Radiant Diamond HELP! Fish eye or Bowtie?

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Re: Re:

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.

How do you define a well cut Radiant? (How do you know you have even seen one?).
Have you compared the one you have, to a cut cornered square with hearts and arrows or to an H&A round? If so which one is more brilliant?

Have you compared it to say a top quality 3 or 4 chevron princess cut? Which one is more brilliant?

Diamonds are sparkly, even the poorly cut ones have some ability to return light. It is the performance relative to others that determines whether something is "well cut" in my book.

 

[Ella]

Last reminder, TRADE MEMBERS MAY NOT CRITIQUE OR BASH OTHER VENDORS. Enough.

 

[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!

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.

Thank you very much Melisende, I've enjoyed your posts and have learned from them. I am happy you have been posting here and hope you continue to do so.

I do OWN an ASET scope myself. And the nifty little light box for it (I stole both from Gary H. at a PS GTG one year ).

And I love browsing jewelry and lose stones. So I do take my loupe and ASET to stores. The reactions are always interesting of the jewelers. Some know what it is. Some have never heard of it. Some are frankly rude.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re:

Hi Gypsy
My question is simple, without any malice whatsoever: have you seen an Original Radiant Cut, and or generic radiant cuts in person?
If so, please give us your impressions.
I will post an ASET momentarily, I'd love your impressions

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi All!
Please give me your impressions of this ASET- I do have the diamond in front of me.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi All!
Please give me your impressions of this ASET- I do have the diamond in front of me.

David,
It looks like the stone may be tilted slightly to the right or there more be more light coming from the right side. Do you think it is aligned as well as it can be?

Otherwise, while it does look a bit watery it also has what looks to be a relatively good distribution of red and green with some contrast mixed in.

How would you describe the stone in real life? Can you post a picture? My guess would be it is a very pleasant stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Bryan,
I agree that the stone is probably 3-4 degrees tilted on the ASET.
The shape of the stone makes it very difficult to position exactly.

Real life impressions: I picked this particular diamond as it has optimal performance as a "crushed ice" type of stone.
Additionally, it's a tall rectangle. This type of shape is a huge consideration in cutting. Many times longer stones will have "wings'- dark areas between 1-3 oclock and 7-10 oclock
Sometimes the "wings" are detrimental, other times they flash on and off quickly, presenting little visual downsides.
The particular stone has none of that in real life-although the aset and photo do show a bit of evidence of darkness in those areas.
To the point of designing a predictable ASET model this particular diamond is a poster child for the difficulty.
Amazing in person, looks "watery" in an ASET.
AND the leakage shown in the ASET is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT in the beauty of the diamond.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Hi Bryan,
I agree that the stone is probably 3-4 degrees tilted on the ASET.
The shape of the stone makes it very difficult to position exactly.

Real life impressions: I picked this particular diamond as it has optimal performance as a "crushed ice" type of stone.
Additionally, it's a tall rectangle. This type of shape is a huge consideration in cutting. Many times longer stones will have "wings'- dark areas between 1-3 oclock and 7-10 oclock
Sometimes the "wings" are detrimental, other times they flash on and off quickly, presenting little visual downsides.
The particular stone has none of that in real life-although the aset and photo do show a bit of evidence of darkness in those areas.
To the point of designing a predictable ASET model this particular diamond is a poster child for the difficulty.
Amazing in person, looks "watery" in an ASET.
AND the leakage shown in the ASET is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT in the beauty of the diamond.

David,
Kudos on a very enlightening demonstration. Indeed it looks like a beautiful diamond.

It is really informative to see the correlation between ASET and a good image. I hope you will show us more over time. Both the good and the bad, so we can start to understand the translation.

Nicely done!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

David,
Could you also describe the lighting setup used in the photograph? What type of light is it and at what angle is it positioned? From the reflection on the tweezers it appears that the light source is directed at rather steep angle to the stone, as opposed to more perpendicular to the table.

