Radiant Diamond HELP! Fish eye or Bowtie?

[misty5548]

Hey everyone!

I am new to the site and am hoping to get some feedback on my diamond! Long story short my fiance and I got engaged a couple of months ago and I received a beautiful 1.01 carat cushion from him.

Fast forward to a week ago... He decided he wanted to upgrade my diamond and surprised me with a 1.50 carat radiant. At first glance it was beautiful and we were blown away by how much larger it was (I have large hands) but upon further inspection I am having some serious issues with it.

The diamond has a black spot right in the middle of it that is VERY visible in direct sunlight but is visible almost every other time as well. At this point it is all I see every time I look down at my ring. My fiance had noticed a little bit of it at the store and they told him it was a reflection of the setting and once we got our pave setting back it wouldnt be noticeable.

Another thing... my diamond is see through from the side! I thought diamonds weren't supposed to be? We have a GIA certification and the marks on it do match the diamond so I am not worried about it being authentic but just worried about quality. The jeweler told my fiance the diamond was a "good cut" but I am aware GIA doesn't rate the cuts on the radiants. After some amateur research online I am worried it may not actually be a good cut. HERE ARE THE SPECS:

CUT-CORNERED RECTANGULAR MODIFIED BRILLIANT

Measurements 7.52 x 5.76 x 4.10 mm
Carat Weight 1.50 carat
Color Grade F
Clarity Grade SI1
PROPORTIONS

Depth 71.2 %
Table 74 %
Girdle Medium to Extremely Thick
Culet None
FINISH

Polish Good
Symmetry Good
FLUORESCENCE

Fluorescence Faint


Can someone please give me their thoughts on this? Will the new setting really help? I would really appreciate any input ASAP because my setting is getting re-made to fit this new diamond! I really don't want to be unappreciative of my fiance's new purchase but I hate that he may have spent a lot more money for a not so good diamond and would rather get my old one back. Thanks!

 

[chrono]

It looks like it isn't cut well and the dark area is possibly the setting underneath (when looking from the top view). I wouldn't worry about the side view because diamonds are not cut to be viewed from the side. The less busier types of diamond cuts can be see through from the side, so that's fine/normal.

 

[misty5548]

Thank you for the input! Do you think our actual setting which is pave will help like the jeweler said?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Based on the pictures - which are not "conclusive" I do not believe the setting will help.
I'd ask to see other candidates

 

[FrekeChild]

Another thing... my diamond is see through from the side! I thought diamonds weren't supposed to be?

That's never something that I've concentrated on, but the side view is not the angle the diamond is cut to perform at, so odds are, it'll look "see through". I only have one diamond and I'm not particularly well versed in them, but all of the gemstones I looked at are see through from the side, so I don't doubt that diamonds are as well. They are cut to perform from the top view. Period.

Now, having said that, I don't know how well your diamond is cut from top view, and it's hard to tell once it is set. Having said THAT, there does seem to be an issue with the diamond, and hopefully someone with more experience that I have with fancy cuts will be by soon.

 

[chrono]

Enclosing the diamond too much can lead to other issues. A diamond that isn't well cut needs as much light coming in from the sides as possible for it to sparkle. I would rather fix the issue than apply a bandage. Is the jeweller willing to do an even trade for another stone?

ETA
I don't think adding pave is going to help your diamond look better; if anything else, they might outsparkle your radiant.

 

[kenny]

Can someone please give me their thoughts on this? Will the new setting really help? I would really appreciate any input ASAP because my setting is getting re-made to fit this new diamond! I really don't want to be unappreciative of my fiance's new purchase but I hate that he may have spent a lot more money for a not so good diamond and would rather get my old one back. Thanks!

Since you asked ...
The dark area in the top view is because the diamond is not well cut.
Proof is in the side view.
The girdle was placed too high, IOW it has a VERY shallow crown.
They almost certainly did that to follow the shape of the rough and save weight.

