Are Radiant Cuts properly evaluated on Pricescope?

[Rockdiamond]

HI All!
I've seen a lot of posts asking about Radiant Cut Diamonds. My experience is that the cut is not being properly evaluated here on Pricescope.
The original design - by the late Henry Grossbard has had a tremendous impact on the diamond business. It has spawned not only the H&A variants- but also heavily influenced Cushion Cut diamond cutting. Many of the finest cut cushions on the market today are basically using Henry's basic design, transplanted onto a different outline.
The lack of even handed evaluation on Pricescope also affects discussions on this type of Cushion Cut- think Harry Winston style cushions.

There are inherent reasons that a discussion of cut quality, and modified brilliant designs, like a radiant, will put the modified stone at a disadvantage. One reason is the fact that the modification on the pavilion ( bottom) of the stone does allow an opportunity for a cutter to "save weight". However it also allows a cutter opportunities to desing a different type of really well cut stone- whose patterns are far more random than a H&A look.
The problem is similar to the argument that guns don't kill people, people do.
The modified design can be used to make a badly cut stone, but that does not make the design itself bad.

The other main reason these Radiant and Cushion diamonds get a bad rap here on PS is one of brightness. If we take a single minded view that "brighter is better", a round wins. The light bounces less times before it exits the stone, and is therefore brightness is less diminished through reflections. But this aspect , in and of itself, is not pervasive enough to make a blanket declaration that H&A is "better".
If we say that less bounces is "better" for this reason, we overlook the advantages of more bounces. Or the preferences people have for different shapes and types of light performance.


I believe that part of this problem of even handed education has to do with ASET interpretation- and what's behind it in general.
The ASET provides data- on that we can all agree. But how do we interpret the data it provides? Data itself is neither good nor bad, it's just data.
A patterned stone, such as a H&A type of stone gathers most of the light from directly overhead, and produces a crisp ASET with lots of red and blue.
We can also agree that if one wants the H&A round look, that's what you need to see in an ASET.
But what about Fancy Shapes in general?
IS AGSL consistent in describing how to use ASET to evaluate stones?

Actually not.
This is from the AGSL site page for the handheld aset
http://www.americangemsociety.org/newhandheldaset

Green is produced by low-angle light, which usually is reflected from walls or other objects in the surrounding area (rather than coming from direct sources). A diamond with a high cut quality may show small amounts of this color around the bezel area of the ASET image.

The statement above does not take fancy shapes into account- they need to be judged differently. Once AGSL came out with a cut grade for Princess Cuts, it became obvious that the ASET data must be evaluated using different benchmarks.
Green can be very good, for example.

A really well cut Radiant ( as defined by the standard set by it's creator) will show far less organisation of colors in the ASET- and also a lot more green and white.
If the patterned stone is "better", than it's easy to use the more organized ASET- heavy on red and blue- to make a statment that such stones are cut "better"- but are they?

Although I strongly believe they are not "better", I love H&A patterned stones too- and I love PS, and respect the community here as well. I am not implying anything underhanded. But maybe this has to do with education, and how the different types of cuts are analysed here.

I think that the term "crushed ice" has been used to the disadvantage of education- and I am guilty of being a part of this. I need to find better words to describe the phenomenon I see- so that there's less confusion over that is a badly cut stone, and one that conforms more to the ideals of Henry Grossbard.

 

[Karl_K]

ok David,
Tell us how to select a nicely cut radiant online without saying just trust the dealer.

If you don't provide education on better ways of doing it then you have no room to complain.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Interesting that you see my post as a complaint Karl. The goal of my post is education- and that does involve looking at things in a different light sometimes.
I think that an "easy answer" is not in the cards here.

I'm reminded of an old Zen tale...
A man is walking along on a dark night- he sees a man looking for something on the ground, under a streetlight, and stops to assist.
After a little while he asks the man
"Are you sure you dropped it here?"
"No, I dropped it over there, but the light is better here"

Point is, should we steer people towards a given type of cut for the sole reason it's easier to judge using aset?

What I will do- and have started- is using the ASET , and stones that have the type of look I'm talking about to start to develop a means of judging them.
But the modified brilliant cut, by it's very nature, is harder to judge using a consistent benchmark as there's so many good variations.
I agree, there's some very bad variations as well- and also that assisting shoppers in determining which is which is important.

