Radiant Diamond Cut Evaluation Education

[Rockdiamond]

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

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

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

I will gladly put something under the diamond on my fingers- but it seems to me that fingers are very indicative of how a stone looks on your... well, finger.
Without a doubt you can't see my finger through the diamond- even where the aset indicates white.

 

[Karl_K]

Without a doubt you can't see my finger through the diamond- even where the aset indicates white.

Yes I can in a couple spots, when "leakage" is drawing light from the opposite pavilion side of the diamond rather than a true window it is very rarely 100% which is why I am asking for a large picture with the bright color under the stone. ASET white will tell you "leakage" exists but it is not great for telling you to what extent other than it exists because the back light is bright. ASET black has the same flaw for different reasons.
I find blue or red mylar a bit behind the stone a better approximation of reflections off the setting and hand.
This pic does indicate it is partial leakage under the table which is what I expected.
Doing the pic I requested will show us more.

Make sure you clean the stone after having it on your finger before anymore pics are taken.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Karl-I will put something of color behind the diamond - but I am curious as to how that would be more representative of how a hand looks behind the stones as compared to using actual skin.
Nor would red or blue be more indicative of platinum , white, yellow or pink gold.
We have thousands of pictures of radiant cuts before and after actual setting. I know how stones like this one on my finger look when properly set.
Also- what you're indicating as areas of leakage on my finger- the facets do not look like the color of my skin. So even if white is shown on aset, skin color can't be seen in the actual diamond.
In essence the leakage is part and parcel of contrast which is giving us sparkle.
Bryan- the cushion page you linked to is excellent- there is no such page on Radiant cuts- which is part of the idea behind this thread.
Although this thread has taken a lot of twists and turns it is certainly helping me refine what it is we need to do to create an effective guide. In truth we really need to hash out some of these issues before we can put an effective guide together. The efforts to derail the discussion through insults and negativity only serve to strengthen my resolve.

 

[Karl_K]

Karl-I will put something of color behind the diamond - but I am curious as to how that would be more representative of how a hand looks behind the stones as compared to using actual skin.
Nor would red or blue be more indicative of platinum , white, yellow or pink gold.
We have thousands of pictures of radiant cuts before and after actual setting. I know how stones like this one on my finger look when properly set.
Also- what you're indicating as areas of leakage on my finger- the facets do not look like the color of my skin. So even if white is shown on aset, skin color can't be seen in the actual diamond.

The dof of the photo is making it blurry but if you look you can see skin color in those areas.
Touching skin while better than some ways of photographing changes the ri of pavilion junction slightly.
Which is also why you need to remove the oil afterwards.
Fancies are more sensitive to this than rounds.
It is not the color of the mylar, the color just makes it easier to see it is the reflect ability being a decent average that makes it a good test.
I explained above why the skin color is not more visible under the table even with "leakage" even taking into account the dof of the photo.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

We've already shown in this thread that nice looking radiant cuts, cut in the style of a true modified brilliant ( like the design invented by Henry Grossbard)) have white in the aset. White in the aset is known as leakage, a particularly poor choice of names, but that's what we're working with ( or against).

What do you mean when you say a "true" modifed brilliant? I understood you to say that the radiant cut is "open source". There are a number of facet arrangements that are known in the market as Radiant cut. Are there multiple descriptors used by GIA when grading these various styles? I am most familiar with the term "cut cornered square (or rectangular) modified brilliant".

I think we need to be clear about the type of radiant we are evaluating here. There are modifications to the square cut cornered radiant that are optimized for light performance and can have classically outstanding ASET signatures. But the stones you are showing (crushed ice) are a distinctly different flavor and need to be evaluated differently.

 

[Gypsy]

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

Your pictures might be the best in terms of optimizing the look of the stones. But when it comes to showing customers the flaws of the gems and assisting the customer to evaluate performance they are some of the most misleading, it is obvious from this thread.

As I said... in terms of benefiting YOU they are great. Benefiting the consumer: not so much.

 

[Rockdiamond]

We've already shown in this thread that nice looking radiant cuts, cut in the style of a true modified brilliant ( like the design invented by Henry Grossbard)) have white in the aset. White in the aset is known as leakage, a particularly poor choice of names, but that's what we're working with ( or against).

