Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[coati]

Why so judgmental? What did crushed ice cushions ever do to you?

I knew a crushed ice cushion that went hog wild and attacked a group of tourists in Los Angeles. It was mayhem, but luckily, no one was injured.

 

[clgwli]

CCL I am curious about your post. Do you think if you had an even more open setting that you would find the stone to be better looking? I don't mean that as an insult, but I do recall you saying in other posts that there are things you dislike about her stone (though she loves it). If I am wrong on that, please correct me. I am just curious about your thoughts on that. And I chose you since you discussed this with me just now. ETA: Please feel free to ignore this part if you don't want to discuss. I am seriously just curious about your thoughts and do not mean to put the stone down. I personally think it is beautiful from what I have seen!

I also hope people are not implying that I own settings with relatively open pavilions to hide a bad cut. I have earrings that are intentionally shallow (though I am considering replacing them with slightly less included shallow stones some day) and I have some that are "ideal" cuts. My 1930s ring has a more obstructed pavilion but still way more open compared to my 1925 setting. Just that I noticed in pretty much all my settings they are that way with the older settings obstructing light more than others. So either it is common to do or I just happen to be drawn to that look.

Kenny I know we've been over this before and I am not sure I want to rehash again here. However two questions. Are you sure that this "light" you are seeing on the tweezers is light and not just worn away metal? You should see some of my banged up tweezers compared to the others. They constantly have a bright tip no matter what.

And two you do realize that an angle with the light source mainly from the front can create the exact same look? I did an experiment and need to redo it with my LED lights (as the light bulb I used was too yellow and made everything look nasty no matter what... I need to replace the batteries on my portable LED light). But I intentionally put the stone BEHIND the light source. I tilted the tweezers at a small angle and I had the shadows made it look like the light was from behind. Does that make sense?

The moment I took the stone in front of the light source my point and shoot (which I have read David uses one and not a DSLR) could not capture the stone.

In my opinion with a point ant shoot to work right, the source has to be above, in front or below. The camera simply could not focus with a bright source behind the stone at a close range.

I am not sure when I will have time to redo this experiment, but trust me I am not one to lie or make things up. My husband was laughing at me while I did it and asked what it was all about. As I explained his eyes glazed over much the way I do when he discusses the server work he does LOL

Just points to bring up. IMO bright lighting has been used, but from what I have seen personally in my experiment, to get a really good close up of inclusions, you cannot have low lighting or even just moderate lighting. Again I have no issues with that. Not anymore than I do with light-box photography that many vendors apparently use. I don't know for sure, so please vendors this is not a negative and I am willing to be corrected since it is a guess based on how consistent the stones look.

I have my preference of photos, but it is just that just like a cut of diamond. A preference. I feel like I get more out of one style over another. I know not everyone agrees. But I do not think I have seen one single vendor here use deceptive lighting. They are just different approaches.

I spent more time in the past looking at vintage pieces online and got my preferences based on that. Not loose stones so that may influence my preferences more than some.

 

[Whatsnew7824]

I admit I have been reading this thread with interest. There are some types of "crushed ice" that I am not a fan of and other types I am. I don't like the really watery look in the tip of a pear or marquise, but on your nicely cut marquise and pear stones I consider that nice "crushed ice"

Oddly enough I like the nice crushed ice look as well as the very bold flashes. I really don't like much in between. In fact I cannot stand seeing patterns unless they are very large (like emerald cut as well as asschers) I dislike large rounds and most princess cuts where you can see a defined "X" for that very reason.

I think that look is a total preference thing and I would be very wary to put down anyone who does like that look. Maybe I am a bit defensive since I do have a what I find a lovely lemon crushed ice stone. I looked at all types of stones out there before I decided. And yes, I looked at AGS0 rounds as well as some other "ideal" cut stones. They aren't for me. Doesn't mean they are bad. In fact I am shocked that I don't like most stones that have "optimal optics" My eye doesn't find them pleasing. I prefer a nice crushed ice stone, a vintage round or cushion, asschers and some emeralds. Everything else is just kind of "eh" to me. Not that they are bad, I just don't think they fit me and my style.

I would suggest to anyone to look around at all types of videos and see what your eye finds pleasing. If you like "ideal cuts" by all means use numbers. If you don't, like me, the eye is worth a whole lot more.

Good points you make. For me I want to see what I am buying. It seems like that's a foreign concept on Pricescope with one person stating that they have gone from wanting to see it with their eyes to relying on pictures and video. Not me. Pictures are fine but they really blow up a diamond way more than what you see in real life in real lighting. It's easier to see what it will look like in person. I like your diamond. It's a cool color.

 

[Whatsnew7824]

CCL- curious as to why you removed your post...
CCL had written another of his scathing posts criticizing my method of lighting for photos and video.

David (Rockdiamond) I just find your posts comical these days and I rarely reply to you anymore, despite your constant attempts at provocation to draw me into arguments. In this thread you are so over the top I had to reply with a "joke" of my own.

I like the light going through the diamond- as opposed to in a tray.

Of course you do RD, just like other jewelers like you on 47th with their strong spot lighting. You can make frozen spit look good in that lighting and its no way to critically evaluate a diamond's beauty.

I have an idea, I'll buy up all the macles and flats and just facet them freeform(imagine the yield ) and then you can sell them as just as beautiful as any other diamond and at the same price per carat. After all you keep saying how diamonds of all proportions can be beautiful to your eyes and to others.

