Radiant Diamond HELP! Fish eye or Bowtie?

[FrekeChild]

Rounds is always going to be king, because it's classic, and people are used to seeing a lot of them. The vast majority of the posters here coming wanting rounds, and the vast majority of the engagement rings and jewelry I see out in the world are rounds. Next would be princesses. After that come the emeralds, asschers, marquises, pears, ovals, radiants, cushions, etc. Out of all of those, I'd consider marquise, pear and radiants to be the least popular. That's not even bringing hearts into the equation, because hearts are a love them or hate them, and most people really don't like hearts.

I'm being over-generalizing, but I've also spent almost 8 years on this forum, and that's what I've witnessed here and in real life. And the preference for rounds goes for colored stones as well, which is what I know best because I mostly stay in the CS forum.

But if you go to a jewelry store - any jewelry store - they will likely have a ton of rounds and princesses and very few of the fancies. Why carry them if your clientele doesn't know they exist? It's hard to sell something that is outside of what they see out in the real world.

I actually think we see more interest in fancy cuts now (emeralds and cushions come to mind immediately because of Kim Kardashian) because of celebrity engagement rings and the general public's exposure to the fancies through seeing them on a celeb's hand. Jennifer Aniston got her rose cut and I've seen a huge increase in interest in rose cuts because of that. But a *huge* increase in a relatively obscure cut on a diamond forum means a ridiculously small increase in the over all scheme of things.

It is well known here that radiant cuts tend to favor colored diamonds and deepen their color. So, that's probably why you sell so many! Your market is a specialty one, not like the vast majority of jewelers out there, so your view is skewed towards radiants and away from stones that do not retain color as well, such as rounds.

 

[WinkHPD]

Point well taken old friend.
If I might ask- why do you emphatically state you have NO INTENTION of ever carrying Radiant Cut diamonds?
We agree, many people don't love any type of diamond cut. Which can also be taken to mean many people do.
I'm honestly curious because I'd say a similar percentage off all shoppers would be moved to buy a super ideal as to buy a well cut radaint. Both are "boutique" cuts.
Please accept my apology in advance if the question is out of line.

PS- you're late! I was done casting my ballot by 8:30 this morning

Hum along to the old old tune of "My Heart Belongs to Daddy". It is from long before you were born.

Cause my Heart belongs to (Name of diamond I can not mention in this post.)

Well, that is enough of my singing.

I tried carrying a secondary line of really beautiful diamonds that were less expensive, and found I could not sell them as every time some one asked about them I would say something on the lines of, :Well these are really nice, but not as nice as my (Name of diamond line again), you really do not one of these when you could have an (yup, name again).

I have been, and continue to be pretty much focused on only one quality of diamond cutting, and am not happy selling anything less, even though I can sell more of the less and make more money in total. I am not interested in other diamonds, with the exception of some nice color from time to time. So that is why I emphatically state I have no intention of ever carrying radiants again. I am so happy with what I have, that I really do not have any interest in having more.

Wink

 

[Rockdiamond]

Rounds is always going to be king, because it's classic, and people are used to seeing a lot of them. The vast majority of the posters here coming wanting rounds, and the vast majority of the engagement rings and jewelry I see out in the world are rounds. Next would be princesses. After that come the emeralds, asschers, marquises, pears, ovals, radiants, cushions, etc. Out of all of those, I'd consider marquise, pear and radiants to be the least popular. That's not even bringing hearts into the equation, because hearts are a love them or hate them, and most people really don't like hearts.

I'm being over-generalizing, but I've also spent almost 8 years on this forum, and that's what I've witnessed here and in real life. And the preference for rounds goes for colored stones as well, which is what I know best because I mostly stay in the CS forum.

But if you go to a jewelry store - any jewelry store - they will likely have a ton of rounds and princesses and very few of the fancies. Why carry them if your clientele doesn't know they exist? It's hard to sell something that is outside of what they see out in the real world.

I actually think we see more interest in fancy cuts now (emeralds and cushions come to mind immediately because of Kim Kardashian) because of celebrity engagement rings and the general public's exposure to the fancies through seeing them on a celeb's hand. Jennifer Aniston got her rose cut and I've seen a huge increase in interest in rose cuts because of that. But a *huge* increase in a relatively obscure cut on a diamond forum means a ridiculously small increase in the over all scheme of things.