What do you mean when you say a "true" modifed brilliant? I understood you to say that the radiant cut is "open source". There are a number of facet arrangements that are known in the market as Radiant cut. Are there multiple descriptors used by GIA when grading these various styles? I am most familiar with the term "cut cornered square (or rectangular) modified brilliant".

I think we need to be clear about the type of radiant we are evaluating here. There are modifications to the square cut cornered radiant that are optimized for light performance and can have classically outstanding ASET signatures. But the stones you are showing (crushed ice) are a distinctly different flavor and need to be evaluated differently.

Bryan, in the 30 plus years since Henry's design became open source, there's been countless variations.
I have seen most. I agree that fancy shaped diamonds cut to look like rounds ( optimized for light performance, as you put it) have ASET signatures that look like round diamonds.
They can be very nice.
I still like stones that use Henry's design goals as an ingredient.
And we agree that such stones need to be evaluated differently.
Hopefully showing a number of examples in chart with explanations will be useful.

I honestly believe a HCA type result might be helpful.

Instead of a single number, like the HCA, we could possibly give a broad overview, and evaluate the example stones based on a variety of factors.
The user could place weight on a number of factors based on their own preferences.
For me visual size is very important- as long as the visual compromise is negligible.
For discussions sake- we might rate a diamond like #2 as scoring the maximum number on spread, and giving back 8-10% on overall brilliance.
And although we agree on a lot, I'm sure Stan will have some different ideas than mine in the evaluations.

For sure we need a new thread with a concise chart right up top- possibly could be turned into a guide.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

I agree with David that while this thread has been helpful in understanding people's perspectives, a new thread that focuses more directly on showing at the top multiple images of radiants and their ASETs for comparison would be the best next step.

A parting observation:

There are two competing schools of thought concerning the way to approach the ASET/radiant issue.

One school of thought takes as a given that diamonds with a particular ASET signature "perform" better and are therefore better by definition. For those people the solution is for cutters to develop designs with an eye toward generating the best ASET signature (ie the best "performance" as they understand it), and educating a consumer on cut involves directing them toward those designs.

The second school of thought approaches the issue from the opposite direction. This group believes that we do not need technology to tell us what a beautiful diamond is - that's a job best done by our eyes, especially in fancy shapes. It is the beautiful diamond that tells us what the ASET signature ought to look like, not the ASET signature that tells us what a beautiful diamond looks like.

The more dogmatic folks in the first school consider the process that David and I have embarked on - which is to help others (and ourselves) better understand the ASET signature of what most of the diamond world (not just us) considers a well cut radiant - to be some kind of unethical process of trying to convince people chocolate covered dog doo is really the best chocolate.

Going forward, I hope those folks will recognize that we are doing no such thing, and will allow the discussion to continue without the distracting and unproductive bickering and name calling. Open yourselves up to what I and many other can attest is the reality that an awful lot of people, "fooled" by nothing other than their own eyes and taste, love the look you hate. The ASET should be used as a tool to help them find the look they love, not as a tool to tell them that the "smart" folks have a "tool" that knows what they "ought" to be looking for.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Gypsy- I do think it's quite telling that instead of adding content to a subject a lot of readers are obviously interested in, you choose only to try and disrupt the discussion, instead of adding to it.
If you are interested in increasing consumer knowledge, as someone who is ( ostensibly) committed to consumer education, I have a few questions:
1) do you like the type of stones Stan and I are referring to? That being- Square or rectangular Modified Brilliant diamonds that have ASET signatures similar to the ones we've seen so far. What I'm talking about in PS speak: NOT chunky reflections, smaller more numerous reflections. You've made it quite clear you don't think many people like this look- but what's your personal opinion? Maybe you just don't like them so you think no one else does- or even that in your opinion, balanced discussion of stones like this should off limits here on PS.