 

[diagem]

TOP TIPS FROM THE DIAMOND EXPERT

BY FOREVERMARK


"Few people know more about diamonds than Forevermark's resident expert Gareth Jones. Here, he shares his top tips for buying diamonds as a gift.

“When you are buying jewelry for someone, look at her personal style. What jewelry does she currently wear? If she already has a lot of yellow gold, for example, platinum will look out of place.”
“Always look at the girdle (the outer edge of a diamond, between the crown at the top and the pavilion at the bottom) as they can vary in thickness. Look at it from the side: it should be even and not too thin or too thick. If it is too thick, the diamond will have a larger carat weight but will appear smaller than it should.”
“We have a saying in the diamond industry: ‘Look long, get it wrong.’ Look at a selection of diamonds and the one you pick out straight away is the one.”
“Round brilliant cuts are the most popular – they call it the brilliant cut for a reason. It has a combination of fire and brilliance that no other shape can match. But the shape you choose depends on the wearer. Marquise cuts, for example, can have a stunning elongating effect.”
"Forevermark diamonds have already been selected for their exceptional qualities. So when it comes to choosing jewelry, you can trust your eye and have confidence in what looks great to you."





http://www.forevermarkdiamond.com/us/news-story/top-tips-diamond-expert

 

[redrocket]

Hi all, I'm new to the forum. I've read a lot about radiant cut diamonds and I find the search for a nice one to be overwhelming. I'm looking for a 1ct radiant cut diamond to fit a setting which I already have. What confuses me a lot is the table and depth %'s. If I understand correctly, table % should be less than depth % and both these %s should be in the mid 50's to to mid 60's.

For the radiant cut connoisseurs, what is your opinion on this diamond:
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4859/

I'm not really sure how to properly read the ASET image. Also, the depth % at 76.40% seems high. Thoughts?

Thanks!

Red

 

[JulieN]

Redrocket, you should create a new thread and ask your question there instead of here, so we don't have two issues going on at once.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks JulieN-
Redrocket- my goal is to create a better context for shoppers that takes into account the different types of Modified Brilliant Diamonds- that is how a Radiant Cut is categorized by GIA.
Your confusion is by no means uncommon- no need to feel like you're missing something.
There's scant information available on Modified Brilliant stones.

Hi Yoram- Happy New Years!
I think everyone would agree that the sales pitch you quoted was nowhere near education.
I'm not clear as to how that relates to this subject.


The break point on the pavilion, means that the facets lines that form the culet do not touch the girdle.
This is the "modified" aspect of a "Cut Cornered Rectangular Modified Brilliant".
Part of the reason people here are critical of the cut is that it allows a lot of funny stuff. This is a valid concern.

But unlike a stone cut to "Brilliant", the modified aspect allows for a really wide range of possibilities.
Some can be cut to the same standards of symmetry and polish as a non modified.

For the purposes of discussion, let's consider Radiant Cuts that are cut for color.
This really gives cutters a licence to utilize the rough with far less constraint about symmetry. The plot example above- randomly chosen- illustrates extra facets on the pavilion. If perfect symmetry is the goal, then it's a problem. But what if that extra facet has an imperceptible affect on the overall optics of the diamond?
Sometimes it might be a budging pavilion, effectively hiding 10% of the weight.
But other times it might mean utilizing piece of rough of a desirable shape differently in ways related to optics, as opposed to weight retention primarily.

Cutters today are handcuffed to the Rap Sheet.
They have to cut rounds.
It's getting harder and harder to find colorless fancy shapes

My point is- sometimes a cutter can utilize the freedom associated with the modified design to do something different, and extraordinary.
Which I've seen you do many times Yoram.
But others do it differently.

What does everyone think of patterns of green and white in an ASET of a Radiant?

 

[diagem]

Hi Yoram- Happy New Years!
I think everyone would agree that the sales pitch you quoted was nowhere near education.
I'm not clear as to how that relates to this subject.

Just funny seeing how DeBeers is also saying "trust your eye".
Happy New Years to you as well David.