It is well known here that radiant cuts tend to favor colored diamonds and deepen their color. So, that's probably why you sell so many! Your market is a specialty one, not like the vast majority of jewelers out there, so your view is skewed towards radiants and away from stones that do not retain color as well, such as rounds.

Guys- I've also spent years on this forum. Among other things, I know that the "common knowledge" is that princess cut comes after round which is number one in popularity.
But the market, as I experience it, does not bear this out.
Maybe it's because we don't make "commercial" jewelry like you might find in a mall store.
I get to look at a broad swath of diamonds cut- in all shapes. I speak to many diamond cutters on a daily basis. My view is skewed towards well cut diamonds of ANY shape- not only radiant cuts.
Not to lessen the value of ANY participant here- because EVERYONE'S voice is important.

The point about what "most" people want.
Say we used that logic of steering people asking about stones to what's most popular: for folks asking about super ideal round diamonds, we'd have to let them know that a tiny percentage of shoppers are looking for that type of stone. Almost no one buys those!!
Should the popularity aspect mean we don't help them?
Or should we use that fact to try to convince them they don't know what they want?

"Really- are you sure you want a super ideal? So few buyers go for those. Everyone is buying badly made diamonds at the mall!"

Lest anyone misinterpret the irony- this forum IS the place for folks to find answers on specialized diamonds. Why exclude Radiant cuts?

.

 

[Karl_K]

Lest anyone misinterpret the irony- this forum IS the place for folks to find answers on specialized diamonds. Why exclude Radiant cuts?

.

Because there is not enough information avalable and 2 people well suited to provide it would rather fight with prosumers than teach.

 

[FrekeChild]

Do you suggest that when someone comes around looking for a round, oval or princess that we say, "Oh, no, you should buy a radiant instead!"?

If we did that, no one would come here to post for help. Typically people come here to learn but they walk in with an idea of what they want. And most people want rounds. If people don't know what they want, people might suggest other shapes/options, but people buy what they like. A round is safe. In my direct circle of friends (non-PSers) and family, everyone but myself has a round. I have a princess. And that's because I inherited it.

We aren't PUSHERS. We don't have an AGENDA. We are here to HELP people and EDUCATE them if they want to be educated.

You have anecdotal evidence of what you SELL, not of what the general public wants. I cannot remember ever seeing a radiant out on display in a store unless it was fancy colored, much less on someone's hand! (The sole exceptions are Madelise, and Catmom and both are fancy yellow. And that's at a PS Vegas GTG with PSers and industry members who KNOW about radiants!)

I stand behind everything that Gypsy has said, and admire her restraint in responding to you.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl we have already picked some very nice examples that WILL be illustrative.
This all takes time.
Would you suggest starting a new thread, or continuing here?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Lest anyone misinterpret the irony- this forum IS the place for folks to find answers on specialized diamonds. Why exclude Radiant cuts?

.

Because there is not enough information avalable and 2 people well suited to provide it would rather fight with prosumers than teach.

Karl,
You captured many of my thoughts in one very succinct sentence!

To me the great irony is, that there are people here that love radiants and some of them have even posted in this thread. There is no doubt in my mind that if more of us understood how to identify a well cut radiant from the diagnostics available for remote consultation, that prosumers would be more confident in recommending radiants. Meanwhile, all the acrimony makes prosumers less likely to embrace radiants as an option to recommend.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Lest anyone misinterpret the irony- this forum IS the place for folks to find answers on specialized diamonds. Why exclude Radiant cuts?

.

Because there is not enough information avalable and 2 people well suited to provide it would rather fight with prosumers than teach.

I'm confused Karl. Folks have asked that David or I post ASETs and photos of radiants to help people better understand the meaning of the ASET signatures and how it corresponds to the real life appearance of the diamond. David has posted one such set and said he will be posting more shortly. Would you like him to do that or not?

And with all due respect, I urge you to consider who is fighting with whom. I have posted maybe 4 times on this thread and said nothing that in an objective rational world would be even remotely controversial. Presenting alternative viewpoints is in fact teaching, not fighting. My reward has been a barrage of posts including a few that went so far as to attack my honesty and integrity for the crime of questioning the limitations of the ASET and pointing out that it was not fair to assert that "most people don't like crushed ice" in the absence of any impirical evidence supporting the claim.