2) Seeing as how you are so critical of my pictures, will you please post what you think is a good picture of this type of diamond taken by someone else?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Another question for Gypsy, or any other interested party.
To paraphrase Stan's comments:
Do you feel cutters should try to aim for stones with good ASET signatures, or stones that look good in real life?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Gypsy- I do think it's quite telling that instead of adding content to a subject a lot of readers are obviously interested in, you choose only to try and disrupt the discussion, instead of adding to it.
If you are interested in increasing consumer knowledge, as someone who is ( ostensibly) committed to consumer education, I have a few questions:
1) do you like the type of stones Stan and I are referring to? That being- Square or rectangular Modified Brilliant diamonds that have ASET signatures similar to the ones we've seen so far. What I'm talking about in PS speak: NOT chunky reflections, smaller more numerous reflections. You've made it quite clear you don't think many people like this look- but what's your personal opinion? Maybe you just don't like them so you think no one else does- or even that in your opinion, balanced discussion of stones like this should off limits here on PS.

2) Seeing as how you are so critical of my pictures, will you please post what you think is a good picture of this type of diamond taken by someone else?

David,
I think Gypsy spent a great deal of time earlier in the thread giving useful insight about the central issue you are trying to combat. You should be grateful for this feedback even if you don't like or agree with the perspective. It can give you some indications of how you might approach this problem and eventually get a more positive result.

Regarding:
1) Why is it that we can not more specifically identify the type of stones you are referring to? I think this is central to the problem. There are cut cornered square/rectangular modified brilliants like the orc and others that have the "smaller more numerous reflections" and give an appearance of an "bottomless bucket of ice" and which have ASET signatures like what you are showing. There are other Radiants available in the market that are also cut cornered modified brilliants which are optimized for light performance and have what is understood to be classic ASET signature without the leakage. Without first making a clear distinction between these two distinct "flavors" and identifying them when disccussing them, I think it is a natural tendency to apply a better understood standard for ASET signature to both. As a result, there will be a tendency to think these stones are better or worse than others because of their ASET signatures rather than being different flavors.
2) I don't think she was saying you don't post good pictures. In fact she said the opposite. The criticism is that a good tweezer shot taken with "proprietary" methods is not enough information to lead someone to recommend a diamond when there are other radiants in the market that do provide additional supporting information.

 

[Karl_K]

David less oped and more data would help move this thread along.

 

[Karl_K]

Another question for Gypsy, or any other interested party.
To paraphrase Stan's comments:
Do you feel cutters should try to aim for stones with good ASET signatures, or stones that look good in real life?

That is not an either or proposition.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Another question for Gypsy, or any other interested party.
To paraphrase Stan's comments:
Do you feel cutters should try to aim for stones with good ASET signatures, or stones that look good in real life?

That is not an either or proposition.

+1

There are different "flavors" of radiant that have different appearance and different ASET signatures. Within each flavor there will be better cut and more beautiful ones, and less well cut and less beautiful ones. The point here is to be able to determine from the information available which ones will likely be the more beautiful - whichever flavor you happen to prefer.

To me, getting to a place of understanding has to begin with defining and isolating what it is being discussed. I for one am unclear on the nomenclature and classification of the subject "Radiant Cut Evaluation". Maybe the thread would be well served by backing up and making that clear. I asked earlier in thread if there were diagrams showing the different radiant flavors and if GIA made any distinctions on their reports. Maybe it's just me, but I feel a need for help with the basics.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan, can you please post a picture of a radiant?
What YOU think a good Rectangular or Square Modified Brilliant should look.
I don't think any sighted person will have trouble understanding the type of look we're talking about based on the photos in this very thread.
I have not posted any aset or pictures of stones here that would be the type you referred to as "optimized for light performance"
Bryan, to grasp this issue and indeed to learn to evaluate this type of diamond, you need to see the folly in that statement.
The stones we've here show ARE optimized for light performance.
If the goal is to copy the facet pattern and light performance of a round, the stones we've posted fail at that goal. Which is perfect- as the stones we've shown thus far have been optimized for different goals.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Another question for Gypsy, or any other interested party.
To paraphrase Stan's comments:
Do you feel cutters should try to aim for stones with good ASET signatures, or stones that look good in real life?

That is not an either or proposition.

Based on current ASET interpretation, it is ABSOLUTELY an "either or" situation.
Stone #2- which you've been trying to pick apart is a perfect example.


