Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

Some people do like that look and more power too them.

In general, though, when a diamond has that look it means the light is not being sent back to the eye and therefore the diamond is not going to be as bright, scintillating, contrasty etc as it could be. It is a visual sign of poor cut. As I said, though, some do like that look and as long as someone has made a comparison and opted that they indeed prefer that appearance over others, more power to them.

I think Good Olds Gold has lots of cushion videos. Try their videos link and see what you find.

I would watch the videos and see for yourself...I personally hate the 'crushed ice' look...but to each his/her own

http://www.vimeo.com/diamondinfo/videos ... ort:newest

I don't know if it is just a preference thing, or if it means the cut is bad. I have wondered this too from reading posts on PS. I do know, however, that I LOVE the crushed ice look and that is why I like radiants.

When we were ring shopping, I didn't know what cut I liked. The salesperson showed me examples of each. When I saw the radiant, I said ooooo it looks like crushed ice! I thought it was so amazing, and liked it so much better than defined facets. I don't know why but I found it mesmerizing.

FuturePsyD-
Many people LOVE the "crushed ice look"- and I for one find the best cut Crushed Ice (Cushion Modified Brilliant) to be every bit as bright as an 8 Main Cushion brilliant which is favored by the most vocal posters here. With a lot more scintillation as the smaller flashes are...faster- almost tricking the eye- creating a bottomless pit sort of look- I love it. In the best cases, this texture covers the stone from stem to stern ( girdle to girdle)
It's almost funny how clear the bias is on this forum- in favor of "chunkier flashes"
I think your question is one that many readers have- the preferences are so strongly stated I honestly believe most people are afraid to ask.

Written by petrock<3:I don't know if it is just a preference thing, or if it means the cut is bad. I have wondered this too from reading posts on PS. I do know, however, that I LOVE the crushed ice look and that is why I like radiants.

When we were ring shopping, I didn't know what cut I liked. The salesperson showed me examples of each. When I saw the radiant, I said ooooo it looks like crushed ice! I thought it was so amazing, and liked it so much better than defined facets. I don't know why but I found it mesmerizing.

Crushed ice look is a little different than a well cut radiant, though there are similarities. When we use it on PS it typically refers to poorly cut stones, not well cut stones like radiants or princess cuts that will have smaler facets and pinfire. Do you still like the crushed ice look based on the video that SLG posted? Just curious.

Written by FuturePsyD:Hi All,

I was wondering if someone could kindly tell me why Cushions with the crushed ice appearance seem to be "looked down upon" amongst the various types of cushions out there? (based on many posts i've read on PS).

I'm new to PS, is there someplace I can go to look at the different types and compare? I really appreciate any help.

Thanks!!!

How could they be looked down upon? Harry Winston sells them.
Links to types of cushions and educational videos found in this thread: http://www.pricescope.com/forum/post2666422.html#p2666422

Written by Dreamer_D:Crushed ice look is a little different than a well cut radiant, though there are similarities. When we use it on PS it typically refers to poorly cut stones, not well cut stones like radiants or princess cuts that will have smaler facets and pinfire. Do you still like the crushed ice look based on the video that SLG posted? Just curious.

[/quote]

Yes, I learned this very quickly after posting here for just a few days and being taught the difference and also doing some comparison shopping in person. At first I thought I was okay with "crushed ice" because I like princess cuts, but then I realized that it wasn't what I thought it was at all and ironically I like the 2 and 3 chevron princesses best, so I guess I like chunkier facets more than I had realized. The "crushed ice" appearance really does look like that, or like broken glass. I don't see that look in the well cut radiants or princess cuts I've looked at and now that I know the difference I'd be able to spot it right away and do not like the look at all.

I think we have had several "Is the crushed-ice look bad?" threads.
Some go on for many pages with complex ray-tracing graphics and vendors and appraisers discussing it for days.

From what I can tell no conclusion is ever reached about whether "crushed-ice" is a compliment or a criticism.
I've noticed the term used both ways.

Written by Dreamer_D:

Written by petrock<3:I don't know if it is just a preference thing, or if it means the cut is bad. I have wondered this too from reading posts on PS. I do know, however, that I LOVE the crushed ice look and that is why I like radiants.

