Radiant Diamond Cut Evaluation Education

[Rockdiamond]

Hi fellow PS'ers!
This thread is dedicated to looking at an analyzing Radiant cut diamonds.
Many thanks to Ella and Andrey - PS management- for supporting this type of discussion.
None of the demonstration diamonds are offered for sale- none are going to be identified as belonging to any particular seller- thereby allowing open discourse including our trade members.

The first example is a rectangular radiant that I am proposing is a stellar example of the breed.


Here's some of the aspects I feel are crucial to me, and shoppers, when purchasing a Radiant Diamond- I'm sure we'll add to this list:
*) I love a bright stone with minimal dark areas. In a stone like the one above, the light is bouncing around in such a manner that the light reflected off the pavilion facets bounces a few times before coming back to your eye. The effect has been described visually as a "bottomless bucket of crushed ice". Because you can't see the bottom of the diamond as you can in a well cut RBC, the effect is like a house of mirrors- you can't find the bottom.
There's varying degrees of how this plays out- sometimes a few of the pavilion facets stay in focus, and combine with the jumble of reflected light. This creates areas of contrast combined with scintillation.
I personally dislike stones with large static dark areas- either the "bow tie" effect, which darkens the stone at the edges from about 2-4, and 8-10 oclock- this dark area can also be larger or smaller. Many well cut stones show this in a static pose, but in motion it's no problem at all.
Also on my list to avoid are stones with dark areas on the center- like a hole in the middle.
Were looking for workable "bad" examples to show.

*) spread- how large does a 2ct diamond look? If I take out the diamond out of the paper and think...1.75, but it weighs 2.00cts, I am not happy. As we delve more deeply into the details, we can see that the cutter needs to make choices about exactly what to aim for. I do not discount the fact that some people have a "mind clean" issue about weight- they need to have a 2ct , for example- NOT a 1.99ct.
If that 2ct stone has cut deficits in cut as described above, it's a no no for me.
BUT- part of what we will discover is that there needs to be, at times, judgement calls.
Say a stone is 2.00ct and well cut- as opposed to a 1.90 that is incredibly well cut.
This is where judgement comes into play.
We all know "cut is king"- which may be true, till you actually have to buy a real life diamond. Then we may find that "cut is king"- but the queen wants SIZE.
Radiant cut is far more....versatile than round- IOW- there's a gazillion different variations- where a round basically follows a narrow range.
The point is, there's a far greater selection in terms of visual flavors of a radiant cut as compared to a round.
SO- if the queen decides the 2ct is her flavor, it's not a "wrong" choice, even if the 1.90 is a better cut.

More to come- let's get this party started!!

 

[Texas Leaguer]

David, this stone appears to have no bow tie- maybe just a touch of dark areas out to the sides. Would you say that a well cut radiant is a good choice for the consumer looking for an elongated fancy but wants to stay away from the bow tie effect?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Absolutely Bryan!
Additionally, some of the principles that Henry Grossbard created work on other cuts as well.
For example, sometimes Pear Modified Brilliant Diamonds can have less bow tie than Pear Brilliant
But not always.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Brightness- contrast- spread- yield- appearance
There's more than these five aspects to consider when cutting. But these are particularly relevant to the discussion at hand.
Speaking only as a buyer, not a cutter, I've found that it's possible to get a fairly "spready" stone, and still have it be incredibly lively.
It's lively in a different way than a round.
You give up a bit of overall brightness- but gain back a more even brightness- and in the case of a spready stone, size.
The even part of the brightness- spreading those thousand sparkles around evenly- for me, is what makes the diamond comparable to a round in terms of how much the light is catching my eye. How much is being returned.
The round has brighter flashes- but the well cut radiant has so many more...in fact, it's really not a direct comparison for me as a buyer.

Hopefully some of our cutters will chime in with more from their perspective.
.

 

[Gypsy]

Ok so I have some questions since I am trying very hard to learn and keep an open mind.

I want to make sure I understand what you are saying (these are from the other thread, actually since this is a continuation). So I will restate some points you have made and ask you to verify that I am understanding your position.

You are saying that even though traditionally in an ASET white/black (depending on background of ASET) is BAD because leakage is seen as a flaw-- light that is leaking instead of being returned. With radiants somehow, given the unique faceting of this cut, leakage may not be a flaw but instead something that enhances the appearance of a radiant cut diamond.

You are also saying that radiants do not gather all their light from the table/crown facets of the diamond. But instead gather the light from all around the diamond, including through the pavillion. And that's why the ASET shows more leakage as is actually present because the ASET only measures light gathered from the table/crown facets.

Are these an accurate summary of two of your assertions?

 

[Rockdiamond]

H Gypsy,
First, thank you very much for asking a very insightful question.
You have stated my position perfectly!
Just one small change.
This is not only true for Radiant cuts, but pretty much all Fancy Shapes
Some of the most gorgeous pear shapes leak like crazy

 

[cflutist]

H Gypsy,
First, thank you very much for asking a very insightful question.
You have stated my position perfectly!
Just one small change.
This is not only true for Radiant cuts, but pretty much all Fancy Shapes
Some of the most gorgeous pear shapes leak like crazy

Are you talking about my pear? (just kidding).
Had a "crushed ice" discussion with a dear friend of mine last night.