Someone invents a machine to quantify the beauty of a diamond.
There's plenty machines of these around.
A skilled diamond cutter takes a diamond that he knows is well cut.
He runs it through the machine.
The machine tells you it's badly cut.

The designer of the machine is gong to try and convince you that there's something wrong with your eyes, the machine knows what looks better- and go as far to tell the diamond cutter he ought to be cutting diamonds that look good in his machine.
That is a true story not having to do with ASET, but another of the cut grade machines- and the jist of it applies here.
I'm not looking for diamonds with the "best aset"
I'm looking for diamonds with the best cut based on how they actually look.
By showing such diamonds and their aset images we can start to refine what the aset for a nice diamond of this ilk looks like.

Byran, it's also unfortunate how you take the case of someone who is using truly nasty means to attempt to disrupt this discussion.
If someone was trying to discredit you, for reasons known only to them, would you be thanking them? Anyone who wants to add positive input here is just as welcome as those trying to end this discussion- how about encouraging more of that?

ETA- Bryan, if you'd like to post exactly how WF takes their pictures, and don't feel that's part of your proprietary information, I'd love to learn

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan, can you please post a picture of a radiant?
What YOU think a good Rectangular or Square Modified Brilliant should look.
I don't think any sighted person will have trouble understanding the type of look we're talking about based on the photos in this very thread.
I have not posted any aset or pictures of stones here that would be the type you referred to as "optimized for light performance"
Bryan, to grasp this issue and indeed to learn to evaluate this type of diamond, you need to see the folly in that statement.
The stones we've here show ARE optimized for light performance.
If the goal is to copy the facet pattern and light performance of a round, the stones we've posted fail at that goal. Which is perfect- as the stones we've shown thus far have been optimized for different goals.

David, I fail to see how my posting an image of a diamond that I think a radiant should look like will add any objective measure to the discussion.

You may think that anyone reading your thread should know what type of radiant you are talking about, but wouldn't it help reduce possible misunderstanding if you were clear on that? Maybe that is why people tend to think that one flavor is better than the other. If they aren't clear on the flavors the resultant logic is something like "if radiants can have classically good ASET signatures, shouldn't they?

As for my use of the term "optimized for light performance" which you put in quotes presumably to suggest I was being biased, I never used it until your post earlier in the thread. I read that to mean you accepted it as a way to describe stones with classically good ASET signatures.

I appreciate your questions Gypsy, thanks for putting it in a form I can digest.
I get it that you feel that a stone optimized for light performance is better than a stone optimized for sparkle and spread.
Many people feel that it's different, as opposed to better.

I also do not think there is "folly" in my statements (not all of them anyway). I feel that I have been trying to help you present a worthwhile and balanced discussion on a topic that is of interest to the PS community including some of us tradespeople. I have been supportive of getting a better understanding of how to interpret ASET signatures of radiants. But the first thing you have to do is identify which type of radiant you want to correlate.

You have thus far failed to do that here (in my opinion) and I think it perpetuates the problem that you are so indignant about. The thread title itself would lead someone to believe you were going to present education about radiant cuts in general. Perhaps the title should be Radiant Cut Evaluation Education - Crushed Ice Faceting Style (or some other differentiating term).

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan,
I've shown detailed pictures of diamonds.
I have looked at these specific diamonds with Stan- who agrees that the photos are extremely indicative of how the diamonds look in real life. There is no way to more clearly identify this look to readers. I base this on my experience- which is extensive.
We've sold quite a few "crushed ice" diamonds based on people using these photos, and these people have been satisfied in real life after using the photos.
If you, or any other interested party wants to come in and look at the diamonds first hand, I will accommodate them.

Why it would be important for you, or anyone else to post photos of what THEY think a radiant looks like:
1) that way we can get some basis of comparison. For better or worse, my pictures are distinctive, let's see other styles of photography of Radiant Cut Diamonds. You have some examples on your site Bryan. I can certainly get a feel for how a radiant looks based on a picture- or the picture will give us other information

2) put to rest the baseless insults being hurled around here.
If you or anyone else have an idea what "crushed ice" looks like and can find a photo that expresses it, that will add value to the discussion.