When we were ring shopping, I didn't know what cut I liked. The salesperson showed me examples of each. When I saw the radiant, I said ooooo it looks like crushed ice! I thought it was so amazing, and liked it so much better than defined facets. I don't know why but I found it mesmerizing.

Crushed ice look is a little different than a well cut radiant, though there are similarities. When we use it on PS it typically refers to poorly cut stones, not well cut stones like radiants or princess cuts that will have smaler facets and pinfire. Do you still like the crushed ice look based on the video that SLG posted? Just curious.

Hmmm lemme look. I like an excuse to watch diamond videos!

http://www.vimeo.com/7731689

In this video I still like the "crushed ice" one ( the first one) although I equally like the third one. I like the small little flashes vs. the big mirror like ones. You don't know where they are going to come from next.

I can see why people like the chunky facets because they are brighter, for some reason I do not prefer that though? Maybe if I saw one in person it would be different. The cushion I saw in person was just a regular one.

In this video, I agree the crushed ice just looks dull http://www.vimeo.com/7611843

Written by Dreamer_D:

Written by petrock<3:I don't know if it is just a preference thing, or if it means the cut is bad. I have wondered this too from reading posts on PS. I do know, however, that I LOVE the crushed ice look and that is why I like radiants.

When we were ring shopping, I didn't know what cut I liked. The salesperson showed me examples of each. When I saw the radiant, I said ooooo it looks like crushed ice! I thought it was so amazing, and liked it so much better than defined facets. I don't know why but I found it mesmerizing.

Crushed ice look is a little different than a well cut radiant, though there are similarities. When we use it on PS it typically refers to poorly cut stones, not well cut stones like radiants or princess cuts that will have smaler facets and pinfire. Do you still like the crushed ice look based on the video that SLG posted? Just curious.

The best cut radiants have a lot of smaller flashes- which epitomize the "crushed ice look".
I'm looking at one right now- there is not the tiniest afea of what could be called "a pattern"- total dazzle.
I think dreamer's statement is brutally honest. Crushed ice is generally referred to on PS as "poorly cut" - including in this thread a few times already.
It IS widely repeated here on PS.
It's a completely innaccurate charachterization.

Badly cut stones certainly exist.
So do well cut stones that some people love, while others don't

Rockdiamond, I do not doubt your expertise and I am here to learn, so I am asking this with the sincerest heart:

Opinions aside of whether we like the look or not...

If you do not feel that poor cut leads to the crushed ice look, then what does "cause" it or account for it being there?

interesting, thanks for sharing your thoughts petrock, I think it really comes down to a matter of personal preference...you should get what appeals to YOUR eye.

I can't speak for others but I remember when I first started looking for cushions .. I knew nothing. During my first cushion diamond shopping trip, I was shown a series of relatively well cut cushion modified brilliants and 4 main cushion brilliants. I remember asking why certain diamonds were so ugly and they turned out to be the cushion modified brilliants - this was before I knew anything at all (no offense to anyone but this was my honest reaction at that time). After this visit, I turned to PS to do more research - I went back to the vendor and asked to compare the 4 main cushion we had on hold with a 8 main modern cushion. I was completely blown away at how much nicer the 8 main cushion was to me. Not surprisingly, we left the 4 main cushion behind and purchased the 8 main.

Fast forward several years, I now have an even more discernable eye. I probably won't even give the diamonds I oooh ahhhed over before a second look. Once you see beautiful stones, it's hard to go back to loving the "so so" stones. But if you haven't seen anything better .. you don't really know anything better.

interesting post charmypoo...I have not seen a lot of diamonds in person but I have watched a lot of videos...and I am blown away by how much my diamond sparkles and how bright it is. I am certainly glad that I did a lot of research before buying!!

I agree 100% with Rhino's post from here http://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/what-causes-the-crushed-ice-look-t147859-60.html

Regarding "crushed ice" look of diamond there are currently two ideas that come to mind when people say this in the realm of diamonds.