 

[Karl_K]

I think I can help a little.
The leakage provides contrast to go with the little bursts of light in a radiant.
Using leakage for contrast is a valid design choice I use it in my designs.
I am not drawing conclusions yet but I have a feeling that the ratio of virtual facets returning light and those showing leakage is going to be important to separating out which ones have more potential.

RB's primarily use obstruction for contrast with leakage providing a little contrast in some areas if there is no painting or digging.

 

[Rockdiamond]

This next stone will illustrate so many points I've been trying to make for a long time.
Please excuse the horrible ASET- I tried and tried to get it level, but it's a large stone.

Is this a well cut Radiant?
Yes.
Very much so.
It's spready diamond- so it's a five carat that looks like a 6 or even 7.
Remarkable sparkle and overall brightness.
The only apparent tradeoff for the size ( spready-ness) is that when you tilt the diamond, it requires less tilt to induce a window like effect.
Could it be better.
Yes.
Should it be??
That's a question that is part of this discussion- and many others here in the past.
Was there bad motivation to stop cutting at 5cts?
Let's say you are the diamond cutter.
You own this diamond, and cut it to it's maximum beauty at 5.00cts..
By working the pavilion a bit, you can bring a bit more contrast into the stone- basically make it a click brighter.
But you loose the 5ct mark.
When you do this, your cost on the diamond goes up, not down. You now have a 4.50ct that you invested additional and costly time and risk on the wheel. So you have a smaller diamond that has a greater overall cost.

I might- just might- consider doing that, if it was my diamond- but I could not fault someone for choosing to leave it as it is.
And it leaks

ETA- just looked at it again- no way I'd put it back on the wheel

 

[Karl_K]

Could it be better.
Yes.
Should it be??
That's a question that is part of this discussion- and many others here in the past.
Was there bad motivation to stop cutting at 5cts?
Let's say you are the diamond cutter.
You own this diamond, and cut it to it's maximum beauty at 5.00cts..
By working the pavilion a bit, you can bring a bit more contrast into the stone- basically make it a click brighter.
But you loose the 5ct mark.
When you do this, your cost on the diamond goes up, not down. You now have a 4.50ct that you invested additional and costly time and risk on the wheel. So you have a smaller diamond that has a greater overall cost.

That is the cutters problem not the consumer looking for the brightest most lively radiant they can get.
Why should the consumer pay top dollar for something known to be inferior?

 

[Rockdiamond]

That's a great question Karl.
This stone really does act as a sounding board.
First of all, as I explained, the cost is lower, so the consumer should be paying less for this diamond than the smaller ever so slightly better cut one.
Hypothetically speaking the 5ct would be $100k, and 4.50ct would be $105- 110k and I'm only considering the labor. If we factor in risk it could justifiably bring the price even higher.
As we both know intimately well- it can cost a huge amount in both material, design and labor to get that final bit of improvement.
Point is, the stone really looks great as it is.
Another point- each stone needs to be judged on it merits.
We agree that cut is extremely important- but not to the total exclusion of color and clarity.
Sometimes a stone may have extremely desirable combination of size, overall shape, color and clarity.
And say the cutter took the path of the person who cut this diamond- a really nice cut, but not the absolute best.
If that diamond costs less than a slightly better cut stone, as it should based on cost- it definitely does represent a viable choice for a consumer.
Last point to remember to that the improvement in brightness we'd gain with that 10% weight loss is very subtle- by no means night and day

It's not really all that simple a choice.
I can see the appeal of both scenarios.

 

[Karl_K]

oh well to try and move on more data please.
Do you have other pictures of that stone you can post side by side?
More examples of radiants?

 

[Gypsy]

H Gypsy,
First, thank you very much for asking a very insightful question.
You have stated my position perfectly!
Just one small change.
This is not only true for Radiant cuts, but pretty much all Fancy Shapes
Some of the most gorgeous pear shapes leak like crazy

Okay so. I am happy to have stated your position so clearly.

Here are my comments, observations and questions (VERY LONG, I appreciate your patience):

What you say about most generic fancies gathering light from all around. Yes, this is true, and I accept that and agree with you.

However I am sure this was true of rounds before people started optimizing cut through precision faceting and focusing on angles to optimized light return.

But we have now progressed to a point with rounds that the trade has historically gone through brainstorming, trial and error, problem solving and testing and then standardizing to see if a 'better' round, based on optics and faceting has been created. One of the PROBLEMS that were identified with the 'traditional round' was the light was gathered AND REFLECTED through the pavilion facets, etc. And part of the process was to fix this problem.

This was a very long process. And it was begun by people who did not want to accept mediocrity and wanted to instead to improve the round brilliant cut and to seek perfection. And it has been a continuous improvement process (across the trade) that has resulted in actual perfection with brands like Infinity and Hearts on Fire.

And one of the benefits of this process is ideal cut rounds diamonds gather most of their light through the table/crown, which allows the diamond to stay bright no matter how they are set. If you set an ideal round in a bezel in a cup (so no light through anything other than table/crown) it will be as bright as one set in a 4 prong solitaire. Because of the the PROBLEMS with the way rounds used to be cut.