 

[oldminer]

David; I agree with he pressure being put on cutters to cut round and princess cuts and not to risk innovation or the cutting of many fancy shapes. Truthfully, I place the pressure on consumers who increasingly are more and more aware of the available information concerning brilliancy, scintillation, fire, etc. The top sellers happen to be those diamonds which can be cut to best pump up these features.

Yet, there is a world of diamond cuts that have great beauty but suffer from lack of a performance system that gives thema competitive chance. Each fancy cut does have its own character and level of potential perfromance. There is no reaso for consumers to choose to avoid a shape and look they personally like. On the other hand, one can cerrtinly understand how difficult it is for a consumer to make an intelligent choice with diamonds of fancy shape that the industry has not developed a reasonable cut grade for them.

I all my years I have seen a tiny number of beautiful radiant cut diamonds. By far, the vast majority we biased in favor of more retained weight with ittle regard to a good appearance. Of course, this is my opinion, but my opinion in such matters has some weight.

There are aspects of all the regular shaped diamonds which are connected with high quality such as excellent polish and symmetry. Another characteristic is a good relationship, for their shape, of their visual sizeto their carat weight. This is attached to girdle thickness, culet size and total depth. Beyond certain moderate ranges, a diamond always becomes overly thin, fragile, or too thich and overaly small in appearance.

After those considerations the consumer is free to choose a diamond they like even if it is a crushed ice look. So long as they have shopped enough and understad the basic problems of what factors always affect faceted diamonds, they are better prepared to decidee properly. To me, it is high time for the labs to begin to grade the cut of all shapes for at least the basic features they all have in common.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Yoram- Happy New Years!
I think everyone would agree that the sales pitch you quoted was nowhere near education.
I'm not clear as to how that relates to this subject.

Just funny seeing how DeBeers is also saying "trust your eye".
Happy New Years to you as well David.

This reminds me of a joke.
A man comes home to find his wife in bed with another man.
When he confronts her she says
I was alone
Who are you going to believe- me or your lying eyes

I have never advised consumers " just trust your eyes"
On the other hand, are we better off trusting the red in an aset more than visually inspecting the diiamond?
How can we calibrate the aset to modified brilliant variations without visual comparison

 

[denverappraiser]

I applaud Davids effort here. As he pointed out, the ASET is providing data, and I think it’s useful data, but there is no benchmark for what is best or even what’s better than what. That’s what people are asking about but we’re just not there yet. There’s currently not even a standard for what’s importanty different from what. That seems like the place to start, and it’s a huge project. It involves studying a bunch of stones, carefully observing and documenting the differences, and then documenting if and how those differences show up in ASET images. From there we can get into the issue of what’s better than what and whether ASET is useful in choosing between stones. Without it we’re blind no matter how useful ASET data can be.

 

[diagem]

Hi Yoram- Happy New Years!
I think everyone would agree that the sales pitch you quoted was nowhere near education.
I'm not clear as to how that relates to this subject.

Just funny seeing how DeBeers is also saying "trust your eye".
Happy New Years to you as well David.

This reminds me of a joke.
A man comes home to find his wife in bed with another man.
When he confronts her she says
I was alone
Who are you going to believe- me or your lying eyes

I have never advised consumers " just trust your eyes"
On the other hand, are we better off trusting the red in an aset more than visually inspecting the diiamond?
How can we calibrate the aset to modified brilliant variations without visual comparison

I never said you did..., but DeBeers just did And you cant say they are not right with the limited info they provide on ForeverMark.
Trusting the *right* red in the *correct* areas with *sufficient* greens and blues scattered between the red will be safer in an online model when you dont physically visualize the stone. That is a proven fact!
Now, that does not mean its better than other cuts (even far from it), but its the most efficient way (I know) to display the "Added Value" to the material.

If you are able to show a new way to market generic fancy cuts while comforting the consumer you sure have a winner in your hands.

 

[oldminer]

I imagine that somewhere it is already being worked on, but it occurs to me that those experts who take ASET images should get together to post in one place the ASET images of Radiant cuts they believed displayed what they could describe as near the best light return and beauty characteristics. Maybe we'd discover how to better interpret ASET images for this shape. The same methodolgy could possibly be used for other shapes, too. Admittedly, beauty remains subjective and what is "best" is hardly well defined, but we could go a long way to solving the mystery even if we could not digest all the available data in a scientific way.