Everyone knows what a 1.5 carat diamond is but few customers know about good cut.
The vast majority of the diamond industry is set up for maximum profit, not to provide diamonds that deliver maximum light performance.
Good cut usually means grinding away more rough diamond material which results in lower carat weight.
Since people know carat weight but rarely understand good cut why should they throw away weight?

But, now that you know about good cut you can't go back.



If you can I'd put brakes on the project, return this diamond and learn more about good cut before proceeding.

If it bugs you now it will always bug you and the new setting will not improve the cut.

The easiest shape for determining good cut is round.
For princess you can assure good cut by only considering one that AGS graded their best cut, AGS 0.
AGS is the only reputable lab that grades the cut of princesses.

For all other cuts you need an ASET image.
http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_ASET_scope.asp

Post the ASET pic here and people will help you interpret it.
If your vendor can't/won't give you an ASET pic you can buy your own ASET scope and use it to look at loose diamonds.
You can buy an ASET scope here:
http://www.ideal-scope.com/cart_order.asp

 

[misty5548]

Thank you all SO much for your input.

I am not sure how the jeweler is going to handle us taking it back since we just got this upgrade a week ago but I want to be as best informed about everything before we even go back. I've also been hesitant to talk to my fiance about it too much since he felt very happy and proud to be able to get me that big diamond. I don't expect a perfect diamond, my old one had a carbon mark in it (which I actually found added to the beauty and genuineness ) but I feel like this is something too noticeable that takes away not adds to the diamond's beauty.

If they don't have these ASET reports, should we be looking for certain dimensions/thickness etc.. in the GIA certificate to determine if it is a good cut or not? At this point I may just steer away from radiants although I do love the shape and just see if our old cushion is still there.

 

[chrono]

Have the jeweller try to show you a few other diamonds that would not put you and your DH out of pocket. It is highly unlikely they have the capability of generating/providing ASET for you and unfortunately, there is nothing in the GIA lab report that says a whit about cut quality. The only shape where cut quality is assessed are rounds and princess (AGS only).

 

[Rockdiamond]

Can someone please give me their thoughts on this? Will the new setting really help? I would really appreciate any input ASAP because my setting is getting re-made to fit this new diamond! I really don't want to be unappreciative of my fiance's new purchase but I hate that he may have spent a lot more money for a not so good diamond and would rather get my old one back. Thanks!

Since you asked ...
The dark area in the top view is because the diamond is not well cut.
Proof is in the side view.
The girdle was placed too high, IOW it has a VERY shallow crown.
They almost certainly did that to follow the shape of the rough and save weight.

Everyone knows what a 1.5 carat diamond is but few customers know about good cut.
The vast majority of the diamond industry is set up for maximum profit, not to provide diamonds that deliver maximum light performance.
Good cut usually means grinding away more rough diamond material which results in lower carat weight.
Since people know carat weight but rarely understand good cut why should they throw away weight?

But, now that you know about good cut you can't go back.



If you can I'd put brakes on the project, return this diamond and learn more about good cut before proceeding.

If it bugs you now it will always bug you and the new setting will not improve the cut.

The easiest shape for determining good cut is round.
For princess you can assure good cut by only considering one that AGS graded their best cut, AGS 0.
AGS is the only reputable lab that grades the cut of princesses.

For all other cuts you need an ASET image.
http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_ASET_scope.asp

Post the ASET pic here and people will help you interpret it.
If your vendor can't/won't give you an ASET pic you can buy your own ASET scope and use it to look at loose diamonds.
You can buy an ASET scope here:
http://www.ideal-scope.com/cart_order.asp

Kenny, you're constantly flogging this point.
DO you think cutters or sellers of super fine makes are in business NOT to make money?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you all SO much for your input.

I am not sure how the jeweler is going to handle us taking it back since we just got this upgrade a week ago but I want to be as best informed about everything before we even go back. I've also been hesitant to talk to my fiance about it too much since he felt very happy and proud to be able to get me that big diamond. I don't expect a perfect diamond, my old one had a carbon mark in it (which I actually found added to the beauty and genuineness ) but I feel like this is something too noticeable that takes away not adds to the diamond's beauty.

