if accurate, provide valuable advice because it warns the consumer about what will be a visible characteristic of the diamond that can be gleaned from an ASET by an educated eye.

It's also fine to say "based on the ASET I think this diamond will have a "crushed ice" look which I personally don't like. I prefer fewer larger flashes so I like this other diamond (with this other ASET) better."

If folks expressed their views in that way there would be no controversy. I think we would all agree that the technology was being used to help consumers understand their diamond choices and make decisions about cut with open eyes.

There absolutely are such a things as well cut diamonds and poorly cut diamonds and I applaud all efforts to help consumers understand the difference. I am after all very much a cut guy something that pretty much anybody who knows me or has ever done business with me can attest to. But we all need to be careful to separate out when we are talking about objective cut quality and when we are talking about our own individual preferences.

For example, I personally prefer cushion brilliants to cushion modified brilliants because when I "grew up" in this business that's what a cushion was. That means you and I may well have the same taste in cushions. But unlike you I don't think one style is "better" than the other and I disagree strongly with those who claim "science" can answer that question. It can't. Helping consumers choose fine cuts should consist of helping them choose a well cut diamond in the style they prefer, not to guide them toward your own preference in styles by "expediently" interpreting ASETs as validating your personal taste.

All I ever advocated for was a pretty small change in how advice is presented to make it both more informative and more objective and accurate. I have NEVER said that ASETs did not provide data could be helpful when added to the mix.

It doesn't seem to me like anything I've posted ought to be all that controversial. Why my handful of posts have generated so much hullabaloo is beyond me.

 

[pyramid]

With the way this forum has slowed down. I think vendors should be very careful about criticizing what Gypsy does. I made a post a bit ago as I could not believe she spent so much time here and did not get paid for it. This was made clear that she did it to help people and there was a confirmation that the board did not pay anyone for advising about diamonds.

I am now partly convinced that is it Gypsy who is basically keeping these internet buyers buying from the vendors, there are some other posters who advise a lot but Gypsy is usually the one advising new buyers about angles, depths, etc. or advising the most buyers say on a daily basis.

I would be interested to see a tuturial of the basics of radiant cut asset grading as I am interested in this cut and like how the light breaks into I would call it shards which I don't see in other cuts. I believe at aged about 11 I saw my first radiant cut, a huge one on the hand of Sue Ellen Ewing in Dallas, and I loved that look then and still do. Can anyone confirm if her first ring was this or maybe it was Miss Ellie's but I think Sue Ellen.

As the saying goes though, vendors 'know which side your bread is buttered' as far as Gypsy is concerned.

THE PRICESCOPE FAMILY VALUES GYPSY

 

[Gypsy]

Thank you Sarahb, Jamileau, Karl, and Pyramid.

David, you and I have gotten into it many times in the past. Usually resulting in one of us getting banned. So all ll I am going to say to you is this: Ditto Karl's post and leave it at that.

Here's the thing about ASETs:

We we work to do the best we can with the tools offered by the vendors. If more vendors of fancy cuts were like JA, or GOG then we wouldn't rely so heavily on ASETs. JA provides fantastic videos of each stone so we can see the play of light and the crispness of the facets and compare one stone to the next. GOG provides a huge amount of information inlcuding ASETs and Megascopes and will take VERY HELPFUL videos for you upon request.

If more vendors, did this, then we wouldn't have to rely so heavily on ASETs for judge fancy cuts. But they don't. So that makes the ASET and still images usually the ONLY information we have. It's not that we WANT to rely so heavily on ASETs. We really don't. But vendors FORCE us to.

This is something John Pollard posted about rounds, and I think it is important to post it here:

In Context
Just imagine that you're trying to get to know someone's looks and personality...

An HCA score is merely like having a chalk outline of the person.
Grading report numbers are like having the person's height, weight and clothing measurements.
An ASET or Ideal-Scope (for RB) image is like having a still photo of the person.
An AGS Platinum "0" in performance is like a panel of judges confirming that the person's personality and looks are solid.
A 3D scan in sophisticated cut-calculation software is like having a video interview with the person.