Then princesses became popular. And the trade started the same process with princesses. Which is how we come to AGS0 princesses and branded princesses. And those stones also gather light through the table crown facets and stay bright when bezel set with a cup.

But aside from the branded cuts achieving perfection the bar was raised for 'generic" rounds and princesses too as people understood the technology advancements that were available to them, including the idealscope and the ASET and SARIN, etc they took the initiative to apply these same principles to other shapes. Cushions, and also radiants. So the AVC and the Lucida and Princess of Hearts and so forth did exactly this. They IMPROVED the faceting and light performance of these stones. USING technology.

And even generic cutters seeing how the technology in the hands of the customers resulted in higher sales of 'ideal' or 'excellent' cut stones began to cut their stones to those standards. So the trend toward cut improvement began to trickle down (for want of a better term). And that's why we have so many lovely generic cushions available on the market with great ASETs (though not perfect ones). And we are seeing an increase in well cut fancies period, across the board INCLUDING radiants that DO have a lot of red or a lot of green and less leakage.

So here's my point, and what I don't understand about your position.

You telling me that radiant ASETs that show SIGNIFICANT leakage belong to lovely stones in your opinion. , not withstanding the ASET. And that it is OKAY for these stones to have bad ASETs because they gather light from other sources.

To ME, that is the equivalent of you telling me that a 'traditional round', that gathers light from everywhere, and has a poor ASET is pretty and should not be dismissed IN FAVOR of one that is cut to maximize light return and shows more precision faceting. EVEN THOUGH it WILL NOT be a bright as an 'ideal cut' stone. And even though you have to set it in an OPEN setting, because the stone will darken if not set in such a way it can gather light from the pavillion.

And WHY are you telling me the traditional round should be considered as a contender? Because an uneducated consumer SEEING IT NEXT TO OTHER TRADITIONAL ROUNDS likes it. Instead of seeing the traditional round go head to head with an ideal round to see which one the Customer picks WHEN GIVEN A CHOICE BETWEEN THE TWO.

To me, what you are saying is 'we've always done it this way'...' people buy these stones as is'... and mediocrity is okay, we don't NEED to IMPROVE radiant cuts, we don't need the 'ideal cut' movement to trickle down and encourage cutters to pay attention to perfromance. And we don't need these new fangled tools WHO ARE DOING THEIR JOB by SHOWING US where there is a FLAW and will help us to fix it. Instead you are saying IGNORE the flaw, and do not compare the stone head to head with a stone that has a better ASET.

Yes, a traditional or Original Radiant cut, that has a poor ASET might still be pretty. But so might a 'traditional' round-- IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO COMPARE IT TO. That doesn't mean I will be encouraging anyone to get one. Why? Because there are BETTER rounds out there. AND the majority of people that COMPARE an ideal round to a traditional round PICK THE IDEAL ROUND. Just like there are BETTER radiants, like the Dream Cut or the Lucida with GREAT ASETs out there.

If we use your logic and apply it to the techology world RD... we'd all be using Morse Code instead of email. Why? Because people who have no idea what email is will be perfectly THRILLED with Morse Code. Well, they WOULDN'T BE if they knew that email was the alternative.

Too much leakage of light entering the stone through the table/crown is a FLAW in ANY shape, including radiants. Just because the stone is still pretty doesn't mean that it's not mediocre in comparison to what IT COULD BE if someone took that faceting and applied LIGHT PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION standards to it.

Your argument seems to be "it still a pretty stone. Ignore the evidence that it has a flaw identified by the ASET. The flaw isn't a flaw, it's just the way it is so we have to LOWER the bar of acceptable because that's how these stones are cut." AND ignore the fact that the flaw results in not being able to set the stone anyway you want. My answer is: it may be a pretty stone, but we can IMPROVE ON IT and make it PRETTIER and make it so you can set it any way you want to. And people HAVE done so.

That's exactly what happened to Old Mine Cuts and Old European Cuts. Old Cuts were cut WAY before technology and the industry advanced to the point of current faceting technology and light performance. Then they became popular again. And SOME VENDORS said hey... let's see if we can create an AGSO version of these. And they did. And they created a "better" old cut.

If you settle for mediocrity you miss the potential of innovation. As people in ANY industry, any business, settling for mediocrity gets you only so far. The innovators, those who don't settle but instead set the bar high. Achieve that goal. THEN SET YET ANOTHER HIGHER GOAL to continuously improve on it and seek perfection. That's what GOG has done with fancies. Time and time again. Including radiants.

Most cushions are leaky. Most ECs are leaky. Most pears are leaky. Most ovals are leaky. True. All true. That doesn't mean we should accept that and not try to FIX IT.

And that doesn't mean that SINCE most of them are leaky we should BUY the leaky stones. NO. That's the POINT of this board. To make sure that you get the BEST stone for your money depending on YOUR PERSONAL priorities for your balancing of the 4C's. And the way we do that is to make sure people UNDERSTAND the 4 C's. Including CUT QUALITY. And how it impacts a stone's performance. AND the tools that evaluate that performance. And what the data from those tools means in terms of what they will see when they are looking at a stone.