ETA- In spite of all that's gone on here Bryan- I am genuinely grateful for your participation.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating- we are both on the same side.
We both want consumers to have access to the best information possible.
The fact is, your company is affected by this irrational "anti radiant" bias as well as many of the other companies posting or advertising here.

 

[Gypsy]

As TexasLeauger said, I already answered this question at the start of the thread, but apparently my posts were too long winded so I will summarize with bullet points for ease of comprehension.

* I think consumers are becoming more educated. And they want more objective standards for diamond evaluation. I think this is a good thing.

* I think that the ASET is a useful tool. One among many available to the trade. And it has real value in is ability to assist customers with evaluating a diamond's performance.

* I think it's important that cutters understand what the ASET does and why it is helpful to consumers. And I think that if there are flaws with ASET technology those should be discussed (like they have been in threads on here) and perhaps better tools developed.

* I think diamonds should be beautiful to the naked eye AND perform well with objective tools. And I think MANY cutters already embrace this, though primarily when it comes to RB's at the moment. These are not mutually exclusive goals.

* I think fancy cuts are harder to quantify than rounds, given all the different facet variations. That doesn't mean it is impossible in any way shape or form. It has already been done, and done well with a number of fancy cuts already (see longer post for example).

* And finally, I think that vendors that state that their customers PREFER diamonds with poor ASETs over ones with great ASETs (regardless of if they are smaller) should be mindful of the fact that most consumers are uneducated and have not seen many diamonds. So, unless that vendor is offering the customer a side by side comparison opportunity to see the poor ASET diamonds head to head to great ASET diamonds then their 'experience' holds very little in the way of weight toward the assertion that ASETs do not matter.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Bryan,
I've shown detailed pictures of diamonds.
I have looked at these specific diamonds with Stan- who agrees that the photos are extremely indicative of how the diamonds look in real life. There is no way to more clearly identify this look to readers. I base this on my experience- which is extensive.
We've sold quite a few "crushed ice" diamonds based on people using these photos, and these people have been satisfied in real life after using the photos.
If you, or any other interested party wants to come in and look at the diamonds first hand, I will accommodate them.

Why it would be important for you, or anyone else to post photos of what THEY think a radiant looks like:
1) that way we can get some basis of comparison. For better or worse, my pictures are distinctive, let's see other styles of photography of Radiant Cut Diamonds. You have some examples on your site Bryan. I can certainly get a feel for how a radiant looks based on a picture- or the picture will give us other information

2) put to rest the baseless insults being hurled around here.
If you or anyone else have an idea what "crushed ice" looks like and can find a photo that expresses it, that will add value to the discussion.

ETA- In spite of all that's gone on here Bryan- I am genuinely grateful for your participation.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating- we are both on the same side.
We both want consumers to have access to the best information possible.
The fact is, your company is affected by this irrational "anti radiant" bias as well as many of the other companies posting or advertising here.

David,
First I am glad that you find my participation in this thread of value. I will try to redeem that little piece of goodwill by making the following suggestions to clarify (at least in my mind) this topic:

1) In this thread let's focus on Learning how to interpret ASET signatures of radiants with an image of an ASET and a face up photo of the diamond. Give examples of top cut quality (you already have) and some with common deficits. Give verbal descriptions and commentary.
2) Define the facet arrangement of whatever "flavor" of radiant you are presenting. I still do not know what you mean by a "true modified brilliant". Let's agree on a name for the style you have presented so far - either Crushed Ice or some other term simply so we are all speaking the same language.
3) Provide an understanding of how a consumer or prosumer can distinguish one flavor from another from a lab report by presenting facet diagrams and discussing the different ways a radiant cut may appear described on a lab report. That is, are all flavors referrred to as "cut-cornered square/rectangular modified brilliant" or are there other descriptors that the labs use?
4) Try to describe for us the plusses and minuses of the flavor you are presenting. If you can correlate that to some scientific understandings, all the better. This is not to pass judgment on which flavor is best, but so people can understand that with a particular flavor they may give up some of this but gain some of that. You may not be able to convince some folks that vanilla is better than chocolate, but you can say what is good about vanilla that you might not be able to get in chocolate. In this way they can choose the flavor that suits them first - BEFORE going into deeper analysis of individual diamonds, so that you keep comparisons of things like ASET to radiants of like kind.