 

[Rockdiamond]

David; I agree with he pressure being put on cutters to cut round and princess cuts and not to risk innovation or the cutting of many fancy shapes. Truthfully, I place the pressure on consumers who increasingly are more and more aware of the available information concerning brilliancy, scintillation, fire, etc. The top sellers happen to be those diamonds which can be cut to best pump up these features.

Yet, there is a world of diamond cuts that have great beauty but suffer from lack of a performance system that gives thema competitive chance. Each fancy cut does have its own character and level of potential perfromance. There is no reaso for consumers to choose to avoid a shape and look they personally like. On the other hand, one can cerrtinly understand how difficult it is for a consumer to make an intelligent choice with diamonds of fancy shape that the industry has not developed a reasonable cut grade for them.

I all my years I have seen a tiny number of beautiful radiant cut diamonds. By far, the vast majority we biased in favor of more retained weight with ittle regard to a good appearance. Of course, this is my opinion, but my opinion in such matters has some weight.

There are aspects of all the regular shaped diamonds which are connected with high quality such as excellent polish and symmetry. Another characteristic is a good relationship, for their shape, of their visual sizeto their carat weight. This is attached to girdle thickness, culet size and total depth. Beyond certain moderate ranges, a diamond always becomes overly thin, fragile, or too thich and overaly small in appearance.

After those considerations the consumer is free to choose a diamond they like even if it is a crushed ice look. So long as they have shopped enough and understad the basic problems of what factors always affect faceted diamonds, they are better prepared to decidee properly. To me, it is high time for the labs to begin to grade the cut of all shapes for at least the basic features they all have in common.

David- the part in blue is exactly what I'm talking about. Should we avoid an entire class of modified brilliant Cushion and Radiant Cut Diamonds simply because they are more difficult to categorize?

Thank you as well Neil.
Last year when I got my ASET, I'll admit, I was confused a bit.
The prevailing methods for reading it seemed to go against what I was seeing with my eyes. When I look at a well cut Radiant, my eyes see a cacophony of pinfire flashes- and no static dark areas.
Yet the aset seems to be so scattered- lots of green and white, limited or no patterns of red and black.
Was that bad? Based on what I'd seen here, it seemed so......but this is the crux of the problem.

I have been putting a lot of thought into this- and speaking extensively to Stan Grossbard about how to assess Radiant Cuts using ASET
What I've found is a divergence of opinions. The tendency here on PS seems to be to lump together the badly cut Modified Brilliant Cuts, with the well cut ones.
But speaking with very successful diamond cutters a more balanced picture emerges. Today, there's far greater problem with diversity in cut than ever before, mainly due to Rappaports unrealistic raising of the round list, while leaving the fancy shape list at far lower prices. This means that the percentage of rough cut into fancy shapes is shrinking.
But the cutters dedicated to fine make, that have been cutting modified Brilliant Cuts that I have dealt with and seen first hand produce well cut modified brilliant cuts with no pavilion bulge and excellent even pinfire flashes- and very small areas of darkness that are not static.
As far as the part in red from David's post- I concur. My position geographically does allow me to look at more radiant cut diamonds simply because they are clustered around the NY diamond district.
Even still, if I go through a typical cutter's box of Radiant Cuts, I'll reject at least 90%
But this is no different than any other "super ideal" cut- they are a small percentage of total production.

Yoram- I had no idea DeBeers was behind that shameful presentation- that's kind of shocking

 

[satbeachbill]

Well, It seems to me that it's even more important "to trust the dealer" with a radiant purchase, especially if the technology isn't available to the layman to decifer a better cut from a lesser cut. In this case by using the ASET, in conjunction with a professionals' eyes-on inspection, and good lab report, a knowledgable decision can be made about the stone.
Just make sure the dealer is well versed in radiant cut diamonds. A dealer who has seen thousands of radiants over his career, would pretty much know what to look for, how to advise, and would be the person I would seek out for my purchase.