Eventually, it's a lot of great information. All told it's enough for an experienced cut-specialist to make very detailed performance predictions. But in the end, a live date (dinner & a movie?) will be how you finally judge total personality and looks as you, individually, perceive them.

So why did I post this. People shopping on the internet need the MOST information that can be provided to them when making diamond purchases. And all these tools and scans and such are just that INFORMATION. None of them are sufficient ALONE, but working together this information results in knowledgeable and educated choices.
With fancies you usually do not have an AGS Platinum report. You don't have the HCA to predict performance as numbers do NOT tell the tale.

So what does that leave you with?

Videos, good ones if the vendors can provide them. Similar to either JA or GOG.
Still photos.
And the ASET image.

So my point in THIS post is this:
If you want to put your money where your mouth is: and you really have the consumer's best interests at heart as a vendor... then why DON'T you provide this information? Including an ASET. Instead of making the customer rely on your expertise and some still photos?

Provide videos and ASETs. And heck a megascope too. Because if you REALLY mean what you say: that consumers should be educated and knowledgeable, then HELP them.

Instead of handicapping them by just providing a few glamor shots of the stones and forcing them to rely on your eyes and your expertise. Your eyes, and your expertise as vendors are all well and good, but how do you know that what YOU like is the same as what a buyer likes? You don't. So provide them with more information and let them make up their own minds. And provide US here in PS with the tools we need to help them. And yes, that means videos and ASETs.

 

[LLJsmom]

Re:

Thank you Sarahb, Jamileau, Karl, and Pyramid.

David, you and I have gotten into it many times in the past. Usually resulting in one of us getting banned. So all ll I am going to say to you is this: Ditto Karl's post and leave it at that.

Here's the thing about ASETs:

We we work to do the best we can with the tools offered by the vendors. If more vendors of fancy cuts were like JA, or GOG then we wouldn't rely so heavily on ASETs. JA provides fantastic videos of each stone so we can see the play of light and the crispness of the facets and compare one stone to the next. GOG provides a huge amount of information inlcuding ASETs and Megascopes and will take VERY HELPFUL videos for you upon request.

If more vendors, did this, then we wouldn't have to rely so heavily on ASETs for judge fancy cuts. But they don't. So that makes the ASET and still images usually the ONLY information we have. It's not that we WANT to rely so heavily on ASETs. We really don't. But vendors FORCE us to.

This is something John Pollard posted about rounds, and I think it is important to post it here:

In Context
Just imagine that you're trying to get to know someone's looks and personality...

An HCA score is merely like having a chalk outline of the person.
Grading report numbers are like having the person's height, weight and clothing measurements.
An ASET or Ideal-Scope (for RB) image is like having a still photo of the person.
An AGS Platinum "0" in performance is like a panel of judges confirming that the person's personality and looks are solid.
A 3D scan in sophisticated cut-calculation software is like having a video interview with the person.

Eventually, it's a lot of great information. All told it's enough for an experienced cut-specialist to make very detailed performance predictions. But in the end, a live date (dinner & a movie?) will be how you finally judge total personality and looks as you, individually, perceive them.

So why did I post this. People shopping on the internet need the MOST information that can be provided to them when making diamond purchases. And all these tools and scans and such are just that INFORMATION. None of them are sufficient ALONE, but working together this information results in knowledgeable and educated choices.
With fancies you usually do not have an AGS Platinum report. You don't have the HCA to predict performance as numbers do NOT tell the tale.

So what does that leave you with?

Videos, good ones if the vendors can provide them. Similar to either JA or GOG.
Still photos.
And the ASET image.

So my point in THIS post is this:
If you want to put your money where your mouth is: and you really have the consumer's best interests at heart as a vendor... then why DON'T you provide this information? Including an ASET. Instead of making the customer rely on your expertise and some still photos?

Provide videos and ASETs. And heck a megascope too. Because if you REALLY mean what you say: that consumers should be educated and knowledgeable, then HELP them.