It can refer to

a. A really bright diamond whose optical characteristics emphasize many small flashes of of white light in diffuse/ambient lighting and a ton of scintillation in spot lighting (as seen in some rare fancy cuts and in rounds like Star129).
b. A diamond that exhibits very little light return and at best reflects back some pinpoints of light. The "crushed ice" effect here could be more accurately described as "watery, slushy crushed ice".

Most folks I talk to and in real world conditions, the latter is the one most referred to and I particularly do not care for it as it is the general result of excessive light leakage under the table and causes a diamond to look virtually dead in those areas.

In scenario a. above the facet design is highly responsible for the small bright reflections and high scintillation.

In scenario b. above facet design has little to do with the watery crushed ice effect as you can get it in many facet designs.
What contributes to it primarily is proportion factors and you can have it in both chunky/vintage faceted diamonds as well as modern or modified brilliant facet designs. Most radiants and many cushions are cut in this fashion as well and is generally the result of pavilion angles that are cut too shallow coupled with crown angles that contribute to the excessive leakage existing under the table.

I personally like crushed ice a. but do not care for crushed ice b.

To those who design cuts of diamonds or study them, this is not a mystery, the cause of this effect can be ray traced with Diamcalc, Gemcad and designs can be adjusted accordingly.

To others who would rather discuss this look qualitatively, guess at its origin, and debate personal preference we will continue to have these long threads where the same opinions are given over and over because new posters do not do adequate searches of the archives before posting.

Written by septsparkle:Rockdiamond, I do not doubt your expertise and I am here to learn, so I am asking this with the sincerest heart:

Opinions aside of whether we like the look or not...

If you do not feel that poor cut leads to the crushed ice look, then what does "cause" it or account for it being there?

A great question septsparkle- and thanks for asking as it does go the heart of this in some ways.

The cause is the way the diamond handles the light.
How many times does it bounce before it comes out, is the simple way to look at it.
Once it starts bouncing, a well cut stone creates tiny "virtual" facets.
In discussions about photography and focus, it has become clear to me that part of what happens is that they eye can't focus on these facets due to the small size, and sheer number- - hence that bottomless pit sort of look.
How bright is a reflection, compared to the source of light.
I know when I the sun reflects off glass it can seem as bright as the source. A diamond's facet reflects as well as any other substance, when it's not acting as a window

Then the other part- which is an entire conversation in and of itself- is what is a badly cut diamond?

Part of it involves how the cutter uses the rough.
It's widely speculated here that retention of yield is a primary cause of badly cut stones.

This oversimplifies what is and not good cutting.
Without doubt, the "crushed ice look" allows cutters greater freedom with the rough- because they can design facets,and place them optimally.
Designs like Round Brilliant- adapted to fancy shapes to create Hearts and Arrows Fancy Shapes- basically handcuff the cutter to one specific facet design.
The modified in Cushion Modified Brilliant is a licence for the cutter to use more imagination- and resourcefulness. This might involve larger looking stones- better orientation of rough to eliminate inclusions, things like that.

Or sometimes, the modifications are a licence to cut badly cut stones with a lot of windowing- or other less desirable aspects. Which is not to say that there are not badly cut stones exhibiting hearts and arrows- there are.

First of all, beauty in diamonds as in everything else is a matter of personal opinion. Some people DO like that style and some prefer it. There is a glittery sparkle that is unique to that and from what I understand it is very common in colored stones as it helps to intensify the color. They also do a pretty good job of returning white light (in a non fancy) which some people really enjoy. But you will not get big flashes of color off of them and some people prefer that

Written by Rockdiamond:FuturePsyD-
Many people LOVE the "crushed ice look"- and I for one find the best cut Crushed Ice (Cushion Modified Brilliant) to be every bit as bright as an 8 Main Cushion brilliant which is favored by the most vocal posters here. With a lot more scintillation as the smaller flashes are...faster- almost tricking the eye- creating a bottomless pit sort of look- I love it. In the best cases, this texture covers the stone from stem to stern ( girdle to girdle)
It's almost funny how clear the bias is on this forum- in favor of "chunkier flashes"
I think your question is one that many readers have- the preferences are so strongly stated I honestly believe most people are afraid to ask.