When you are talking fancies that are NOT AGS light graded for performance that means understanding the shape. And understanding what a poor, average and fantastic example of that shape is. An EC, unless it is an Octavia, is not going to be able to go head to head with a round. But... that doesn't mean there aren't going to be poor, average and fantastic ECs. AND one of the ways we look at ECs is with an ASET. Why? Because the ASET does show light entering through the crown and table facets INSTEAD of elsewhere the EASIER it is going to be to get a setting that the stone looks good in. So the ASET is (as I stated in the last thread) ONE tool in a SET of tools, that includes diam-xray if offered, that includes videos, and that includes gemologists reports, and that includes still photos. The MORE information a vendor offers THE BETTER IT IS.

I reject EC's all day long. Same with pears. Same with ovals. It is REALLY FREAKING HARD to find one that performs well. That doesn't mean that I am going to SETTLE and recommend a mediocre stone because its easier.

I agree with you AND have said in threads as far back as 6 months ago that radiants do not need a lot of red to be above average. But from my own observations MORE GREEN evenly distributed results in a nicer BRIGHTER stone than one that has a lot of white in the ASET. And that is based on my personal observation with an ASET. So I PREFER, head to head, a stone with LOTS of green and very little white to one with lots of white and very little green and red.

So when I am radiant hunting for a poster I am GOING to look for the one with more green and some red and LESS white, less leakage.

That doesn't mean the ones with leakage aren't pretty if they avoid fatal flaws like bowtie and that circle issue. They might still be pretty. But that doesn't mean there aren't BETTER ones out there.

It's not a matter of good enough. It's a matter of 'better' and 'best'.

What you are saying to me is 'people like them and they are good enough because that's how the majority of them are cut.'

My answer to you is: DID the person that said they are "GOOD ENOUGH" SEE THEM HEAD TO HEAD with a stone with a BETTER ASET?

If your answer is No, they did not see them next to a stone with a better ASET, then my answer is: THAT IS A PROBLEM.

If you really WANT to explore this further IMO you should take an " SQUARE Original Radiant Cut" or a "SQUARE generic radiant cut" that has an ASET similar to the one you posted at the start of the thread place it RIGHT NEXT TO a Hearts on Fire DREAM CUT. And then ask your customers WHICH ONE THEY PREFER.

Because you telling me your customers like these leaky ASET stones WITHOUT HAVING A COMPARISON NEXT TO A STONE WITH A GREAT ASET, doesn't tell me anything.

Your customers may be settling for "good enough" because YOU aren't showing them an alternative.

The only way IMO that you can CONFIRM your hypothesis that leaky ASET stones are GOOD ENOUGH for the majority of Customers is to compare them head to head with ones with great ASETs and the record WHICH ONE they preferred.

Otherwise all you have is a hypothesis and an opinion. GOG sells cut cornered square brilliants with 'ideal' ASETS and generic ones with leaky ASETs.

They also sell traditional rounds and ideal ones. Now if JONATHAN came on here and told me people consistently picked the leaky ASET radiants over ones with ASETs that are 'ideal' in a HEAD TO HEAD comparison of stones that have the similar l/w ratios, then I would be persuaded.

But... like I said, absent that head to head, all you have is an opinion of what is good enough, not proof of what is good enough. Even Winks post in the other thread about the radiant CZ... did he see it head to head with one that has a great ASET? No. So is it fair to say that it was a good enough ASEat, when he doesn't have something with a better ASET to compare it to? No.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Here's images, taken in a light box, of the 5ct diamond I have used in the latest example- let's call this example number 2


Yes we have more examples coming over the next few days....hopefully both better and less well cut

 

[Gypsy]

Here's images, taken in a light box, of the 5ct diamond I have used in the latest example- let's call this example number 2


Yes we have more examples coming over the next few days....hopefully both better and less well cut

RD you seem to be equating "better cut" with quality of FACETING. Not light performance.

We often say with fancies AND Rounds that "better cut" is BOTH faceting AND light performance. One without the other isn't enough. But that if you have to LOSE one, you should err toward losing faceting perfection in favor of light performance.

Do you have ANY stones in your inventory that has BOTH good faceting AND a good ASET?

And any stones with problematic faceting but a great ASET?

Because if you do not... see my NOVEL ( ) above. In order to PROVE something with DATA you NEED those.

You would have to have people pick that stone you just posted (leaky ASET/great faceting) over BOTH the stone with great faceting/great ASET and average faceting/great ASET.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I agree Karl - let's keep the discussion straightforward.
The reason I brought up the particulars of #2 is that the stone highlights aspect I believe are important to consumers when considering cut of radiant, and other fancy shapes. My example above was totally hypothetical- the number of diamond cutters that would touch a five carat stone like that is minuscule.
As were my numbers above- that diamond today would be considerably more than $100k.
The point is, I find the stone to be extremely desirable exactly as is because it's an H, but looks pretty white.
It's an SI1, but eye clean.
And it looks huge for it's carat weight.
And although it's not "best" it's still really nicely cut.
Any of those were different, I'd feel differently.
it's a question of degrees. Although it could be ever so slightly improved, the logic of the cutting of this diamond as it is now makes sense- and I mean it makes sense for many consumers. Its not a "mediocre" cut- it's well cut.
its not the very best cut- but if we compared this to a stone that was slightly better cut, the difference would be subtle.
I don't judge cut in a world where the other issues don't come into play. I don't because the other factors combine to make a cut look good or not. Judging fancy shapes is not a simple matter of which one is "best".
IMO these are important considerations for consumers too.
Even for someone looking for a .50ct stone.