 

[Karl_K]

David,
To be respectful to the board rules I feel I need permission from Ella before I comment on your diamonds.
In order to do so we need a temporary relaxation of the rules.
I can comment that tilt makes a difference when trying to correlate ASET to photos.
I would guess even more so with these than with rounds.
Also posting both images side by side is helpful.
I am reporting my post to seek permission to comment further.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you Bryan!
I know you are seeking an open honest discourse, and honestly believe that we agree on far more than we see differently.

With regards to photography- my photographic methods are proprietary.
Suffice it to say that on my monitor, the picture provides a very strong likeness of the actual diamond.

 

[Rockdiamond]

David,
To be respectful to the board rules I feel I need permission from Ella before I comment on your diamonds.
In order to do so we need a temporary relaxation of the rules.
I can comment that tilt makes a difference when trying to correlate ASET to photos.
I would guess even more so with these than with rounds.
Also posting both images side by side is helpful.
I am reporting my post to seek permission to comment further.

Hi Karl,
Thank you for that.
No worries as this is not my diamond- so there's no conflict as far as I'm concerned.

 

[LLJsmom]

Just saying from the perspective of an uneducated consumer, that is a really pretty diamond! I am not a crushed ice kinda girl but if I were I would want that rock. And if I had money to burn I might get one just to round out my collection. . I do love the contrast.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Just saying from the perspective of an uneducated consumer, that is a really pretty diamond! I am not a crushed ice kinda girl but if I were I would want that rock. And if I had money to burn I might get one just to round out my collection. . I do love the contrast.

Thanks LLJsmom!!
I'll pose the same question to you as I have to Gypsy....
Have you seen any radiant cuts- either generic or branded, in person?

The reason I'm asking is that you used the dreaded term ..."crushed ice"- so I wanted to know if you've even seen a stone you'd describe that way.

 

[LLJsmom]

Just saying from the perspective of an uneducated consumer, that is a really pretty diamond! I am not a crushed ice kinda girl but if I were I would want that rock. And if I had money to burn I might get one just to round out my collection. . I do love the contrast.

Thanks LLJsmom!!
I'll pose the same question to you as I have to Gypsy....
Have you seen any radiant cuts- either generic or branded, in person?

The reason I'm asking is that you used the dreaded term ..."crushed ice"- so I wanted to know if you've even seen a stone you'd describe that way.

Im pretty sure I have not seen any branded ones but a few that would probably fall I to he generic category.

 

[kenny]

WOW!
That looks spectacular!
Lighting the pavilion really makes poorly-cut leaky diamonds look fabulous.

But it is a deceptive photography technique, unless it is an additional glamour shot with the other shots being honest.
Unless you mount tiny battery-powered lights in the ring that shine into the pavilion the diamond won't look like that after being set.
If fact the loose diamond won't look like that if light is not allowed to enter the pavilion.

With leaky inventory like that it is no wonder you twist yourself into pretzels poo pooing cut evaluation tools.



Notice how the tweezers proves there is a strong backlight.
Look at the shadows on the FRONT of the tweezers.
You can also see the shadow cast on the tweezers by the diamond is widest where the diamond touches the tweezers.
Then it gets thinner and then vanishes as you move away from where the diamond touches the tweezer.
All these proves there is a very bright light source above and behind the left side of the diamond.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Kenny,
With me posting and having been an active participant on this forum since 2009, hiding complaints against us would be quite difficult, don't you think?
My knowledge of how consumers react to diamonds is far from academic.
If they don't like it, we give them a refund.
We don't have to issue a lot of refunds - because people use the pictures and videos are are not disappointed when they open the box.

It's pretty clear you hold some sort of grudge against me- for what, I do not know.
That's fine, you're free to feel however you want about me.
But can we have a discussion of how ASET is used without turning it into some sort of "vendetta fest"

For the 1000th time- I'm not arguing against the tools, rather I am taking a critical look at how they are used.