Yes, there is only one right answer to certain questions as preordained by _________________. I left it blank because I don't honestly know the identity of who is deciding what the right answers are, but I can see that they have legions of enforcers. And I have seen when vendors disagree with the "right answer" what happens: Watch out. That's what.

Written by ChunkyCushionLover:I agree 100% with Rhino's post from here http://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/what-causes-the-crushed-ice-look-t147859-60.html

Regarding "crushed ice" look of diamond there are currently two ideas that come to mind when people say this in the realm of diamonds.

It can refer to

a. A really bright diamond whose optical characteristics emphasize many small flashes of of white light in diffuse/ambient lighting and a ton of scintillation in spot lighting (as seen in some rare fancy cuts and in rounds like Star129).
b. A diamond that exhibits very little light return and at best reflects back some pinpoints of light. The "crushed ice" effect here could be more accurately described as "watery, slushy crushed ice".

Most folks I talk to and in real world conditions, the latter is the one most referred to and I particularly do not care for it as it is the general result of excessive light leakage under the table and causes a diamond to look virtually dead in those areas.

In scenario a. above the facet design is highly responsible for the small bright reflections and high scintillation.

In scenario b. above facet design has little to do with the watery crushed ice effect as you can get it in many facet designs.
What contributes to it primarily is proportion factors and you can have it in both chunky/vintage faceted diamonds as well as modern or modified brilliant facet designs. Most radiants and many cushions are cut in this fashion as well and is generally the result of pavilion angles that are cut too shallow coupled with crown angles that contribute to the excessive leakage existing under the table.

I personally like crushed ice a. but do not care for crushed ice b.

I like this explanation, it is clear and seems to encompass how the term is used.

Written by Rockdiamond:

Written by septsparkle:Rockdiamond, I do not doubt your expertise and I am here to learn, so I am asking this with the sincerest heart:

Opinions aside of whether we like the look or not...

If you do not feel that poor cut leads to the crushed ice look, then what does "cause" it or account for it being there?

A great question septsparkle- and thanks for asking as it does go the heart of this in some ways.

The cause is the way the diamond handles the light.
How many times does it bounce before it comes out, is the simple way to look at it.
Once it starts bouncing, a well cut stone creates tiny "virtual" facets.
In discussions about photography and focus, it has become clear to me that part of what happens is that they eye can't focus on these facets due to the small size, and sheer number- - hence that bottomless pit sort of look.
How bright is a reflection, compared to the source of light.
I know when I the sun reflects off glass it can seem as bright as the source. A diamond's facet reflects as well as any other substance, when it's not acting as a window

Then the other part- which is an entire conversation in and of itself- is what is a badly cut diamond?

Part of it involves how the cutter uses the rough.
It's widely speculated here that retention of yield is a primary cause of badly cut stones.

This oversimplifies what is and not good cutting.
Without doubt, the "crushed ice look" allows cutters greater freedom with the rough- because they can design facets,and place them optimally.
Designs like Round Brilliant- adapted to fancy shapes to create Hearts and Arrows Fancy Shapes- basically handcuff the cutter to one specific facet design.
The modified in Cushion Modified Brilliant is a licence for the cutter to use more imagination- and resourcefulness. This might involve larger looking stones- better orientation of rough to eliminate inclusions, things like that.

Or sometimes, the modifications are a licence to cut badly cut stones with a lot of windowing- or other less desirable aspects. Which is not to say that there are not badly cut stones exhibiting hearts and arrows- there are.

Thanks so much for the reply and for putting it in layman's terms. It makes more sense to me now and I appreciate the thoughts on both the "crushed ice" look and badly cut diamonds individually.

Written by ChunkyCushionLover:I agree 100% with Rhino's post from here http://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/what-causes-the-crushed-ice-look-t147859-60.html

Regarding "crushed ice" look of diamond there are currently two ideas that come to mind when people say this in the realm of diamonds.

It can refer to

a. A really bright diamond whose optical characteristics emphasize many small flashes of of white light in diffuse/ambient lighting and a ton of scintillation in spot lighting (as seen in some rare fancy cuts and in rounds like Star129).
b. A diamond that exhibits very little light return and at best reflects back some pinpoints of light. The "crushed ice" effect here could be more accurately described as "watery, slushy crushed ice".