Instead of handicapping them by just providing a few glamor shots of the stones and forcing them to rely on your eyes and your expertise. Your eyes, and your expertise as vendors are all well and good, but how do you know that what YOU like is the same as what a buyer likes? You don't. So provide them with more information and let them make up their own minds. And provide US here in PS with the tools we need to help them. And yes, that means videos and ASETs.

Gypsy, I've been following this thread, and I finally get it b/c of your post here. I get what you're saying. Just makes sense. You're working with what you have, and what you have depends on who you're dealing with, fortunately or unfortunately.

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy - First, let me say that there is no doubt in my mind that your goal is to use your knowledge to help others make better educated choices. Buying a diamond, especially on line can be scary - its a lot of money for something the buyers often don't understand and there are a lot of unscrupulous sellers out there taking advantage of that. This site, and people like you, provide an important service and that's why I take the time to post here.

I think the core of our disagreement lies in how helpful what you call the "expedient" answer is.

First, it is not my sense that the average consumer is simply looking for someone to tell them what to buy (this one good - that one bad) rather than information that helps them make their own better informed choice. While I agree that too much complexity isn't helpful to many consumers, they do want and need more than to be told "buy this diamond I'm recommending because the ASET is simply "better."

Second, In my opinion understanding an ASET includes understanding its limitations especially with regards to fancy cuts. Those limitations can make what you call "an expedient" answer to be colored by personal opinion and my sense is that you don't see that.

Saying "I like cushions with this kind of an ASET because I prefer the look that this ASET correlates to" is good educated advice. People are indeed interested in the preferences of others like you who have more experience at looking at diamonds than they have.

So is "based on the ASET that radiant is likely to not have even life."

Even better would be to say: "That radiant probably has a concentration of black around the culet that it shouldn't have, It would bother me and might bother you."

These opinions, if accurate, provide valuable advice because it warns the consumer about what will be a visible characteristic of the diamond that can be gleaned from an ASET by an educated eye.

It's also fine to say "based on the ASET I think this diamond will have a "crushed ice" look which I personally don't like. I prefer fewer larger flashes so I like this other diamond (with this other ASET) better."

If folks expressed their views in that way there would be no controversy. I think we would all agree that the technology was being used to help consumers understand their diamond choices and make decisions about cut with open eyes.

There absolutely are such a things as well cut diamonds and poorly cut diamonds and I applaud all efforts to help consumers understand the difference. I am after all very much a cut guy something that pretty much anybody who knows me or has ever done business with me can attest to. But we all need to be careful to separate out when we are talking about objective cut quality and when we are talking about our own individual preferences.

For example, I personally prefer cushion brilliants to cushion modified brilliants because when I "grew up" in this business that's what a cushion was. That means you and I may well have the same taste in cushions. But unlike you I don't think one style is "better" than the other and I disagree strongly with those who claim "science" can answer that question. It can't. Helping consumers choose fine cuts should consist of helping them choose a well cut diamond in the style they prefer, not to guide them toward your own preference in styles by "expediently" interpreting ASETs as validating your personal taste.

All I ever advocated for was a pretty small change in how advice is presented to make it both more informative and more objective and accurate. I have NEVER said that ASETs did not provide data could be helpful when added to the mix.

It doesn't seem to me like anything I've posted ought to be all that controversial. Why my handful of posts have generated so much hullabaloo is beyond me.

There are a number of very good points in this post. The portion I've put in red, is very good feedback. Please expand on this including examples with ASETs and pictures of some diamonds. And tell us what you would suggest as commentary contrasted with what you see more often here.


The portion in blue I disagree with. I'm going to 8 years on these boards. Trust me when I say that the large majority want you to hold their hands and pick diamonds for them.