You're someone who obviously cares about PS, and posts here a lot.
I'll admit, I like reading many of your posts- I'd really hope you can see the value of having someone like Stan Grossbard posting on Pricescope.
I encourage you to Google him- check out who he is and what he's done before posting disparaging remarks about or to him

And please, open your mind to a discussion of diamond cut that is objective.

 

[FrekeChild]

Don't you mean subjective David?

Subjective - opinion
Objective - fact

Objective:
The diamond above is of the crushed ice variety.

Subjective:
I don't like diamonds that have the crushed ice look.

 

[sarahb]

David, if your goal is to have an objective discussion of a certain cut, then why present to this particular community an Asset that is incorrectly photographed, (at an angle) & diamond photo presented with a unrealistic day to day light source? (Light aimed perpendicular to the pavilion.)

I'm not one of the board 'experts' but even I can see the manipulation.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Freke!
Yes I understand the differences between "objective" and "subjective"
Objective- " it looks like a crushed ice diamond, and my subjective view is I don't like that kind of cut"

A subjective statement made to look like an objective one: "it looks a crushed ice diamond- those don't perform well- we can prove it scientifically"

 

[Rockdiamond]

David, if your goal is to have an objective discussion of a certain cut, then why present to this particular community an Asset that is incorrectly photographed, (at an angle) & diamond photo presented with a unrealistic day to day light source? (Light aimed perpendicular to the pavilion.)

I'm not one of the board 'experts' but even I can see the manipulation.

I photographed the aset using recommended methodolgy.
The diamond sits on a light, covered by a piece of clear plastic with a hole in it.
You need to place the diamond on the hole and tap the light to get the diamond sitting with its table parallel to the floor.
Not exactly easy. But I did my best.
As noted, there's probably a 3-4 degree tilt.
Anyone familiar with aset interpretation would easily see this and integrate it into their evluation.
How is this manipulating anything?

 

[FrekeChild]

Hi Freke!
Yes I understand the differences between "objective" and "subjective"
Objective- " it looks like a crushed ice diamond, and my subjective view is I don't like that kind of cut"

A subjective statement made to look like an objective one: "it looks a crushed ice diamond- those don't perform well- we can prove it scientifically"

Except that you have hammered it into everyone's brains, "Don't rely on the tools. Trust your eyes."

Maybe it's just me, but that's 100% subjective. Your eyes do not see fact, as much as you'd like them to.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The same diamond sitting on a piece of glass in a lightbox.

 

[FrekeChild]

David, if your goal is to have an objective discussion of a certain cut, then why present to this particular community an Asset that is incorrectly photographed, (at an angle) & diamond photo presented with a unrealistic day to day light source? (Light aimed perpendicular to the pavilion.)

I'm not one of the board 'experts' but even I can see the manipulation.

I photographed the aset using recommended methodolgy.
The diamond sits on a light, covered by a piece of clear plastic with a hole in it.
You need to place the diamond on the hole and tap the light to get the diamond sitting with its table parallel to the floor.
Not exactly easy. But I did my best.
As noted, there's probably a 3-4 degree tilt.
Anyone familiar with aset interpretation would easily see this and integrate it into their evluation.
How is this manipulating anything?

She is referring to you taking pictures of the stone with the tweezers with the light directed from the pavilion....which is never realistic to actual life circumstances. When do any of my stones have light pointed at the sides or through the pavilion? Only when I manipulate it to do so with a flashlight.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Freke!
Yes I understand the differences between "objective" and "subjective"
Objective- " it looks like a crushed ice diamond, and my subjective view is I don't like that kind of cut"

A subjective statement made to look like an objective one: "it looks a crushed ice diamond- those don't perform well- we can prove it scientifically"

Except that you have hammered it into everyone's brains, "Don't rely on the tools. Trust your eyes."

Maybe it's just me, but that's 100% subjective. Your eyes do not see fact, as much as you'd like them to.