If they don't have these ASET reports, should we be looking for certain dimensions/thickness etc.. in the GIA certificate to determine if it is a good cut or not? At this point I may just steer away from radiants although I do love the shape and just see if our old cushion is still there.

Hi MIsty,
ASET is not going to help YOU decide if a given stone is for you.
You can post it here so that other people can chime in with their opinions- so you'll know what they love.
But since you can see the stones in person, you need to go with what your eyes are telling you.
What you find beautiful may not be what others love.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Can someone please give me their thoughts on this? Will the new setting really help? I would really appreciate any input ASAP because my setting is getting re-made to fit this new diamond! I really don't want to be unappreciative of my fiance's new purchase but I hate that he may have spent a lot more money for a not so good diamond and would rather get my old one back. Thanks!

Since you asked ...
The dark area in the top view is because the diamond is not well cut.
Proof is in the side view.
The girdle was placed too high, IOW it has a VERY shallow crown.
They almost certainly did that to follow the shape of the rough and save weight.

Everyone knows what a 1.5 carat diamond is but few customers know about good cut.
The vast majority of the diamond industry is set up for maximum profit, not to provide diamonds that deliver maximum light performance.
Good cut usually means grinding away more rough diamond material which results in lower carat weight.
Since people know carat weight but rarely understand good cut why should they throw away weight?

But, now that you know about good cut you can't go back.



If you can I'd put brakes on the project, return this diamond and learn more about good cut before proceeding.

If it bugs you now it will always bug you and the new setting will not improve the cut.

The easiest shape for determining good cut is round.
For princess you can assure good cut by only considering one that AGS graded their best cut, AGS 0.
AGS is the only reputable lab that grades the cut of princesses.

For all other cuts you need an ASET image.
http://www.ideal-scope.com/1.using_ASET_scope.asp

Post the ASET pic here and people will help you interpret it.
If your vendor can't/won't give you an ASET pic you can buy your own ASET scope and use it to look at loose diamonds.
You can buy an ASET scope here:
http://www.ideal-scope.com/cart_order.asp

Kenny, you're constantly flogging this point.
DO you think cutters or sellers of super fine makes are in business NOT to make money?

As a member of the trade it is disappointing that you chose to make a snarky remark to a community member who is taking time to provide a poster with some information that might be helpful to her situation. And then turn around and advise the customer why she will get little help here and to just trust her eyes.

As a professional who has knowledge of radiant cuts, you could do much better by the poster and add more value to the discussion.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Thank you all SO much for your input.

I am not sure how the jeweler is going to handle us taking it back since we just got this upgrade a week ago but I want to be as best informed about everything before we even go back. I've also been hesitant to talk to my fiance about it too much since he felt very happy and proud to be able to get me that big diamond. I don't expect a perfect diamond, my old one had a carbon mark in it (which I actually found added to the beauty and genuineness ) but I feel like this is something too noticeable that takes away not adds to the diamond's beauty.

If they don't have these ASET reports, should we be looking for certain dimensions/thickness etc.. in the GIA certificate to determine if it is a good cut or not? At this point I may just steer away from radiants although I do love the shape and just see if our old cushion is still there.

It's very likely that the jeweler will not provide an ASET image. Not all jewelers are set up to do this. In any case, ASET signatures for radiants may not be conclusive of performance, although they can provide useful information.

Get whatever images and information you can and folks here will do their best to help you analyze it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

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.

 

[tyty333]

Oh dear...please try to return that stone. It has lots of leakage, a shallow crown and a large table.

Here are a few that aren't perfect but are more what a well cut radiant should look like.