Most folks I talk to and in real world conditions, the latter is the one most referred to and I particularly do not care for it as it is the general result of excessive light leakage under the table and causes a diamond to look virtually dead in those areas.

In scenario a. above the facet design is highly responsible for the small bright reflections and high scintillation.

In scenario b. above facet design has little to do with the watery crushed ice effect as you can get it in many facet designs.
What contributes to it primarily is proportion factors and you can have it in both chunky/vintage faceted diamonds as well as modern or modified brilliant facet designs. Most radiants and many cushions are cut in this fashion as well and is generally the result of pavilion angles that are cut too shallow coupled with crown angles that contribute to the excessive leakage existing under the table.

I personally like crushed ice a. but do not care for crushed ice b.

To those who design cuts of diamonds or study them, this is not a mystery, the cause of this effect can be ray traced with Diamcalc, Gemcad and designs can be adjusted accordingly.

To others who would rather discuss this look qualitatively, guess at its origin, and debate personal preference we will continue to have these long threads where the same opinions are given over and over because new posters do not do adequate searches of the archives before posting.

Thank you for this explanation, it makes sense.

Wink posted a great video some while back

http://www.screencast.com/users/WinkJon ... nal+videos

WOW so much great information! Thank you all for the links, the videos were really so, so helpful! I can't believe how much information there is out there on just 1 type of stone.

I'm really disturbed that, in general, Modified brilliants tend to have a lot more light leakage. My dream ring is the Harry Winston Micropave, and I believe I have spoken to some of you in a previous post, I believe Charmy, about the fact that HW tends to predominantly use Modified Brilliant Cushions in their popular Micropave. I have tried this ring on many times and have really enjoyed it.

I guess my main question is, why would HW use this type of cushion (in their most popular ring) if there are more superior types with greater light performance, fire, etc? I realize you can request a different type of cushion, but I have been told by more than 1 SA that the modified is their bestseller and the one that they use in all their ads.

When I first tried the ring on, awhile back, I was even less informed than I am now. Once I started to read posts on PS, I was very surprised to learn that the modified/crushed ice look is actually perhaps not the best choice. I'm really a novice and, recently when I was back in the store, I did not want to argue with them that I have heard that the crushed ice appearance is perhaps looked down upon. I simply asked if other types were available to which I was told that I could get a brilliant cut stone, but it was more difficult to find.

Of course I realize that it is all a matter of preference, and I tend to appreciate all cushions in their own way! Just curious why such a coveted ring tends to use a not so coveted cut stone??

Written by FuturePsyD:WOW so much great information! Thank you all for the links, the videos were really so, so helpful! I can't believe how much information there is out there on just 1 type of stone.

I'm really disturbed that, in general, Modified brilliants tend to have a lot more light leakage. My dream ring is the Harry Winston Micropave, and I believe I have spoken to some of you in a previous post, I believe Charmy, about the fact that HW tends to predominantly use Modified Brilliant Cushions in their popular Micropave. I have tried this ring on many times and have really enjoyed it.

I guess my main question is, why would HW use this type of cushion (in their most popular ring) if there are more superior types with greater light performance, fire, etc? I realize you can request a different type of cushion, but I have been told by more than 1 SA that the modified is their bestseller and the one that they use in all their ads.

When I first tried the ring on, awhile back, I was even less informed than I am now. Once I started to read posts on PS, I was very surprised to learn that the modified/crushed ice look is actually perhaps not the best choice. I'm really a novice and, recently when I was back in the store, I did not want to argue with them that I have heard that the crushed ice appearance is perhaps looked down upon. I simply asked if other types were available to which I was told that I could get a brilliant cut stone, but it was more difficult to find.

Of course I realize that it is all a matter of preference, and I tend to appreciate all cushions in their own way! Just curious why such a coveted ring tends to use a not so coveted cut stone??

Because not everyone shopping for a diamond is looking for the most light return, fire, twinkles, etc - to get a stone with a ton twinkle like a princess or radiant, you're usually going to be giving the other way.