 

[Rockdiamond]

That is a great point Satbeachbill.
If we can more easily judge the cut of a round with no assistance, using GIA or AGSL cut grading, the perception will be that the dealer is less important.
There is some truth to this- although if you look at the sellers of "super ideal" round diamonds, they have proved their value.
I will also add that I think consumers really are best served in any diamond purchase if they put the maximum amount of effort into making sure they've chosen the best dealer. With Modified Brilliant stones this is particularly true.

 

[JulieN]

The IS/ASET kits come with a calibration cz, for the purpose of learning how to use the reflectors.

The problem with telling customers to trust their eyes is that their eyes are not calibrated. How is one to discern the difference between what's good and bad without experiencing both? There's a kiosk at the local mall that sells "pashmina/silk blend" shawls for $15. My $200 cashmere/silk blends feel much differently. Maybe consumers could use CZs for education purposes?

David, if you reject 90% of a typical box, perhaps you could take some pictures of what you select, which ones are "average," and which ones are dogs.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The IS/ASET kits come with a calibration cz, for the purpose of learning how to use the reflectors.

The problem with telling customers to trust their eyes is that their eyes are not calibrated. How is one to discern the difference between what's good and bad without experiencing both? There's a kiosk at the local mall that sells "pashmina/silk blend" shawls for $15. My $200 cashmere/silk blends feel much differently. Maybe consumers could use CZs for education purposes?

David, if you reject 90% of a typical box, perhaps you could take some pictures of what you select, which ones are "average," and which ones are dogs.

I don't believe the CZ will work- for a number of reasons.
1) Optical properties are most likely different than a real diamond - I'm not positive that will affect aset- but it's likely.
2) and this is pressing- if we use a round ( either diamond or CZ) as the model, the information provided will not be relevant to a Modified Brilliant.
Taken a step further- even if we're comparing two different cut cornered square modified brilliant diamonds that are cut with different goals the results that apply to one will not apply to another.
A common refrain here is that one type of Square Modified is "cut for optics" and others are cut "for weight retention"
This is a gross oversimplification.
Some radiant cuts are certainly cut for weight retention. But not all Radiant Cut diamonds cut for optics look like a H&A type design. That's why judging two different style of Radiant Cuts means a completely different evaluation of the data provided by aset.

I also love the second suggestion Julie- I will be looking for some badly cut Modifieds to compare with some better cut modifieds for photos, and a video.
Ultimately I plan to write an article which brings the entire subject together, but a discussion like this is a fantastic way to start to formulate these ideas into a cohesive methodology- if that's even possible.

 

[JulieN]

Of course, I mean radiant and other fancy shapes, not comparing a round cz to a radiant diamond...

As to the difference in refractive index, the cutters of czs or a computer program would know how to properly adjust the angles. It shouldn't make a difference in ASET, or perhaps the edges of where the color transitions are (blue/red/green) would be shifted a little. CZ cutters don't care about weight retention, an advantage to using the material for education.

As to the difference in dispersion, I thought you diamond guys often worked in lighting environment where fire is reduced.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Even if there's a way to "match" RI between a CZ and a diamond, we would still have the same consideration as to what type of Radiant is used for a model.
Furthermore, I think that the further from visual evaluation we get ( such as a computer program to equalize the differences between a diamond and a CZ), the less pertinent the results, as well as a means of providing a method for consumers to judge for themselves.

My office is full of natural light- and high over head fluorescent lights.....is that the type of fire reducing environment you meant Julie?

 

[JulieN]

Yes, that type of environment won't highlight the differences in dispersion between the two materials.

Nowhere did I say that we should use a computer program to model a radiant to consumers, it is only for back-end, cutter knowledge. Refractive index is not very different between the two anyway. Why don't we just go with the radiants you like, the ORC? CZ is a perfectly good educational tool, only that the stigma against it stymies acceptance. An educated consumer is good or bad for business?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Of course, I mean radiant and other fancy shapes, not comparing a round cz to a radiant diamond...

As to the difference in refractive index, the cutters of czs or a computer program would know how to properly adjust the angles. It shouldn't make a difference in ASET, or perhaps the edges of where the color transitions are (blue/red/green) would be shifted a little. CZ cutters don't care about weight retention, an advantage to using the material for education.

As to the difference in dispersion, I thought you diamond guys often worked in lighting environment where fire is reduced.