Hi Freke,
Like Kenny, I have ZERO idea why you hold a grudge against me.
So I've now obtained the ability to hammer thoughts in peoples brains? Everyone's. Wow.

And furthermore, what would you tell folks.....
Don't trust your lying eyes, trust someone telling you " it's a great aset"

A guy comes home to find his wife in bed with another man.
She denies it.
"Who are you going to trust- me or your lying eyes"

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thank you Bryan!
I know you are seeking an open honest discourse, and honestly believe that we agree on far more than we see differently.

With regards to photography- my photographic methods are proprietary.
Suffice it to say that on my monitor, the picture provides a very strong likeness of the actual diamond.

David, it diminishes the validity of what you are trying to illustrate by saying that your "photographic methods are proprietary". What we are talking about here is specifically how the diamond is handling light and correlating that to what we see in ASET. With the ASET being tilted slightly we can factor that in. But not knowing what kind of light or how it is directed into the diamond we cannot derive anything other than to say the diamond looks very pretty in the picture.

If the goal is to present objective information for education and discussion you need to be forthcoming with basic information, otherwise it will just be dismissed as manipulative.

 

[kenny]

Let me fix this statement ... "Suffice it to say that on my monitor, the picture provides a very strong likeness of the actual diamond."

...


Suffice it to say that on my monitor, the picture provides a very strong likeness of the actual diamond when light is shined on the pavilion.

Proprietary, my @ss!
We all know why you do this.
You are hiding behind the word proprietary.

Your diamonds look better than any other diamonds online.
They look like they are exploding with light.
Hmmmm.

That they also look that way LIVE when light is shinned on the pavilion is no defense ... of course they do.

What you are doing is deceptive and you should be ashamed of yourself in this day and age of more and more people depending on Internet vendor pics to choose diamonds.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan- if anyone would understand that certain aspects of a business are not publishable, it would be you.
That should not preclude an objective discussion.
I have posted a second photo of the diamond sitting in a light box, on a piece of glass.
It's a commercially available unit- made by a company called MK digital Direct, Model Photo E box

There are white lights in 3 of the walls, I have blocked light from the floor of the unit with a piece of opaque black Plexiglas.
The diamond is sitting on a piece of frosted glass, which is sitting on a black plastic surface.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Let me fix this statement ... "Suffice it to say that on my monitor, the picture provides a very strong likeness of the actual diamond."

...


Suffice it to say that on my monitor, the picture provides a very strong likeness of the actual diamond when light is shined on the pavilion.

Proprietary, my @ss!
We all know why you do this.
You are hiding behind the word proprietary.

Your diamonds look better than any other diamonds online.
They look like they are exploding with light.
Hmmmm.

That they also look that way LIVE when light is shinned on the pavilion is no defense ... of course they do.

What you are doing is deceptive and you should be ashamed of yourself in this day and age of more and more people depending on Internet vendor pics to choose diamonds.

Hi Kenny,
The reason I have no need to report a post like this is that some of the things you think I should be ashamed of, I am fiercely proud of.
Are my pictures better than anyone else's, yes, they are.
That's my gazillion percent SUBJECTIVE opinion.
Do a google search for "radiant Diamond" and look at the images- ours do stand out- and I personally believe they are the best not only in how they look- but also the most representative.
Bryan- your pics are also very nice, I might add.
Kenny- please- pick your favorite picture of a Radiant Cut diamond of a diamond being offered for sale by a vendor.
I'd love to see what you consider best.

This is all very subjective.

Kenny what is not subjective is my ability to somehow suppress all this "deception" you claim and instead garner all the positive reviews we have garnered, here and many other places.
So please- let's have a civilized discussion.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Thank you Bryan!
I know you are seeking an open honest discourse, and honestly believe that we agree on far more than we see differently.

With regards to photography- my photographic methods are proprietary.
Suffice it to say that on my monitor, the picture provides a very strong likeness of the actual diamond.

David
Why the secrecy ?..