But I agree- we should stay on track and show more examples of cut. And how the light performance relates to ASET.
The ASET of this diamond ( which is regretfully NOT part of my inventory) is simply an ASET.
Not a "good" aset or a bad aset.
It's giving us an idea how the diamond handles light. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Gypsy]

I agree Karl - let's keep the discussion straightforward.
The reason I brought up the particulars of #2 is that the stone highlights aspect I believe are important to consumers when considering cut of radiant, and other fancy shapes. My example above was totally hypothetical- the number of diamond cutters that would touch a five carat stone like that is minuscule.
As were my numbers above- that diamond today would be considerably more than $100k.
The point is, I find the stone to be extremely desirable exactly as is because it's an H, but looks pretty white.
It's an SI1, but eye clean.
And it looks huge for it's carat weight.
And although it's not "best" it's still really nicely cut.
Any of those were different, I'd feel differently.
it's a question of degrees. Although it could be ever so slightly improved, the logic of the cutting of this diamond as it is now makes sense- and I mean it makes sense for many consumers.

Okay I am confused. Maybe I am misunderstanding something here.

David you seem to be saying that a cutter who cuts for weight to hit the "larger" carat mark at the expense of performance is CORRECT for doing so because the economics of it is that (in your example) is that customers WANT larger stones that cost less. AND not better performing stones that cost more and weigh less.

Isn't that CONTRARY to the what the last 50 years in diamond trends, diamond education, and diamond marketing have shown? Companies like Hearts on Fire have proven that there is a HUGE market for smaller better cut diamonds over bigger poorly cut diamond. Infinity. Brian Gavin. GOG with their AVC and AVR.

Even the 'generic' rounds of GIA Ex are priced higher and yet sell like hotcakes.

And the whole EXISTENCE of AGS proves that the market for Performance, even coupled with higher cost and smaller stones, DOES MAKE SENSE financially.

Now I understand that you AND KARL agree that the actual FACET plan of the ORIGINAL and GENERIC "normal" radiant (not modified radiants like the Dream, Lucida, etc) REQUIRES more leakage than other cuts.

The question seems to be that Karl is saying that even WITH the leakage inherent in the radiant facet pattern optimization of light performance is possible AND worth the time and weight loss.

And you are saying is that the performance AMOUNT gained is not enough to outweight the cost of time and weight.

But that makes no sense.
If you were right that incremental changes to light performance are not financially viable you would NEVER get people buying a Hearts on Fire Diamond, An Infinity Diamond, an ACA, A BGD Signature OVER a generic GIA Ex with a good idealscope.

Yet people DO buy these stones day in and day out. And buy them OVER GIA Exs.

And often the REASON they do is because HEAD TO HEAD even that INCREMENTAL performance improvement between a GIA Ex generic without H&A is WORTH the extra money (and often LOTS of extra money) and the purchase of a SMALLER stone for that same money to buyers.

I am sorry RD but your argument seems contradicted completely by the very REAL trends in the market place that are leading the entire industry toward better cut diamonds. Even if it means smaller ideal stones for the same money. Or a lower color and SMALLER stone with ideal performance.

We see it all day long here. We get people who say they have to hit 2 carats even if it means getting a crappy cut diamond. And we have them go to Hearts on Fire and SEE the difference for themselves. And then they come back and say "you are right!" I want something like THAT. Even if it means I have to get a 1.5 carat NOW and upgrade later, and that I have to drop my color down to H or I.

 

[kenny]

Gypsy, don't be confused.
There's a word for what's going on here.

Wikisnip:
Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, willfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.

The financial motive is obvious, but the ethics reprehensible.

But you are a saint to even play.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Gypsy... ..It took you this long to figure out David's diamond Philosophy?...

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy... ..It took you this long to figure out David's diamond Philosophy?...

I'm helpful and persistent. No one ever said smart.

 

[kenny]

Gypsy... ..It took you this long to figure out David's diamond Philosophy?...

I'm helpful and persistent. No one ever said smart.

Gypsy you are smart, maybe smarter than I since you are not contributing to his sympathy sales the way I and a couple others do.

Here on PS nobody hesitates to point out what Zales, Robbins Brothers and Kay are up to.
But because there is a person and a personality here, and a tenacious one, few here people are 'mean' enough to speak the truth.
It's bizarre.

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy, don't be confused.
There's a word for what's going on here.

Wikisnip:
Obfuscation (or beclouding) is the hiding of intended meaning in communication, making communication confusing, willfully ambiguous, and harder to interpret.

The financial motive is obvious, but the ethics reprehensible.

But you are a saint to even play.

OK so beclouding is now my new favorite word. I'm going to make it a goal to use it 2 times before Sunday.

I love "owning" new words!


I think we can all agree that the halo is badly tarnished.

 

[kenny]

Gypsy, you don't just deserve a halo.
You deserve a diamond tiara.

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy, you don't just deserve a halo.
You deserve a diamond tiara.

I'd just have to sell it to pay for my student loans.