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/radiant-cut/1.52-carat-d-color-vs1-clarity-sku-103107
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/radiant-cut/1.51-carat-f-color-vs2-clarity-sku-358700
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/radiant-cut/1.53-carat-f-color-si1-clarity-sku-368823 a different look for a radiant
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/radiant-cut/1.66-carat-g-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-374603 another different radiant

From what I can see your stone looks more like this with a bow-tie.
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/radiant-cut/1.55-carat-h-color-vs2-clarity-sku-36239

I hope you can work something out with the jeweler.

edit - This stone has a video with it. You can see how the stone should not be see through. You can not see the band
beneath the stone.
http://www.diamondsbylauren.com/index.php/jewelry/three-stone-ring-127ct-jvvs2-radiant-cut-gia-trapezoid-side-stones-r4709

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Thank you all SO much for your input.

I am not sure how the jeweler is going to handle us taking it back since we just got this upgrade a week ago but I want to be as best informed about everything before we even go back. I've also been hesitant to talk to my fiance about it too much since he felt very happy and proud to be able to get me that big diamond. I don't expect a perfect diamond, my old one had a carbon mark in it (which I actually found added to the beauty and genuineness ) but I feel like this is something too noticeable that takes away not adds to the diamond's beauty.

If they don't have these ASET reports, should we be looking for certain dimensions/thickness etc.. in the GIA certificate to determine if it is a good cut or not? At this point I may just steer away from radiants although I do love the shape and just see if our old cushion is still there.

Hi MIsty,
ASET is not going to help YOU decide if a given stone is for you.

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**

 

[Rockdiamond]

Very informative ASET to me Melisende- thanks for posting it.
It might be very informative to Misty if she could see both stones in an objective environment.
When speaking of brilliance, we're speaking of a perception.
I perceive many radiant cut diamonds as "brilliant" that you might not.
But many other people do.
The fact that we carry or don't carry a given type of diamond should not preclude objective discussion.
A photo like the one you posted seems to make some sort of a statement of conclusion- as opposed to objectively showing the image.

I don't believe that is beneficial to readers, no matter which I happen to prefer.
There are many places that sell well cut radiant diamonds. Some sell Original Radiant, others may have very well cut radiant cuts that are not branded, but cut in a similar manner. This isn't about trying to push a given brand. Rather to look at it objectively.

Misty- you're here for assistance, as opposed to debate on these points.
So you can get a better understanding- the image posted of ASET shows two distinctly different type of Radiant Cuts.

Stones cut like the Original Radiant may have an ASET similar to the one on the right.
If they are well cut, such stones will NOT have a dark area in the middle, as you're seeing in the stone you have now.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

Very informative ASET to me Melisende- thanks for posting it.
You didn't explain why.

It might be very informative to Misty if she could see both stones in an objective environment.
It is an objective structured lighting environment allowing the comparison of diamonds.

When speaking of brilliance, we're speaking of a perception.
No its not a matter of perception, brilliance is the ability of the diamond to return light to the viewer's eyes.

The fact that we carry or don't carry a given type of diamond should not preclude objective discussion.
If you were objective you would stop trying to disparage cut tools and accept that ORCs have inferior brilliance(as defined above) especially the rectangular ones, but overall have other redeeming qualities ASET doesn't measure.

A photo like the one you posted seems to make some sort of a statement of conclusion- as opposed to objectively showing the image.

It shows a comparison of the potential of two cut cornered squares for brilliance. The one on the left is cut for optimal brilliance and the one on the right is an actual ORC.


Misty- you're here for assistance, as opposed to debate on these points.
I am sure she can make up her own mind about whether the ASET will be a useful tool in her selection of a diamond or not. You brought up this issue and I agree it should not derail her thread by being debated further.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Very informative ASET to me Melisende- thanks for posting it.
You didn't explain why.
The picture has meaning to me because I have taken the time to compare real diamonds, and their aset signatures.