The portion in green is A) insulting, which I am going to ignore for now and B) not what we do here. Why? I help people pick diamonds that are not to my personal taste all day long. You know what I don't really like? Rounds. Do you know how often I help people pick rounds? All day long. I try very hard not to push my personal preferences on people. And I try to be conscious of that. And when I do post a personal opinion I make sure to label it as such. Crushed ice facet patterns are, most of the time, badly cut and poor performers. Yes they do have smaller facets and don't have the larger flashes. But that's not my beef with them. I don't like princesses either with their splintery facets. But I help people buy them without issue. Performance is the issue. And crushed ice facet patterns are usually not great performers.

The thing you are missing is this though: most people on RT are not buying for themselves. They are buying for others. And for some IRRITATING reason everything has to be a "surprise" and OF COURSE all of their partners are "happy with ANYTHING I pick." Except that last part? Not true. Their partners usually have strong preferences (once we force them to do some digging), and they are ignorant of them.

So often out job is to make sure that the person understands what the 'majority' of people prefer to make sure they pick something that has broad appeal. That isn't us pushing our personal preferences on to people and validating them with an ASET. This is us trying to make sure that the person gets something that is beautiful that the recipient will like.

You've never posted on here for any period of time. And you frankly do not understand what we do. But you feel qualified to pass judgement on us based on a handful of posts you've seen. Not okay.

As Karl posted: feel free to spend time here educating us if you want to see a change. Be the change you want to see. Because unless you do that... I don't think you have any right to criticize.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: Re:

Gypsy, I've been following this thread, and I finally get it b/c of your post here. I get what you're saying. Just makes sense. You're working with what you have, and what you have depends on who you're dealing with, fortunately or unfortunately.

Exactly! Whew, I am happy that was coherent. Sometimes I wonder if I am only making sense in my own head! Thanks LLJ!

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

If he knows and does not use them because they would expose the poor cuts he is selling, that says something.

Clearly, IMO that's why these two pros are threatened by ASET.

Exactly, cutting a radiant the same way for both colored material and colorless material is a strange niche choice. Some vendors as yo u have mentioned have adopted that cutting choice and sell and market it. However that choice is and I believe will always remain niche for colorless diamonds.

Marketing that says something with the tiny sparkles is "More Brilliant" or "Equally Brilliant" to H&A or other bright cut designs does not hold up to scrutiny by anyone, consumer or trade, who wants to make meaningful and critical comparisons or to use repeatable objective cut grading.

 

[pyramid]

As Gypsy posted: "Instead of handicapping them by just providing a few glamor shots of the stones and forcing them to rely on your eyes and your expertise. Your eyes, and your expertise as vendors are all well and good, but how do you know that what YOU like is the same as what a buyer likes? You don't."

This is no different than buying in a B & M store, this does not make people want to buy from you over the internet. In fact I have bought round diamonds over the internet, but intend to buy a radiant cut in person, because I figure I want to see it and see what this crushed ice is like in person. We need to be asset taught to look at radiant cuts.

 

[WinkHPD]

Re:

Thank you Sarahb, Jamileau, Karl, and Pyramid.

David, you and I have gotten into it many times in the past. Usually resulting in one of us getting banned. So all ll I am going to say to you is this: Ditto Karl's post and leave it at that.

Here's the thing about ASETs:

We we work to do the best we can with the tools offered by the vendors. If more vendors of fancy cuts were like JA, or GOG then we wouldn't rely so heavily on ASETs. JA provides fantastic videos of each stone so we can see the play of light and the crispness of the facets and compare one stone to the next. GOG provides a huge amount of information inlcuding ASETs and Megascopes and will take VERY HELPFUL videos for you upon request.

If more vendors, did this, then we wouldn't have to rely so heavily on ASETs for judge fancy cuts. But they don't. So that makes the ASET and still images usually the ONLY information we have. It's not that we WANT to rely so heavily on ASETs. We really don't. But vendors FORCE us to.

This is something John Pollard posted about rounds, and I think it is important to post it here:

In Context
Just imagine that you're trying to get to know someone's looks and personality...