Although admittedly, I'd first react something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i_WpYc3YI4

 

[Dancing Fire]

Gypsy... ..It took you this long to figure out David's diamond Philosophy?...

I'm helpful and persistent. No one ever said smart.

I read your Kay's vs HoF comment before you edited ...

 

[Texas Leaguer]

That's a great question Karl.
This stone really does act as a sounding board.
First of all, as I explained, the cost is lower, so the consumer should be paying less for this diamond than the smaller ever so slightly better cut one.
Hypothetically speaking the 5ct would be $100k, and 4.50ct would be $105- 110k and I'm only considering the labor. If we factor in risk it could justifiably bring the price even higher.
As we both know intimately well- it can cost a huge amount in both material, design and labor to get that final bit of improvement.
Point is, the stone really looks great as it is.
Another point- each stone needs to be judged on it merits.
We agree that cut is extremely important- but not to the total exclusion of color and clarity.
Sometimes a stone may have extremely desirable combination of size, overall shape, color and clarity.
And say the cutter took the path of the person who cut this diamond- a really nice cut, but not the absolute best.
If that diamond costs less than a slightly better cut stone, as it should based on cost- it definitely does represent a viable choice for a consumer.
Last point to remember to that the improvement in brightness we'd gain with that 10% weight loss is very subtle- by no means night and day

It's not really all that simple a choice.
I can see the appeal of both scenarios.

David,
Your economics lesson is confusing. Your hypothetical involves the decision by the cutter to stay at 5 ct with a less well cut diamond or sacrifice weight to produce a diamond with better light performance. The rough cost to the cutter is exactly the same whether he stops at 5 or goes to 4.5. The only difference is the additional labor cost which in the case of a stone this size is minimal. And the economic decision on the part of the cutter is that he can charge MORE for the 5ct, even though it was not cut as well as it could be, because it hits a magic mark. So while it may be in the cutter's interest to make this tradeoff, it is not necessarily in the consumer's interest.

So, while you have taken great pains to explain some of the considerations and challenges on the part of the cutter, the focus of this forum, and presumably this thread, is to teach consumers how to distinguish a well cut diamond (radiant) from one that has been compromised for weight retention or other reasons.

It is certainly interesting to fully understand how complicated the calculus is on the part of the cutter, and to appreciate the stress that must be involved in bringing a 5 ct diamond to life, but it only serves as a distraction to the goal of this discussion.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

H Gypsy,
First, thank you very much for asking a very insightful question.
You have stated my position perfectly!
Just one small change.
This is not only true for Radiant cuts, but pretty much all Fancy Shapes
Some of the most gorgeous pear shapes leak like crazy

Okay so. I am happy to have stated your position so clearly.

Here are my comments, observations and questions (VERY LONG, I appreciate your patience):

What you say about most generic fancies gathering light from all around. Yes, this is true, and I accept that and agree with you.

However I am sure this was true of rounds before people started optimizing cut through precision faceting and focusing on angles to optimized light return.

But we have now progressed to a point with rounds that the trade has historically gone through brainstorming, trial and error, problem solving and testing and then standardizing to see if a 'better' round, based on optics and faceting has been created. One of the PROBLEMS that were identified with the 'traditional round' was the light was gathered AND REFLECTED through the pavilion facets, etc. And part of the process was to fix this problem.

This was a very long process. And it was begun by people who did not want to accept mediocrity and wanted to instead to improve the round brilliant cut and to seek perfection. And it has been a continuous improvement process (across the trade) that has resulted in actual perfection with brands like Infinity and Hearts on Fire.

And one of the benefits of this process is ideal cut rounds diamonds gather most of their light through the table/crown, which allows the diamond to stay bright no matter how they are set. If you set an ideal round in a bezel in a cup (so no light through anything other than table/crown) it will be as bright as one set in a 4 prong solitaire. Because of the the PROBLEMS with the way rounds used to be cut.

Then princesses became popular. And the trade started the same process with princesses. Which is how we come to AGS0 princesses and branded princesses. And those stones also gather light through the table crown facets and stay bright when bezel set with a cup.

But aside from the branded cuts achieving perfection the bar was raised for 'generic" rounds and princesses too as people understood the technology advancements that were available to them, including the idealscope and the ASET and SARIN, etc they took the initiative to apply these same principles to other shapes. Cushions, and also radiants. So the AVC and the Lucida and Princess of Hearts and so forth did exactly this. They IMPROVED the faceting and light performance of these stones. USING technology.

And even generic cutters seeing how the technology in the hands of the customers resulted in higher sales of 'ideal' or 'excellent' cut stones began to cut their stones to those standards. So the trend toward cut improvement began to trickle down (for want of a better term). And that's why we have so many lovely generic cushions available on the market with great ASETs (though not perfect ones). And we are seeing an increase in well cut fancies period, across the board INCLUDING radiants that DO have a lot of red or a lot of green and less leakage.

So here's my point, and what I don't understand about your position.

You telling me that radiant ASETs that show SIGNIFICANT leakage belong to lovely stones in your opinion. , not withstanding the ASET. And that it is OKAY for these stones to have bad ASETs because they gather light from other sources.