I have recently come to love antique stones myself. I have a pair of studs that I absolutely *adore*.. I also have an IS, and if I'd seen the IS before purchasing I would have run far, far away. Certain stones have a certain charm even without being optimally efficient at returning light

Yssie:

Yes, I have recently begun to learn about antique cushions. They indeed have a charm of their own that I have just begun to appreciate.

Re the HW ring, so true that not everyone shops for diamonds looking for the same things (fire, light return, etc) I just figured that a big designer such as HW would find those characteristics important given that, IMO, many women covet those features in their ER. Especially when you spend so much on the ring, those would be nice things to have (at least for me).

Written by FuturePsyD:Yssie:

Yes, I have recently begun to learn about antique cushions. They indeed have a charm of their own that I have just begun to appreciate.

Re the HW ring, so true that not everyone shops for diamonds looking for the same things (fire, light return, etc) I just figured that a big designer such as HW would find those characteristics important given that, IMO, many women covet those features in their ER. Especially when you spend so much on the ring, those would be nice things to have (at least for me).

You are smart for wanting to have all those qualities in your ring, and you should push for it. The truth is many, many people will buy based on the goodwill of a brand name, and just assume or not care about the finer details of the center diamond itself. Of course all the rings look gorgeous, especially in showroom lighting. Just because you are paying for the brand name however, does not necessarily mean you are getting the highest quality diamond out there. Take your concerns with you and be firm with the SA. Get the best cut you can! Keep doing your research too.

Written by FuturePsyD:Yssie:

Yes, I have recently begun to learn about antique cushions. They indeed have a charm of their own that I have just begun to appreciate.

Re the HW ring, so true that not everyone shops for diamonds looking for the same things (fire, light return, etc) I just figured that a big designer such as HW would find those characteristics important given that, IMO, many women covet those features in their ER. Especially when you spend so much on the ring, those would be nice things to have (at least for me).

Very few big brands have demonstrated they use modern methods for diamond design or selection. HW is still using traditional methods as I wrote in your other thread. Most of the diamond trade does not perform selection for light performance or cut design in anything but rounds. Pricescope is very unique in this respect as it has so many vendors at the forefront of cut education and diamond design. The AGSL is very much at the forefront of encouraging new designs and grading them based on their light performance but they are very small compared to GIA laboratories.

The trade in general is slow to adapt to using tools that are only accepted by a minority. Part of the reason why big chains don't do this is the yield from the rough is lower so their costs are higher if a strict design with light performance in mind is used. The other part is that light performance diamonds are usually cut by boutique houses and the chains deal with bigger cutting houses than can produce a large volume of stones quickly to satisfy their needs.

As the average consumer becomes more educated by the internet, the demand for diamonds cut for light performance will increase and we will see new innovation and more of the trade will embrace the new tools. However, this will be a slow painful process, and many tradesmembers will still cling to the old ways, as is evident by some of the more vocal regular posters.

Plus when you can sell a 1-carat diamond for a bazillion gillion dollars the highest-end jewelers have even more incentive to cut for weight, not for light performance.

ChunkyCushionLover: Thank you for the clarification. I did not know any of that information!!

That's really interesting that big designer houses do not employ the modern methods that would allow them to cut more beautiful diamonds, although you explained very well why they don't, when one of the first things they want to sell you on is how bright, fiery and eye catching their stones are because they are "HW" and employ the best diamond cutters etc. Obviously, they want to make the buyer feel like they are getting a superior diamond for the exorbitant price.

That being said, do you feel that they are unable to cut diamonds based on maximum light return, or that it would just make the price sky rocket even more if I were to request one?

Lyra: yes I definitely would love to have all the coveted qualities in my ER, especially if we were to ever go with a high end designer. You're so right about brining these concerns to the SA, but since I was not very educated re cushion cuts, I kind of wanted to gather a bit more info on PS so I felt like I knew what I was talking about and know what to ask for. They tend to treat all their items as high and mighty, although in a polite way!

One of the main reasons I was leaning towards a designer ring is to cut out all the work that goes into selection a desirable diamond. But it sounds like this may not be the case?