With a more narrow focus, there is a better chance of this thread being constructive, encouraging more participation, staying friendly, and even possibly changing some opinions.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Gypsy- I do think it's quite telling that instead of adding content to a subject a lot of readers are obviously interested in, you choose only to try and disrupt the discussion, instead of adding to it.
If you are interested in increasing consumer knowledge, as someone who is ( ostensibly) committed to consumer education, I have a few questions:
1) do you like the type of stones Stan and I are referring to? That being- Square or rectangular Modified Brilliant diamonds that have ASET signatures similar to the ones we've seen so far. What I'm talking about in PS speak: NOT chunky reflections, smaller more numerous reflections. You've made it quite clear you don't think many people like this look- but what's your personal opinion? Maybe you just don't like them so you think no one else does- or even that in your opinion, balanced discussion of stones like this should off limits here on PS.

2) Seeing as how you are so critical of my pictures, will you please post what you think is a good picture of this type of diamond taken by someone else?

David,
I think Gypsy spent a great deal of time earlier in the thread giving useful insight about the central issue you are trying to combat. You should be grateful for this feedback even if you don't like or agree with the perspective. It can give you some indications of how you might approach this problem and eventually get a more positive result.

Regarding:
1) Why is it that we can not more specifically identify the type of stones you are referring to? I think this is central to the problem. There are cut cornered square/rectangular modified brilliants like the orc and others that have the "smaller more numerous reflections" and give an appearance of an "bottomless bucket of ice" and which have ASET signatures like what you are showing. There are other Radiants available in the market that are also cut cornered modified brilliants which are optimized for light performance and have what is understood to be classic ASET signature without the leakage. Without first making a clear distinction between these two distinct "flavors" and identifying them when disccussing them, I think it is a natural tendency to apply a better understood standard for ASET signature to both. As a result, there will be a tendency to think these stones are better or worse than others because of their ASET signatures rather than being different flavors.
2) I don't think she was saying you don't post good pictures. In fact she said the opposite. The criticism is that a good tweezer shot taken with "proprietary" methods is not enough information to lead someone to recommend a diamond when there are other radiants in the market that do provide additional supporting information.

Bryan - the difference in ASET signature is much more about the difference in angles than differences in facet design so it is not, in my opinion at least, useful to separate out the two looks based on facet diagrams.

The real test of the pudding is in the eating which in our case would involve all of us being in the same room looking at actual diamonds so we could better understand the differences in actual appearance and agree on the fairest way to describe each. Unfortunately, that's not possible for us to do.

In the alternative, the better we can show the actual visual appearance of the diamond the better we can understand each other. If David were providing only the tweezer shot I would understand the objection. But he is providing that shot together with an additional flatter image and the ASET and its beyond me why anyone would prefer less information to more. As we move along, I'm sure David will be provide tweezer shots of radiants he doesn't like using the same "proprietary" system. If the diamonds all look alike then I'll agree that those photos are of little value. But if the differences in real world appearance are evident in the photos then they are valuable data and its hard to imagine why anyone would prefer to not have it included.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great post Bryan.
1) ETA- posting while Stan was....Stan, people will still want to see the GIA report plots for the good and bad stones, even though we agree they are not conclusive.

2) we need a name that is at the same time descriptive, with neither negative or positive connotations.
3) as Stan mentioned, we can educate people that the optical properties of this facet design can't be gleaned from the GIA plot.
4) agreed.
To that end- discussing flavors.
We must keep in mind that the modified brilliant aspect on the pavilion of the diamond allows an infinite variety of combinations. There's more facet breaks, producing many more angles between the facets- plus, the size and placement of these facets can all be tweaked. Plus, given the fact there's no "correct" LxW, it's totally a case by case basis. All of this is why facet diagrams are not indicative of the physical appearance of the facets.
In essence, the modified brilliant cut is far more forgiving- and allows a lot of individual design on a stone by stone basis. Hopefully we can start to develop a means to identify differing qualities within stones that are considered well cut.