Hi Julie- the part in bold was where I thought you were suggesting a computer program.

IN term of lighting....well, I am sitting here and can see the environment and I disagree. We're lucky to have a wide range of natural , indoor and dispersed lighting. I mean I know for sure a CZ looks nothing like a diamond in my office.
Personally I've never found CZ to be a good teaching tool- other than maybe for showing how to use a loupe and tweezer.

The Original Radiant Cut is a great example to use IMO- but the discussion also includes Modified Brilliant Cushions as well. Plus there's a large variety of ORC diamonds.
For example they are not always rectangular. Squares and rectangles have differing optics, and goals in cutting, to some extent.
This all highlights the difficulty in designing a cut grade system for what is basically a moving target.

An educated consumer is HORRIBLE for a business that is trying to deceive buyers- that's clear.
From my perspective, an educated consumer is the best possible consumer.
Isn't that the point of a thread like this Julie?

 

[JulieN]

IN term of lighting....well, I am sitting here and can see the environment and I disagree. We're lucky to have a wide range of natural , indoor and dispersed lighting. I mean I know for sure a CZ looks nothing like a diamond in my office.
Personally I've never found CZ to be a good teaching tool- other than maybe for showing how to use a loupe and tweezer.

-It doesn't need to look like a diamond, it just needs to act close enough like one in terms of light performance for educational purposes. Which, it does. The laws of physics don't change just because someone doesn't believe in it. CPR is practiced on dummies since doing it on a real person would break their ribs. Does that mean that all these CPR-certified people can't do the procedure on a real person when they need to?

The Original Radiant Cut is a great example to use IMO- but the discussion also includes Modified Brilliant Cushions as well. Plus there's a large variety of ORC diamonds.
For example they are not always rectangular. Squares and rectangles have differing optics, and goals in cutting, to some extent.
This all highlights the difficulty in designing a cut grade system for what is basically a moving target.

-My suggestion doesn't design a cut grade system. Do consumers need to see good and bad examples of every shape and variation before they are educated? Of course not. If a new cut came out, and you saw just one, would you throw up your hands and say, "but this is only one example! I can't possibly know if it's good or bad!"

An educated consumer is HORRIBLE for a business that is trying to deceive buyers- that's clear.
From my perspective, an educated consumer is the best possible consumer.
Isn't that the point of a thread like this Julie?

-What's your suggestion on better education for the consumer who doesn't mind learning a little bit, but can't see hundreds of diamonds?

 

[Rockdiamond]

IN term of lighting....well, I am sitting here and can see the environment and I disagree. We're lucky to have a wide range of natural , indoor and dispersed lighting. I mean I know for sure a CZ looks nothing like a diamond in my office.
Personally I've never found CZ to be a good teaching tool- other than maybe for showing how to use a loupe and tweezer.

-It doesn't need to look like a diamond, it just needs to act close enough like one in terms of light performance for educational purposes. Which, it does. The laws of physics don't change just because someone doesn't believe in it.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Julie. Diamonds and CZ's do not exhibit light performance similar enough to be of much use at all in education. Possibly a super sized model for showing facet placement? But in my experience not in terms of light performance. Maybe other have successfully used CZ's to teach light performance

The Original Radiant Cut is a great example to use IMO- but the discussion also includes Modified Brilliant Cushions as well. Plus there's a large variety of ORC diamonds.
For example they are not always rectangular. Squares and rectangles have differing optics, and goals in cutting, to some extent.
This all highlights the difficulty in designing a cut grade system for what is basically a moving target.

-My suggestion doesn't design a cut grade system. Do consumers need to see good and bad examples of every shape and variation before they are educated? Of course not. If a new cut came out, and you saw just one, would you throw up your hands and say, "but this is only one example! I can't possibly know if it's good or bad!"



An educated consumer is HORRIBLE for a business that is trying to deceive buyers- that's clear.
From my perspective, an educated consumer is the best possible consumer.
Isn't that the point of a thread like this Julie?

-What's your suggestion on better education for the consumer who doesn't mind learning a little bit, but can't see hundreds of diamonds?