An HCA score is merely like having a chalk outline of the person.
Grading report numbers are like having the person's height, weight and clothing measurements.
An ASET or Ideal-Scope (for RB) image is like having a still photo of the person.
An AGS Platinum "0" in performance is like a panel of judges confirming that the person's personality and looks are solid.
A 3D scan in sophisticated cut-calculation software is like having a video interview with the person.

Eventually, it's a lot of great information. All told it's enough for an experienced cut-specialist to make very detailed performance predictions. But in the end, a live date (dinner & a movie?) will be how you finally judge total personality and looks as you, individually, perceive them.

So why did I post this. People shopping on the internet need the MOST information that can be provided to them when making diamond purchases. And all these tools and scans and such are just that INFORMATION. None of them are sufficient ALONE, but working together this information results in knowledgeable and educated choices.
With fancies you usually do not have an AGS Platinum report. You don't have the HCA to predict performance as numbers do NOT tell the tale.

So what does that leave you with?

Videos, good ones if the vendors can provide them. Similar to either JA or GOG.
Still photos.
And the ASET image.

So my point in THIS post is this:
If you want to put your money where your mouth is: and you really have the consumer's best interests at heart as a vendor... then why DON'T you provide this information? Including an ASET. Instead of making the customer rely on your expertise and some still photos?

Provide videos and ASETs. And heck a megascope too. Because if you REALLY mean what you say: that consumers should be educated and knowledgeable, then HELP them.

Instead of handicapping them by just providing a few glamor shots of the stones and forcing them to rely on your eyes and your expertise. Your eyes, and your expertise as vendors are all well and good, but how do you know that what YOU like is the same as what a buyer likes? You don't. So provide them with more information and let them make up their own minds. And provide US here in PS with the tools we need to help them. And yes, that means videos and ASETs.

Gypsy,

That quote is one of my all time favorite John Pollard quotes. I have it stored in at least four different places in my computer and in the cloud and under different names, so that I can always find it if I forget one or more of the names. (Anyone who has never forgotten the name and file under which something is stored is a better storer than I am!)


In order for Rock, or any one else, to do as you have asked, they must first provide the ASET images and explain them, else they will be discredited by those expecting the ASETs to have the same interpretation as the ASETs for a round.

We have been told by two or even three experts on radiant cut that they must be interpreted differently, even though they do not appear, at this time, to agree amongst themselves exactly how they must be treated differently. I am admittedly a cutaholic so I do want to know these things. I know that small amounts of leakage can actually increase the appearance and quality of contrast in a diamond, and that contrast is incredibly important in the human eye's perception of beauty. It is in fact, the on and off transition as a stone is moved, however imperceptibly, that gives us sparkle. The very facets that we are seeing as leakage in the ASET at that one angle that is captured, may indeed be red or green if you change the angle captured by some tiny amount.

I do not normally deal in radiants, so I have no stones to photograph, or to collect ASETs on.

Ten minutes later.

Oops, that is not entirely true. I just checked my inventory and I have an 8 x 4.5 mm radiant cut gem here that I ordered two of when we made a travel ring for a lady. I always order two when making a simulant ring in case one is chipped. So I have a lot of weird sizes and shapes of stones in my CZ drawer.

If I posted the ASET image of this gem on the forum here it would be ridden out of town on a rail, and not because it is a CZ. The ASET is one that I would have sworn to you on my mother's grave a few minutes ago belonged to an UGLY stone. Only a little red, scattered throughout the stone, some greens, also scattered, but the most prevalent thing I see in the ASET is leakage.

HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! When I look at the stone with my eyes it that same delicious crushed ice sparkle that I love when I see a well cut radiant. The stone is GLORIOUS! It's ASET hurts my eyes.

Sigh. SO MUCH to learn!

I will not take an ASET photo of this stone, I am not well equipped to do it correctly. Even if I were, there is no way to know without looking at real diamonds that the correlation between the ASET of the radiant CZ is equivalent to the ASET of a similarly cut diamond. (There is great correlation in rounds, but that proves nothing in these radiant shapes.) It would also be forbidden by forum rules, and I hope the moderator will forgive me for skirting the line as I am attempting to answer an asked question with my actual personal observations, made just now and at great surprise to me in what I saw. I looked at the stone and expected to see a lot of red with a little green and even less black or white (both leakage depending on whether a white or black background is used.)