I hope that when David posts his additional images people will refrain from the strange and uncalled for attacks that (in some cases) greeted his first set of images and engage in a constructive conversation. And I hope that we can all ignore the static that comes from those who simply want to drown out alternative opinions and are not interested in having a constructive sharing of information and ideas.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl we have already picked some very nice examples that WILL be illustrative.
This all takes time.
Would you suggest starting a new thread, or continuing here?

Good that is a good step that you should have done years ago.
New thread would be better I think to much baggage in this one.

 

[Karl_K]

Stan,
Forum rules prevent me from discussing this in the way I would like.
Let me see if I can be diplomatic...
You drew some heat because someone has a bad habit of getting people riled up then you get pulled into the frying pan with him.
At times it is not what you post but who you are associated with in the thread that makes people take anything you might say in a bad way rather than giving you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Rockdiamond]

That's a load of stinky stuff Karl.
I get attacked because my viewpoint is different than most people posting. Which is precisely why Stan was attacked.
NO ONE should be attacked.
In any event, please can we stick to positive movement.
Can you or anyone suggest a title for the thread?

 

[Karl_K]

radiant diamond education sounds good for a title.
Easy to find in a search and sets a good tone.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Lest anyone misinterpret the irony- this forum IS the place for folks to find answers on specialized diamonds. Why exclude Radiant cuts?

.

Because there is not enough information avalable and 2 people well suited to provide it would rather fight with prosumers than teach.

I'm confused Karl. Folks have asked that David or I post ASETs and photos of radiants to help people better understand the meaning of the ASET signatures and how it corresponds to the real life appearance of the diamond. David has posted one such set and said he will be posting more shortly. Would you like him to do that or not?

And with all due respect, I urge you to consider who is fighting with whom. I have posted maybe 4 times on this thread and said nothing that in an objective rational world would be even remotely controversial. Presenting alternative viewpoints is in fact teaching, not fighting. My reward has been a barrage of posts including a few that went so far as to attack my honesty and integrity for the crime of questioning the limitations of the ASET and pointing out that it was not fair to assert that "most people don't like crushed ice" in the absence of any impirical evidence supporting the claim.

I hope that when David posts his additional images people will refrain from the strange and uncalled for attacks that (in some cases) greeted his first set of images and engage in a constructive conversation. And I hope that we can all ignore the static that comes from those who simply want to drown out alternative opinions and are not interested in having a constructive sharing of information and ideas.

Stan, I empathize with your challenge and I hope that this can turn into something that is a net positive for all. One of the confusing things is that it is hard to tell where you start and David leaves off. Therefore, you may be surprised at some of the controversy that seems to be created by your posts, when it is actually prompted by statements someone else makes or has made. I'm not sure what the solution to that is, but it does seem to add a subsurface element to the discussion that can be disruptive.

I am looking forward to seeing this topic get on a good footing, as I think it is beneficial to consumers to understand how to properly evaluate radiant cuts with the tools that are in use here, as well as to develop a better appreciation for the subtle beauty of the faceting style.

I also feel like starting a new thread is the way to go. Let's get a fresh start and see what happens. Maybe everyone will settle down!

 

[petrock<3]

It very well might its a tool that will tell Misty how bright a particular stone is prior to purchase. It also may be able to determine If there will be any dark areas reflecting her head or the setting underneath, it might also tell her how large the flashes will be.



**edited by moderator. please re-read our policies for trade members**[/quote]


I don't think radiants should be pushed on anyone, but when they are brought up this aset debate goes on. Then something like this gets posted where it looks like the definitive answer on ORC's. (Other posts have had just radiants in general). Like "boom" see how horrible this is?

Except to the casual reader possibly interested in radiants, doing some research, they don't have a clue why that is bad. And their opinion is swayed. They might not even continue to delve into the subject or even finish reading the thread. A lot of people may be reading this thread and not post but are influenced by an aset picture that is not really explained.

ETA: I look forward to the new thread and I hope examples like this can be avoided.
Maybe a new crop of radiant lovers will be born!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan- and Kenny- I can assure you Stan and I are different people.
We happen to be old friends that see many things the same way, and of course, some things we disagree on.
I happen to be far better looking - so you won't confuse us when you meet us
I will ask you please read a post before attributing it to anyone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

the new thread
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/radiant-diamond-cut-evaluation-education.207584/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/radiant-diamond-cut-evaluation-education.207584/[/URL]

 

[pyramid]

This is true
'Except to the casual reader possibly interested in radiants, doing some research, they don't have a clue why that is bad. And their opinion is swayed. They might not even continue to delve into the subject or even finish reading the thread. A lot of people may be reading this thread and not post but are influenced by an aset picture that is not really explained.'