Interesting point about a cut grade system. It would seem that some sort of scale is desired by many consumers- but I happen to agree that a "cut grade system" was an incorrect choice of words on my part.
In terms of numbers of stones needed to gain a proper frame of reference: My experience is that anyone who wishes to learn about diamonds is best served by looking at them- a lot of them. Not all consumers wish to learn that much about diamonds.
But for those that do, looking at as many as possible, under the right viewing environment, with explanation, is the very best education possible.

As far as my suggestion- well that's the point of this discussion.
We know how to judge certain types of stones using reflector technology.
But the rules can't simply be "copy and pasted" to stones cut with different optical goals.
Look at it this way- if optimal brilliance, and performance is the goal, the cut design which has still not been beat is the Modern Round Brilliant.
Some of the fancy shapes variations strive for this goal and do very well in that regard.

Others go in a different direction and gain beauty in ways. Step cuts, for example. Different rules apply, right?
I didn't start this thread knowing the answer of how to define this for consumers.
Maybe working in a forum like this, we can find better ways.
It certainly is a goal of mine.

 

[redrocket]

What do you all think of the Original Radiant Cut diamond company? Has anyone here made a purchase one of their diamonds? Any pros/cons?

 

[yssie]

What do you all think of the Original Radiant Cut diamond company? Has anyone here made a purchase one of their diamonds? Any pros/cons?

I had the chance to see a branded Radiant in David's (of DiamondsByLauren) office some weeks ago, it was stunning!! It was a gorgeous stone.

Full disclosure: I'd seen some radiants before but never one that I couldn't take my eyes off of. I only had it for a few minutes, but it made an impression! I'm an RB girl at heart - I appreciate the symmetry, the "flashlight" type of light return, the mix of big and small facets returning big flashes and tiny twinkles at the same time. This radiant was completely different from anything I'd seen before, and different from what I usually like to see - the patterning was totally random to the eye, the facets all of similar (smaller) size - I've said this on here before, but it was like looking into a bucket of glitter - just sparkle, sparkle, everywhere, end-to-end! And the stone was so evenly *bright* all over, in a way my RB never is - *softer* somehow than I remember similarly sized princesses being, though I only own one smaller princess so I couldn't swear by that comparison - it was fascinating, and beautiful, and now I want one!

I'd call it the perfect specimen of "crushed ice" actually. That term has a negative connotation on here - I think because we're all using different definitions! What I saw was smaller facets all clearly returning light at the same time.. no "mush" or "haze" or "sludge" or anything of the sort.

I do think, after seeing it, that people buy radiants, ECs, RBs, princesses, cushions... for *very* different reasons. Which is the point of this thread, I guess. Someone who falls in love with the symmetry and in-your-face light return of an RB is going to be disappointed with a Radiant... someone who wants that tub-of-glitter effect is going to be disappointed with an RB... someone who prefers the slow, "rolling" flashes off DH's grandmothers giant EC isn't going to want a radiant or an RB... if you like that type of light return I can't think of any cons other than the brand premium!


In any case - please keep us updated on your search

 

[Rockdiamond]

Trusting the *right* red in the *correct* areas with *sufficient* greens and blues scattered between the red will be safer in an online model when you dont physically visualize the stone. That is a proven fact!
Now, that does not mean its better than other cuts (even far from it), but its the most efficient way (I know) to display the "Added Value" to the material.

If you are able to show a new way to market generic fancy cuts while comforting the consumer you sure have a winner in your hands.

Let me first say that I know a ton of people in my industry- and there's not ONE I respect more than Yoram- but on this aspect, we disagree.
The way it's worded- "safer" is probably accurate IF someone wants the type of stone that shows red in the "correct areas Yoram refers to.
If they want a radiant cut in the vein of Henry Grossbard's vision, then using that formula is not "safe" at all!

I'm looking at a radiant that I find to be beautifully cut- and the areas of red are the least bright areas of the stone.
The green and white are where the stone is exploding in sparkle.
I'm going to get photos of the stone/ASET to show what I mean.


Yssie- thank you for that- as usual you're incredibly gifted in your use of words.

 

[diagem]

Trusting the *right* red in the *correct* areas with *sufficient* greens and blues scattered between the red will be safer in an online model when you dont physically visualize the stone. That is a proven fact!
Now, that does not mean its better than other cuts (even far from it), but its the most efficient way (I know) to display the "Added Value" to the material.