So, David, I admit I was wrong in thinking that an ASET could be used to assist someone in looking at radiants. I am NOT WRONG in thinking that you or Radiantman or Melisende or perhaps all three of you would do yourselves a favor to educate us in interpreting the ASETS of a radiant cut diamond, lest the asked for ASET images be the very thing that chase us all away from what we think will be a hideous diamond. It will be a LOT of work if you do it.

Wink

 

[kenny]

Wow. Radiantman and Rockdiamond are remarkably similar characters.
Never in a million years would I have thought we'd ever see another poster anything like Rockdiamond.

I'm waiting for Henri Daussi to show up to tell us about his fireball diamonds.

Boys ... I realize dumbed-down consumers are getting harder to find, but Pricescope is not the place to troll for them.
Pricescope is about consumer education and those rare diamonds cut for good light performance.

Who do you think we want to buy from? ... vendors who use and embrace cut-analysis tools or vendors who bash them and work hard to make them seem confusing?
Posters with 3 brain cells can see right through what you are trying to do here.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

As Gypsy posted: "Instead of handicapping them by just providing a few glamor shots of the stones and forcing them to rely on your eyes and your expertise. Your eyes, and your expertise as vendors are all well and good, but how do you know that what YOU like is the same as what a buyer likes? You don't."

This is no different than buying in a B & M store, this does not make people want to buy from you over the internet. In fact I have bought round diamonds over the internet, but intend to buy a radiant cut in person, because I figure I want to see it and see what this crushed ice is like in person. We need to be asset taught to look at radiant cuts.

Bingo Pyramid - the bolded section is precisely the point I've been trying to make. Anybody giving advice to a consumer, whether vendor or prosumer, needs to keep in mind that what THEY like is not necessarily what the buyer likes. And the best way for anyone to decide whether they prefer fewer larger flashes or more smaller flashes is to see the two styles and judge for themselves. Then shop for the look you like using whatever tools are available, including photos, ASET, vendors opinion etc, to make sure you're getting what you're looking for.

Gypsy - I did not mean to offend you but it's hard to know how to respond when you say, in essence, that you are protecting men from buying their girlfriends something that will disappoint them when you post things like "most people don't like crushed ice" and in the same post you say your advice is not influenced by your own subjective opinions. It certainly hasn't been my experience that "most people don't like" the way a well cut radiant sparkles and if there's any impirical evidence to support that "most people don't like crushed ice" I'm not familiar with it. I'd be interested to see it if it exists. Not to mention that not everyone wants what "most people like" anyway. If they did, everyone would buy colorless round stones not fancy cuts or fancy colors.

Milisende - you've posted the same image of what you claim is an ORC more than a few times, generally together with an image of a princess with cut corners that you say "performs" far better. Please post the ORC cert# so I can verify that it is indeed an ORC and look up its specs. If it is indeed an ORC you will find the # inscribed on the girdle together with the GIA cert #. Also, it would be interesting to know if you have shown those two diamonds to a sample group of people, like a focus group, side by side to find out which one real live consumers might prefer. Or is your opinion about which of these two diamonds is more attractive to consumers based entirely on your own interpretation of the ASET data and what you feel that says about "performance?"

Wink - your radiant ASET example is a perfect case in point. Thank you for taking the time to do the test.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Wink- along with Stan I thank you for taking some time to consider this.
The reasons we have not even begun to delve into how to judge an aset of a radiant cut are two, mainly.
1) an environment where a simple question- "have you ever seen a generic or Original Radiant cut" gets classified as an attack.
How is an objective discussion possible when we can't even find out what a person criticisizing the cut is basing their opinion on. And the unfortunate personal and business attacks aimed at anyone who might express a different opinion get pretty old. Anyone who cares about this forum should hope Stan can get by the BS and continue to contribute.

