So... how's about them Radiant Diamonds?

[quietlysw]

So there's a huge discussion going on in RT about radiants. Aside from the use/interpretation of AESTs, optimised light return, cutter's responsibilities etc, etc: here's a simple poll - who likes 'em, who doesn't?

Feel free to add your reasons why/ why not. Also it would be interesting to see if the discussion going on in RT is constructive to you, because I for one keep going back, and am constantly disappointed with the lack of educational information.

Maybe the voice of us consumers needs to be heard on a different platform! Would love to see and hear everyone's opinions!

 

[kenny]

I am not bashing the radiant!

Radiants and other crushed-ice cuts were never my cup of tea.
I'm sure that, as with all cuts, radiants vary and some are cut better than others, but that thread confirmed my suspicion that radiants are among the leakier cuts.
That's two hits against the radiant ... speaking only for my personal preference.

I totally agree that if you like radiants, rose cuts, or diamond material cut into a flat piece of glass, or want to set a rough diamond, then those are the perfect cut/not-cut for you.
You don't have to like good light performance.
No problem.
That's fine.
...
But when vendors who sell lots of radiants try to make themselves look good by patronizing posters with Saccharin-sweet 'compliments', obfuscate, confuse, becloud, stand on their heads and juggle balls to try to deceive the public into thinking radiants have good light performance by shinning light into their pavilions to conceal leakage, or claim that cut tools are bogus or interpreting ASETS requires 30 years of experience that hurts the radiant cut more than if they just kept quiet.
It is unfortunate for the cut that this guy is the radiant spokesman here.

Diamond is an astronomically-expensive material and has unique optical properties that can result in an astonishing light show that no other gem can match, but only if cut to let those optical properties do their job.

If the best light show a diamond can put on is your priority then radiant and those other cuts are not for you.

Repeat: I am not bashing the radiant!

 

[quietlysw]

Great post Kenny

Throwing this out to you and anyone else out there: do you think the other crushed-ice fancies like ovals and marquise would also benefit from being included in the discussion re: light performance indicators? Or are they a different thing altogether?

 

[dk168]

I have not followed the saga in the other threads, and am not a fan of radiants.

DK

 

[kenny]

The ASET just colors the light that comes from different heights.
It's not rocket science.

If correctly positioned at the girdle the ASET tool shows 4 things for ANY diamond shape.



1. Leakage ... White when the stone is lit from underneath, dark when not.
2. Light that came from near the horizon ... Green
3. Light that came from near overhead ... Blue
4. Light that came from between overhead and the horizon ... Red

For good light performance I want as little of #1 as possible and a nice symmetrical combination of the other 3 ... and since light sources are generally above us perhaps more red than green.
That seems reasonable and simple to me, thought I'd be happy to hear other perspectives.
I've read a zillion complicated and confusing other descriptions of what's desired.

I do not necessarily agree with the above illustration's descriptions, reflected, direct, obscured.
Those are judgments, not identification of where the light came from.
I just want the facts, unpolluted by someone's 'explanations' what the colors mean.

 

[marymm]

There are some Radiants that really appeal to me, but those that please my eye are few and far between - that said, I do intend on buying one, and when that time comes, my purchase will be from DBL.

In terms of more and less helpful PS threads re: Radiants, I find something useful from most threads I visit; and even with the best intentions the focus of a thread can follow a different path than what might be expected from an opening post. Generally speaking, I do agree that a tool (Aset, IdealScope, Sarin, MegaScope, even magnified images and grading reports) is only as helpful as an individual's ability to interpret/analyze those tools/results/images and put them into context relative to their budget/diamond preferences.

 

[ponder]

Not a radiant fan, but I have found the other thread to be vastly entertaining even if it has not been very educational.

 

[quietlysw]

Very interesting responses everyone!! I keep an eye on that thread in RT. Looks like Gypsy is bringing the thread back on track.... will be interesting to see how it turns out!

 

[chrono]

I like a very specific radiant cut (strong defined symmetrical pattern). There are so many "flavours" of radiants so I don't know how to vote. To say "yes" is untrue and to say "no" is also untrue. I have not participated because it kept going off course but looks like we are now finally getting to the root of the subject.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I am not bashing the radiant!

Radiants and other crushed-ice cuts were never my cup of tea.
I'm sure that, as with all cuts, radiants vary and some are cut better than others, but that thread confirmed my suspicion that radiants are among the leakier cuts.
That's two hits against the radiant ... speaking only for my personal preference.

I totally agree that if you like radiants, rose cuts, or diamond material cut into a flat piece of glass, or want to set a rough diamond, then those are the perfect cut/not-cut for you.
You don't have to like good light performance.
No problem.
That's fine.
...
But when vendors who sell lots of radiants try to make themselves look good by patronizing posters with Saccharin-sweet 'compliments', obfuscate, confuse, becloud, stand on their heads and juggle balls to try to deceive the public into thinking radiants have good light performance by shinning light into their pavilions to conceal leakage, or claim that cut tools are bogus or interpreting ASETS requires 30 years of experience that hurts the radiant cut more than if they just kept quiet.
It is unfortunate for the cut that this guy is the radiant spokesman here.

Diamond is an astronomically-expensive material and has unique optical properties that can result in an astonishing light show that no other gem can match, but only if cut to let those optical properties do their job.

If the best light show a diamond can put on is your priority then radiant and those other cuts are not for you.

Repeat: I am not bashing the radiant!

Interesting methodology Kenny.
You could productively discuss this on the thread where the tradespeople are participating to address your points- instead you chose to attempt to disrupt that thread..
Here you're stating your opinion, and calling it fact.
You don't like the performance of a well cut radiant, that's clearly your right.
Saying a radiant does not have "good" light performance simply because you don't like them?
That is misleading

ETA- for those people interested, we are not deterred- my apologies that the attacks do bring the discussion off course- but there's enough people that want an objective view of this- we're not giving up.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Throwing this out to you and anyone else out there: do you think the other crushed-ice fancies like ovals and marquise would also benefit from being included in the discussion re: light performance indicators? Or are they a different thing altogether?

Great question!
I have made it clear a number of times in the thread that a lot of the discussion does apply to Cushion, pear and other shapes with this type of light performance.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The real shame of this Kenny?
You have some good questions ( about leakage in particular ) that would add to the discussion.
I am by no means dismissing your points- rather looking to have a civil discussion about them.

The thread is going to continue, and you are totally welcome to add positive input.