 

[Gypsy]

FYI, since you asked, I find these images more helpful to consumers:
http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-5307507-0.74-carat-Radiant-diamond-E-color-VVS1-clarity.aspx
http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-5116493-0.92-carat-Radiant-diamond-G-color-SI2-clarity.aspx
http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-6441215-0.70-carat-Radiant-diamond-D-color-VVS2-clarity.aspx

Why?

I can clearly see the faceting. And I can see the inclusions (in fact they are highlighted). And I can compare one stone to the other to see what the differences are. Light source is not customized for appearance optimization of each stone. It is standardized. This is also helpful. Also they match up very well to the posted ASETs. Probably they were taken at the same time as the ASET. Why is this helpful? Because you can predict from the flat image what the ASET might look like, once you have looked enough of the images.

As a consumer that is all very helpful information.

That said, I am not a huge fan of B2C, on a personal level. But you asked a question, and I answered.

I am not saying your pictures aren't nice. But I do think that providing one "mug shot" of the diamond in each listing that highlights the flaws of the diamond would be a good practice. That way the customer doesn't see the best of the stones only, but also the worst.

 

[Rockdiamond]

We agree that those photos are useful Gypsy.
Personally I felt like I would have to see more photos a few of them-
Of course we can not comment on the diamonds.
If you did post anonymous pics or ASETs we could make specific comments about a given type of look- and or you can show us pics or asets you feel are nice.

I understand your points about my photos.
We do post quite a few images of almost every diamond and vary lighting sources as I feel multiple images under varied lighting is particularly helpful in getting the point across. All diamonds look different in different lighting environments- Radiant cuts maybe more than rounds.
I agree that photos are an important part of the discussion.

Every photo is a compromise. My choices are based on the compromises I feel are the best for the consumer, as they are most representative of the item we are offering. I honestly feel this way- and yes, long experience with many thousands of people and their diamonds has borne this out
If I wasn't true to my words, I'd never have lasted this long on PS.
Gypsy-thank you for moving towards a productive discussion- you have a lot to add.

 

[Gypsy]

You want me to post stones I think are nice? Or ASETs?

And you need me to post them anonymously so you can comment (forgot about that, sorry)?

Please clarify.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Gypsy, what I meant was- maybe we could make comments on a given image, or aset as long as the specific diamond is not identified. Of course I'll need to check with Ella if that's permissible.

 

[Gypsy]

Okay here's one I'd like to discuss.
This stone was an interesting learning experience for me.

I picked it out for a customer. I loved the crown facets and the small table (5 and the crown height (from the image). Plus the facet pattern had a nice star pattern I found pleasing. I could tell from the image that the diamond would have some leakage under the table, but thought it would be tolerable. And I could tell it was cut to a 'high contrast' type of performance standard from the way the facets flashed.

I also thought it would be similar to the rectangular Lucida's I'd seen and liked in the stores. That said spread did concern me as it is a deep stone.

The ASET seemed to match my impressions from the images. And the customer did purchase it.

 

[Gypsy]

But when the customer got it, they were not happy with the diamond. They did like that the brightness of the facets when they were on. But the table facets, in particular that star pattern under the table, would flash on and off TOGETHER as a whole. So when they were "on" the table was very bright. But when they were off, the facets were uniformly dark in that pattern.

And when I saw these pics, I agreed with the customer that is was distracting.






What would be helpful for me is the pros on this thread (TL, Karl, RM and RD, etc.) to discuss the deficits and advantages of this stone from the information provided.

 

[Gypsy]

Okay I have removed vendor marks and sanitized and asked the Modertors to see if this is okay.

 

[Rockdiamond]

A few general comments:
VERY cool stone from a standpoint of unique-ness. For better or worse, it's a very unusual combination of step cut top and some sort of modified brilliant pavilion. It would not be classified as a "Radiant Cut"
I am not comfortable making specific comments as it's possible the stone is available online.
If you could post limited specifics - like the GIA plot, depth and table- but omit specific weight color and clarity- so the stone is anonymous then we can try to give ideas on how the stone and ASET relate.

ETA- thanks Gypsy- let's see what they say