If you are able to show a new way to market generic fancy cuts while comforting the consumer you sure have a winner in your hands.

Let me first say that I know a ton of people in my industry- and there's not ONE I respect more than Yoram- but on this aspect, we disagree.
The way it's worded- "safer" is probably accurate IF someone wants the type of stone that shows red in the "correct areas Yoram refers to.
If they want a radiant cut in the vein of Henry Grossbard's vision, then using that formula is not "safe" at all!

I'm looking at a radiant that I find to be beautifully cut- and the areas of red are the least bright areas of the stone.
The green and white are where the stone is exploding in sparkle.
I'm going to get photos of the stone/ASET to show what I mean.


Yssie- thank you for that- as usual you're incredibly gifted in your use of words.

How can you disagree if I agree with you....
Which formula would YOU say will convey to a consumer the security and comfort they are getting a Henry Grossbard vision cut?
Oh, and I don't have to add its for a sight-unseen marketing model.

David, if you can gather a few of Grossbards Radiants and post their ASET images will be more productive.

 

[denverappraiser]

David,

An indexed set of data no matter WHAT the grading scale is would be helpful. Inventing a system from scratch the way GIA and AGS have done for rounds is extremely labor intensive and expensive and even then doesn’t absolutely answer the question so I would suggest starting small. A scale of David loves it – David likes it – Not bad considering – etc. seems pretty good and base it 100% on visual inspection and your own judgement. Look at a bunch of stones, do a Sarin, a faceup photo, and an ASET image of each and see if you spot a pattern. That is to say, see if there are things that you see in the data that apparently correlate to stones that you think are dogs in real life or things in the images that seem to be common in stones that you love. It’s not quite the same as how GIA did it but it’s actually pretty close. They statistically processed a few hundred thousand observations to decide what’s the prettiest and I’m suggesting the sample size be just you or perhaps you and a few friends and that the stones are as many or as few as you are willing to do. It’s not so different from the approach used in the HCA with rounds. The ‘best’ are the ones that Garry likes and we’re just accepting the idea that Garry has decent taste. That’s not such a bad assumption as long as you understand that something is being assumed. Those who don’t like it are welcome to use a different approach.

 

[yssie]

I'm going to get photos of the stone/ASET to show what I mean.

How can you disagree if I agree with you....
Which formula would YOU say will convey to a consumer the security and comfort they are getting a Henry Grossbard vision cut?
Oh, and I don't have to add its for a sight-unseen marketing model.

David, if you can gather a few of Grossbards Radiants and post their ASET images will be more productive.

Thank you David!

While I do think this would be fantastic (and fantastically informative, I honestly can't think of a better way to illustrate the virtues *and limitations* of the way we generally use ASET for "brilliants" here on PS) I do see one problem: it requires that viewers have seen a branded Radiant in-person, or can truly appreciate how lovely these stones are from photos and videos, and that they recognise that it's the way we use the tool - not the beauty of the stone - that's in question!


ETA - what he said -

David,

An indexed set of data no matter WHAT the grading scale is would be helpful. Inventing a system from scratch the way GIA and AGS have done for rounds is extremely labor intensive and expensive and even then doesn’t absolutely answer the question so I would suggest starting small. A scale of David loves it – David likes it – Not bad considering – etc. seems pretty good and base it 100% on visual inspection and your own judgement. Look at a bunch of stones, do a Sarin, a faceup photo, and an ASET image of each and see if you spot a pattern. That is to say, see if there are things that you see in the data that apparently correlate to stones that you think are dogs in real life or things in the images that seem to be common in stones that you love. It’s not quite the same as how GIA did it but it’s actually pretty close. They statistically processed a few hundred thousand observations to decide what’s the prettiest and I’m suggesting the sample size be just you or perhaps you and a few friends and that the stones are as many or as few as you are willing to do. It’s not so different from the approach used in the HCA with rounds. The ‘best’ are the ones that Garry likes and we’re just accepting the idea that Garry has decent taste. That’s not such a bad assumption as long as you understand that something is being assumed. Those who don’t like it are welcome to use a different approach.