To ME, that is the equivalent of you telling me that a 'traditional round', that gathers light from everywhere, and has a poor ASET is pretty and should not be dismissed IN FAVOR of one that is cut to maximize light return and shows more precision faceting. EVEN THOUGH it WILL NOT be a bright as an 'ideal cut' stone. And even though you have to set it in an OPEN setting, because the stone will darken if not set in such a way it can gather light from the pavillion.

And WHY are you telling me the traditional round should be considered as a contender? Because an uneducated consumer SEEING IT NEXT TO OTHER TRADITIONAL ROUNDS likes it. Instead of seeing the traditional round go head to head with an ideal round to see which one the Customer picks WHEN GIVEN A CHOICE BETWEEN THE TWO.

To me, what you are saying is 'we've always done it this way'...' people buy these stones as is'... and mediocrity is okay, we don't NEED to IMPROVE radiant cuts, we don't need the 'ideal cut' movement to trickle down and encourage cutters to pay attention to perfromance. And we don't need these new fangled tools WHO ARE DOING THEIR JOB by SHOWING US where there is a FLAW and will help us to fix it. Instead you are saying IGNORE the flaw, and do not compare the stone head to head with a stone that has a better ASET.

Yes, a traditional or Original Radiant cut, that has a poor ASET might still be pretty. But so might a 'traditional' round-- IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO COMPARE IT TO. That doesn't mean I will be encouraging anyone to get one. Why? Because there are BETTER rounds out there. AND the majority of people that COMPARE an ideal round to a traditional round PICK THE IDEAL ROUND. Just like there are BETTER radiants, like the Dream Cut or the Lucida with GREAT ASETs out there.

If we use your logic and apply it to the techology world RD... we'd all be using Morse Code instead of email. Why? Because people who have no idea what email is will be perfectly THRILLED with Morse Code. Well, they WOULDN'T BE if they knew that email was the alternative.

Too much leakage of light entering the stone through the table/crown is a FLAW in ANY shape, including radiants. Just because the stone is still pretty doesn't mean that it's not mediocre in comparison to what IT COULD BE if someone took that faceting and applied LIGHT PERFORMANCE OPTIMIZATION standards to it.

Your argument seems to be "it still a pretty stone. Ignore the evidence that it has a flaw identified by the ASET. The flaw isn't a flaw, it's just the way it is so we have to LOWER the bar of acceptable because that's how these stones are cut." AND ignore the fact that the flaw results in not being able to set the stone anyway you want. My answer is: it may be a pretty stone, but we can IMPROVE ON IT and make it PRETTIER and make it so you can set it any way you want to. And people HAVE done so.

That's exactly what happened to Old Mine Cuts and Old European Cuts. Old Cuts were cut WAY before technology and the industry advanced to the point of current faceting technology and light performance. Then they became popular again. And SOME VENDORS said hey... let's see if we can create an AGSO version of these. And they did. And they created a "better" old cut.

If you settle for mediocrity you miss the potential of innovation. As people in ANY industry, any business, settling for mediocrity gets you only so far. The innovators, those who don't settle but instead set the bar high. Achieve that goal. THEN SET YET ANOTHER HIGHER GOAL to continuously improve on it and seek perfection. That's what GOG has done with fancies. Time and time again. Including radiants.

Most cushions are leaky. Most ECs are leaky. Most pears are leaky. Most ovals are leaky. True. All true. That doesn't mean we should accept that and not try to FIX IT.

And that doesn't mean that SINCE most of them are leaky we should BUY the leaky stones. NO. That's the POINT of this board. To make sure that you get the BEST stone for your money depending on YOUR PERSONAL priorities for your balancing of the 4C's. And the way we do that is to make sure people UNDERSTAND the 4 C's. Including CUT QUALITY. And how it impacts a stone's performance. AND the tools that evaluate that performance. And what the data from those tools means in terms of what they will see when they are looking at a stone.

When you are talking fancies that are NOT AGS light graded for performance that means understanding the shape. And understanding what a poor, average and fantastic example of that shape is. An EC, unless it is an Octavia, is not going to be able to go head to head with a round. But... that doesn't mean there aren't going to be poor, average and fantastic ECs. AND one of the ways we look at ECs is with an ASET. Why? Because the ASET does show light entering through the crown and table facets INSTEAD of elsewhere the EASIER it is going to be to get a setting that the stone looks good in. So the ASET is (as I stated in the last thread) ONE tool in a SET of tools, that includes diam-xray if offered, that includes videos, and that includes gemologists reports, and that includes still photos. The MORE information a vendor offers THE BETTER IT IS.

I reject EC's all day long. Same with pears. Same with ovals. It is REALLY FREAKING HARD to find one that performs well. That doesn't mean that I am going to SETTLE and recommend a mediocre stone because its easier.

I agree with you AND have said in threads as far back as 6 months ago that radiants do not need a lot of red to be above average. But from my own observations MORE GREEN evenly distributed results in a nicer BRIGHTER stone than one that has a lot of white in the ASET. And that is based on my personal observation with an ASET. So I PREFER, head to head, a stone with LOTS of green and very little white to one with lots of white and very little green and red.

So when I am radiant hunting for a poster I am GOING to look for the one with more green and some red and LESS white, less leakage.