I would like to see more images too of radiant cuts on hands, I am sure that would make them sell more too.

We see lots of old cuts here at the moment so maybe the cushion cut is taking the customers away from radiant cuts and princess cuts, other square cuts. There is definitely more buying OEC who would probably have bought a round brilliant before.

Want to add, I don't know, maybe radiant cuts are selling well, I just mean we don't see them bought often on this forum.

 

[kenny]

Too much white.
White is leakage.
Lots of leakage is bad.

Not rocket science.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Kenny,
Gee, based on your tagline, I'm teaching you so much about yourself!

A few points about that photo
1) we are not certain it is, in fact, an ORC
2) We can make assumptions about the actual appearance of the diamond based on the aset- but we'd need to look at the diamond to confirm those impressions.
Based on what I see, it might be a nice looking stone. But we don't know.
The leakage indicated, per se, would not make it a bad stone.

 

[pyramid]

So due to the rocking motion of the diamond, with facets lighting up and turning off, radiant cuts treat this leaking in a different way? Assets may look bad but stones good!! So we need Garry Holloway to design a new asset thingamejig which moves to three different positions or something (a motorised one) and we base our evaluation off three asset images? Would something like that work.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The tool itself is not the problem. The issue is one of understanding that leakage is an integral characteristic of the beauty of well cut stones like the one I posted.
We will get into greater detail in the new thread

 

[petrock<3]

Too much white.
White is leakage.
Lots of leakage is bad.

Not rocket science.

I'm sure it's not rocket science but a novice like myself may be saying to themselves...
OK leakage is bad... but in what way? What does that translate to when I'm looking at the stone?
Are stones like this always ugly? Does it mean it will be dark because light is leaking out? Are we sure it is that simple, could a stone with an aset like this look pretty in real life ever?
Hopefully we will find out.

 

[Rockdiamond]

petrock- is your avatar, your real ring?
That ring and even the avatar shot itself illustrates why leakage an be good.
A diamond DOES get light from below.
In the setting in the avatar the diamond gathers light from all over.
Even if the stone is set in a more restrictive setting, the leakage still allows light to travel through the diamond and get reflected back up again.

 

[pyramid]

I know we are going to have it all explained to us but could it mean that we don't use an asset then, as it will be confusing to look at an asset one way for red, green reflections and then another way which is the opposite. In the same way we say, an AGS0 does not need to be run through the HCA, would we say, a radiant does not need to be looked at under the asset. That leaves the question then what do customers judge on, pictures only, when every other diamond shape has a tool. Can't some tool judge a radiant cut?

Are we moving away from tools and judging by our own eyes and what we like, e.g. symmetry, abstract, kaos, as we judge
OEC's?

Are radiant cuts harder to set, are there as many ring mounts available (or would it need to be custom). How do they
fit with wedding bands and eternity rings, is there a huge gap in the rectangular ones, is there a way the mount can be
redesigned to allow wedding band under the ring, or like those you see with the band going through the middle of the engagement
ring. Should the look of huge gaps at rectangular diamonds be marketed more showing eternity rings in narrow widths?
Should the radiant cut be a right hand ring. The 'radiate confidence' ring for 30, 40,50 something birthday.

 

[Rockdiamond]

ASET can be as useful with a Radiant Cut as it is with an RBC- it's just a matter of learning to read it correctly.
Plus, radiant cut, by nature, has a lot more variation than a round.
Of course a super ideal looks different than a "regular" well cut round.
But the differences between radiant cuts can be so much greater than that.
things like corner size, and shape are things we don't even need to consider with a round. To say nothing of the fact there's quite a few different designs used in cutting radiant cuts.
Bottom line is not "trust your eyes" as much as it's "make sure you get a money back guarantee on any fancy shaped diamond purchase which is based on photos and or aset"
Then, when you get it, your eyes will be the main tool you use to see if you love it.

 

[petrock<3]

petrock- is your avatar, your real ring?
That ring and even the avatar shot itself illustrates why leakage an be good.
A diamond DOES get light from below.
In the setting in the avatar the diamond gathers light from all over.
Even if the stone is set in a more restrictive setting, the leakage still allows light to travel through the diamond and get reflected back up again.

Yes that is my stone but I had it reset. It is a more restrictive setting but I like it.