It might be very informative to Misty if she could see both stones in an objective environment.
It is an objective structured lighting environment allowing the comparison of diamonds.
not if one has not had the experience of looking at actual diamonds, and correlating the ASET to real life performance


When speaking of brilliance, we're speaking of a perception.
No its not a matter of perception, brilliance is the ability of the diamond to return light to the viewer's eyes.
We're going to have to disagree in this one. There's no method to quantify what looks brilliant to me, or to you- and under what conditions we are viewing the diamond. We can conclude how light is behaving in the diamond with ASET- but that's nothing at all like "which one is more brilliant"

The fact that we carry or don't carry a given type of diamond should not preclude objective discussion.
If you were objective you would stop trying to disparage cut tools and accept that ORCs have inferior brilliance(as defined above) especially the rectangular ones, but overall have other redeeming qualities ASET doesn't measure.
By your definition

A photo like the one you posted seems to make some sort of a statement of conclusion- as opposed to objectively showing the image.

It shows a comparison of the potential of two cut cornered squares for brilliance. The one on the left is cut for optimal brilliance and the one on the right is an actual ORC.

I have zero doubt that I would find the stone on the right to be brighter and more attractive than the one on the left- based on the ASET you posted, and my knowledge of ASET signatures in Radiant Cut Diamonds. Having dealt with many thousands of consumers I know I am not alone in the preference for the type of light performance indicated on the stone on the right.

Misty- you're here for assistance, as opposed to debate on these points.
I am sure she can make up her own mind about whether the ASET will be a useful tool in her selection of a diamond or not. You brought up this issue and I agree it should not derail her thread by being debated further.

 

[Ella]

Gentlemen, a reminder that vendors are not allowed to criticize each other. Conflict of interest. Keep it clean or keep it off the forum please.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

There is no single tool that will tell you everything you need to know about a diamond. And the human eye is the final arbiter of what is beautiful. Having said that, there are a number of tools that we use quite effectively to gain a comprehensive understanding of a diamond. ASET is one of those tools.

ASET is quite effective to analyze round diamonds. Fancy shape diamonds have more variables and nuances to their eye appeal. However, ASET can still give very useful information about how a fancy shape diamond is handling light. For example, if the stone in question had been analyzed first with ASET, leakage in the center would most likely have raised a concern before the purchase was made.

You might say that ASET reveals behavior and the eye reveals personality. This is where interpretation of ASET signatures comes into play. A stone might have an ASET signature that looks a bit weak, yet might have an appealing twinkle. Conversely, a stone might have a hot ASET signature and be very flashy yet lack a balanced overall look.

There are different flavors that appeal to different people. One person loves vanilla, another chocolate mint. It is possible for experienced people to look at an ASET signature and have a pretty good idea what flavor it is and the kind of eye appeal it is likely to have, as well as obvious deficits that might be problematic.

ASET is the graphical tool of the AGS light performance cut grading system, arguably the most sophisticated such system in existence.

But to say that you must have an ASET to select a beautiful diamond is an overstatement. And to say ASET is of no value is complete nonsense.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan
I am not arguing against aset as a tool. I can look at an aset and get a very good idea of what the diamonds going to look like. The person posting this question cannot. Therefore posting a photo of an aset with a derogatory label is deceptive and not doing any favor to the tool itself.
To use your analogy -innocent people are being led to believe that they need this device to let them know whether the diamond is good or bad – when in fact it can only let them know whether it's chocolate or vanilla.

So it's not the device, rather the interpretation of the results that are the issue here.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

The diamond in question has a black circle around the culet most likely because the pavilion angles (the facets that form the culet) are high - perhaps as high as 38 degrees. The crown appears flat as well but the principle cause of that type of life is cutting of the pavilion. Changing the setting will not help.

Radiants are hybrid cuts - the kite shaped facets on the pavilion coming off the girdle are essentially left over step cut facets. This means that you can see through those facets into the heart of the diamond just like you can with an emerald cut. This is simply an inherent characteristic of the way radiants are designed.

As for ASET, this has been discussed in detail on here in the past so hopefully this won't reignite the same heated debate. I agree with David that the ASET provides raw data which is useful only to those who understand how to interpret it including its limitations. I personally find it far less useful for radiants than a good photograph (a video is even better)and for consumers I think that is likely to be more true than it is for me. Of course there's no harm in having both to see if they reinforce each other but if I could only have one I'd take the photo.