That doesn't mean the ones with leakage aren't pretty if they avoid fatal flaws like bowtie and that circle issue. They might still be pretty. But that doesn't mean there aren't BETTER ones out there.

It's not a matter of good enough. It's a matter of 'better' and 'best'.

What you are saying to me is 'people like them and they are good enough because that's how the majority of them are cut.'

My answer to you is: DID the person that said they are "GOOD ENOUGH" SEE THEM HEAD TO HEAD with a stone with a BETTER ASET?

If your answer is No, they did not see them next to a stone with a better ASET, then my answer is: THAT IS A PROBLEM.

If you really WANT to explore this further IMO you should take an " SQUARE Original Radiant Cut" or a "SQUARE generic radiant cut" that has an ASET similar to the one you posted at the start of the thread place it RIGHT NEXT TO a Hearts on Fire DREAM CUT. And then ask your customers WHICH ONE THEY PREFER.

Because you telling me your customers like these leaky ASET stones WITHOUT HAVING A COMPARISON NEXT TO A STONE WITH A GREAT ASET, doesn't tell me anything.

Your customers may be settling for "good enough" because YOU aren't showing them an alternative.

The only way IMO that you can CONFIRM your hypothesis that leaky ASET stones are GOOD ENOUGH for the majority of Customers is to compare them head to head with ones with great ASETs and the record WHICH ONE they preferred.

Otherwise all you have is a hypothesis and an opinion. GOG sells cut cornered square brilliants with 'ideal' ASETS and generic ones with leaky ASETs.

They also sell traditional rounds and ideal ones. Now if JONATHAN came on here and told me people consistently picked the leaky ASET radiants over ones with ASETs that are 'ideal' in a HEAD TO HEAD comparison of stones that have the similar l/w ratios, then I would be persuaded.

But... like I said, absent that head to head, all you have is an opinion of what is good enough, not proof of what is good enough. Even Winks post in the other thread about the radiant CZ... did he see it head to head with one that has a great ASET? No. So is it fair to say that it was a good enough ASEat, when he doesn't have something with a better ASET to compare it to? No.

Wow, Gypsy. Alot to chew on in this post!

With limited time I will nibble on one that I think is part of a theme that you have struck and which I think is important to the discussion of cut quality in general. In Al Gilberson's wonderful book on the American Ideal Cut he explains how even before Marcel Tolkowski published his famous thesis there were American cutters who were pushing hard for a philosophy of cutting for maximum beauty rather than for weight. But there were strong forces in the market that ran counter to this guidance. One of them was the way workers in the factories were paid - by how much carat weight in finished diamonds they could produce! With that as a basis for production you can understand what jewelers were getting to sell. And sell it they must, so the marketing was generally done around how much more "valuable" bigger stones were than smaller stones. Well, it turned out that philosophy gained so much momentum that a hundred years later we are just now seeing the landscape change in terms of cutting for the best optics as a primary goal.

I'm probably repeating some of what you already said, but one of the reasons that cutting for weight has been predominant is that even mediocre cuts are often quite pretty. And in the absence of choices for better cut stones, consumers will buy the nicest ones available. And cutters look at what consumers are buying and determine that mediocre is what people want, no reason to spend more to yield less.
So this kind of chicken or egg thinking kind of muddles down through the years.

Fortunately today there is more enlightenment and cutters are beginning to challenge the status quo and as a result consumers have more good "flavors" available to them. Which also makes choosing a diamond more challenging. Which is why we are all here learning how best to do it!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Bryan- I will try to keep it on track - the fact is that assessing the cut of a Radiant involves a lot of considerations.
StonE number one is as good as they come. Stone number two is slightly less well cut- yet incredibly beautiful and desirable.
Point is to assist we need to look at varying degrees of cut.
The ASET would get trashed here- but the stone itself is astounding.

The econmics seem important to me but my goal is to keep this on track.
Thaanks for adding positive input Bryan.
Hopefully others will join with constructive additions.
My experience with leakage is totally practical -I see how stones showing leakage in ASET look in real life- and how they behave in jewelry hopefully Karl will stay around to give a more technical viewpoint.

 

[Rockdiamond]

To clarify my statement about the economics: any one in the diamond business is in the business to make money. They will not be in business for long if they don't.
The 5 carat stone is worth a hypothetical hundred thousand dollars right now.
That's what the stone will bring on the market. For a cutter to touch it to the wheel the only reason to do so would be to get a higher price, not a lower one.
We all understand that the best cut costs more – this is a demonstration of it.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

To clarify my statement about the economics: any one in the diamond business is in the business to make money. They will not be in business for long if they don't.
The 5 carat stone is worth a hypothetical hundred thousand dollars right now.
That's what the stone will bring on the market. For a cutter to touch it to the wheel the only reason to do so would be to get a higher price, not a lower one.
We all understand that the best cut costs more – this is a demonstration of it.

Yes, the cutter who goes for weight is making making a decision that 5ct is better for HIM than a smaller diamond optimized for beauty. It's a mix of philosophy,economics and intuition.

But his decision may or may not reflect the preferences of consumers. Not all of them anyway.

I think Gypsy made this point very well, so why don't we focus on learning what makes a killer radiant versus an OK radiant and then let consumers decide which they want.