2) most importantly- the issue of exactly what makes a great Radiant is far more complex than judging a round diamond. Particularly dispersed green and white in ASET. I've used the ASET on hundreds of stones, both well cut and poorly cut. I'd say culling really bad ones- like ones with dark centers- is fairly straightforward. But not if we're quatifying the type of stone with no pattern and a lot of small sparkles. Sometimes a bit of contrast is quite attractive- other times not at all. So the bottom line for me is that aset is not conclusive for a lot of stones cut for sparkle.

 

[WinkHPD]

Wink- along with Stan I thank you for taking some time to consider this.
The reasons we have not even begun to delve into how to judge an aset of a radiant cut are two, mainly.
1) an environment where a simple question- "have you ever seen a generic or Original Radiant cut" gets classified as an attack.
How is an objective discussion possible when we can't even find out what a person criticisizing the cut is basing their opinion on. And the unfortunate personal and business attacks aimed at anyone who might express a different opinion get pretty old. Anyone who cares about this forum should hope Stan can get by the BS and continue to contribute.

2) most importantly- the issue of exactly what makes a great Radiant is far more complex than judging a round diamond. Particularly dispersed green and white in ASET. I've used the ASET on hundreds of stones, both well cut and poorly cut. I'd say culling really bad ones- like ones with dark centers- is fairly straightforward. But not if we're quatifying the type of stone with no pattern and a lot of small sparkles. Sometimes a bit of contrast is quite attractive- other times not at all. So the bottom line for me is that aset is not conclusive for a lot of stones cut for sparkle.

A couple of hours ago I might have wanted to disagree, but now that I have see how beautiful a radiant cut with an absolutely HORRIBLE ASET looks I have to say that I need to know more.

Fortunately for me, I do not normally deal in radiants, and it is unlikely that I will ever choose to do so. I had the great pleasure of knowing Henry Grossbard many years ago before he was killed by a hit and run driver. We never actually met in person, but had some very interesting conversations on the phone. I did, back then, sell several of his lovely creations, but have not sold one in a diamond for a long time.

My passion lies elsewhere now, but my experience this afternoon tells me that you will need to at least take great photos and videos of these diamonds if you wish to have them accepted for what they are, as ASET pictures is sure to drive most people away from them, no matter how much you explain that this is a gorgeous diamond without other VISUAL proof.

Wink

 

[Rockdiamond]

Wink- I have literally thousands of photos and hundreds of videos published on colorless radiant diamonds.
You also, are acutely aware of how seeing a really well cut diamond affects people.
Really well cut radiant cuts with dispersed green and white- possibly like the one Melisendre keeps flogging- can have a distinctive look preferred by many people.
Both Stan and I have tons of personal experice of showing well cut radiant diamonds to people- as have you Wink. Not everyone loves any diamond cut- and a lot of folks that see radiant cuts in person love them.

Part of what makes you associate the aset of a lovely diamond as a horrible aset is what makes photography particularly difficult.
Every photo requires compromise Many of the vendors that do have photos and videos of radiant cuts apply the same methodology to radiant photography as to round.
Many times what might be a really nice stone can look bad due to that reason.
Through a lot of experimentation over the years I've developed my own methods.
Btw- I've always found that stones with performance problems can't be masked in "real" photography. Photoshop can fix anything. But stones with obvious visual problems will show them in pictures.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Re: Re:

Gypsy, I've been following this thread, and I finally get it b/c of your post here. I get what you're saying. Just makes sense. You're working with what you have, and what you have depends on who you're dealing with, fortunately or unfortunately.

Exactly! Whew, I am happy that was coherent. Sometimes I wonder if I am only making sense in my own head! Thanks LLJ!

Gypsy I think day in day out you do a fine job.
From time to time I mention a few advanced points which would help improve your advice but overall I think its solid and you deserve credit for all the time you put in.

The attack on ASET should have nothing to do with you at all and really is so inappropriate for this customer's thread.
I would encourage you to continue to do what you have been doing it is invaluable to the community.