 

[MelisendeDiamonds]

The diamond looks dirty cleaning it might help. Assumptions made from photographs and the source of the darkness are often inaccurate without knowing the lighting setup. I can't tell with certainty if it is a shadow of something or reflecting what is underneath.

If this diamond was unset and an ASET taken we would be able to make a much better interpretation of the dark regions, but none of this really matters, the appearance of the diamond when you view it with your own eyes in your lighting bothers you so try to return it.

If you had shown the ASET image of this diamond prior to purchase I am sure the experienced prosumers would have told you to pass on and this would have refuted the dealer's claim that setting it differently would remove the dark appearance.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The diamond looks dirty cleaning it might help. Assumptions made from photographs and the source of the darkness are often inaccurate without knowing the lighting setup. I can't tell with certainty if it is a shadow of something or reflecting what is underneath.

If this diamond was unset and an ASET taken we would be able to make a much better interpretation of the dark regions, but none of this really matters, the appearance of the diamond when you view it with your own eyes in your lighting bothers you so try to return it.

If you had shown the ASET image of this diamond prior to purchase I am sure the experienced prosumers would have told you to pass on and this would have refuted the dealer's claim that setting it differently would remove the dark appearance.

I would agree with the part in bold. But looking at the totality of this discussion, it's also clear that if misty did post and ASET, and the ASET looked like the one on the right, the stone would likely get knocked by prosumers. Many of whom learned what they know based on incorrect assumptions about cut, leakage, and green in an aset.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

In order to test Millisende's claim about the the need for and value of ASET we'd have to first post the ASET, get the feedback on it, and then see the diamonds that were praised or panned live to test the quality of the advice. I think if we were to do that we might get some surprising results.

I've seen the kind of life that this diamond has more than a few times and do not need an ASET to know what the concentration of black around the culet means but if someone feels they need an ASET to understand what they see in a photo then they probably shouldn't offer advice without seeing one.

 

[kenny]

Actually, this one doesn't even need an ASET to discover the poor cut, because its exceptionally-shallow crown is obvious, even though the diamond is dirty in the low resolution pic.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

In order to test Millisende's claim about the the need for and value of ASET we'd have to first post the ASET, get the feedback on it, and then see the diamonds that were praised or panned live to test the quality of the advise. I think if we were to do that we might get some surprising results.

I've seen the kind of life that this diamond has more than a few times and do not need an ASET to know what the concentration of black around the culet means but if someone feels they need an ASET to understand what they see in a photo then they probably shouldn't offer advice without seeing one.

Stan,
You are a true expert on this cut and your participation is of great value. Your initial post provided specific and helpful feedback to the OP.

I'm a little unclear on what you are saying here. In a previous post you agreed with RockDiamond that ASET would be of little value to the OP. And you and he continue to maintain that proper interpretation of ASET signature for radiants takes experience, which I do not hear anyone disputing. But this comment refers to a statement Milisende made (which RockDiamond agreed with) that ASET would likely have revealed the windowing problem in the OP's diamond. However, you seem to dispute that by saying it would have to be tested and that the results might be surprising.

Are you saying that you don't think the ASET signature of this diamond would have raised a red flag about a potential problem of the nature the OP is experiencing? Asked another way, do you think those particular angle deviations that you referred to as the source of the problem in your first post would not be revealed by ASET?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Byran,
Please call me David, as we are using people's names in the thread.
The way I read Stan's post is that if we correlated actual stones being knocked based on ASET signatures (like the one in the picture with the snarky comment) to the way real life viewers react to the stones, the results would be surprising.
Leakage is very attractive to many viewers for example, when it's dispersed in the right manner.

ETA- Bryan, while no one may be disputing the fact that reading ASET takes knowledge and experience, unsuspecting consumers are still being told they need an aset, without even the core knowledge of what the tool does, or how it is used.
Then we have the charts that draw inaccurate conclusions, based on scientific observations.
If it is used correctly, it's a very cool tool. But as this thread shows, it's NOT being used correctly.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

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.