We'll do great business together, we'll make a killing as you are already mainstream and super high volume
Plus you can feel ethically secure in knowing that you are creating and selling the biggest most beautiful stone possible from odd proportioned rough. I know you will do the honorable thing and send every stone to GIA so we can be sure of color and clarity I'll start writing up the business plan right now.

I am sure by now even lurkers and non posters notice the striking contrast between your vague, disorganized and incoherent posts and the well supported arguments Rhino is making backed up by video and images.

I'm a lurker and I guess I have to disagree with you. I have learned a lot from the Rock's posts on this thread. In fact, I don't think he has said anything that is disorganized or incoherent. A lot of times I read things that just confuse me on here. It feels like smoke and mirrors sometimes. When you get told that you shouldn't want to see what you are going to buy I wonder why is that the case? When you are told that if something looks great to you, you should ignore what you are seeing, that just reminds me of that old song "Don't trust your lying eyes." I mean, you can disbelieve what you see if you want to, but does that make sense if you see it first hand, you like it and then you ignore that and go with something else?

 

[Rockdiamond]

CCL- curious as to why you removed your post...
CCL had written another of his scathing posts criticizing my method of lighting for photos and video.

I'm not here to defend CCL (he can do that himself) and quite honestly I have not studied your photography but I've read you are backlighting. This can alter the appearance of a diamond in such a way that it may not represent how it appears in normal viewing. I've never done or tried this personally so I don't know but I have shot a clip yesterday on this very subject showing both watery and bright crushed ice optics within 2 different shapes and in 3 different lightings with both pavilions covered and pavilions exposed. I'll be interested to hear your input after watching.

I mentioned before that I like the light going through the diamond in photos, and video.
The reason is that is the manner in which you would grade a diamond. As a grader for over 30 years, I love how a diamond looks when it's held up under a light.
Both methods- placing in a tray, or holding in a tweezer to allow the light to pass through are compromises.
Once the diamond is set into a ring, it might look closer to either method, depending on how it's set.

I've been grading for quite some time too. When is backlighting used to grade? Certainly not in color grading and also not in clarity grading. In clarity grading you do have darkfield illumination where you have controlled lighting illuminating the pavilion but the baffle directly underneath the diamond is covered. Even so, looking at a diamond for purposes of grading does not reflect how that diamond appears in real life in practical observation. Would you agree?

Just to reiterate a point made yesterday- there is no truth whatsoever in the statement that Cushion Brilliant faces up larger than Cushion Modified Brilliant.

I'd agree too. There are cushion modifieds that face up larger and cushion brilliants that face up smaller. Whoever told a consumer contrary is not very familiar with cushions. Also, to tell people that cushion brilliants look like or have the optics of rounds is another misnomer. The grand majority of cushions on the market look nothing like a round. There is only 1 cushion that mimics the optics of a round (ideal round) which is the Square Cushion H&A.

All the best,

HI Jon,
Let me again reiterate my respect for you- and the way you present your diamonds.
I feel my methods are better, but that's natural- we're both strong willed, determined people- otherwise we would not have the websites we have.
First, I ask you this- is it fair for you to repeat claims of "backlighting" when you admit you have not studied my photos?
Part of my job is to look at the competition.
I've studied many competing websites- including yours. This allows me to have in informed position discussing our different techniques.
You can choose to align yourself with Kenny and CCL who seem to characterize anything I say as not true- but I am stating here and now - I DO NOT PUT ANY LIGHTS BEHIND THE DIAMONDS FOR PHOTOGRAPHY.
Kenny has stated things as "facts" about my photography that are simply dead wrong, based on the FACT of how I actually take the photos.
I have no motivation whatsoever to lie- nor is there any motivation to display photos that do not portray, as accurately as possible, the diamonds we are selling.
The reason is that we have a money back guarantee.
Returns are costly, and need to be avoided. Therefore we've found that photos which accurately portray the stones work best.
As I've said, every photo ( or video) is a compromise- so no photo is perfect.

I am also in the process of shooting some footage of "slushy" crushed ice stones.
I already have hundreds of videos posted of what I consider to be nice crushed ice stones. I'd be interested in your opinion of some of those.

Lighting and grading: When I grade for clarity, I hold the diamond in a tweezer, under a fluorescent lamp with "daylight" bulbs.
The light does tend to darken the background, although nowadays I grade in a well lit room.
Proper technique would actually call for a dark room, which would provide "darkfield illumination"
I do not use any baffle.
For color grading of colorless, yes, the diamond is placed in a tray, table down.
However fancy colors are graded in a much more logical, and realistic manner- through the table, as one would look at pretty much any diamond once it's set. My photos emulate that as well.

Does any of this simulate "real world"? In some ways yes, in some ways no.
I feel that my method does allow for a far better view of facet structure and imperfection.
To simulate real world would actually not work for either of us.
The reason is that the actual size of diamonds is too small to be portrayed actual size- so magnification is essential. That, in itself requires compromise.
We do have many photos and videos of diamonds which are set into rings- photographing set diamonds would also be a good compromise, getting closer to "real world" representation.

Kenny mentioned I use whatever techniques I use because I have "leaky diamonds"
Jon, a question for you- do your diamonds leak at all?


CCL_ thanks for the kind offer- but I don't really need a partner at this time.

 

[Rockdiamond]

CCL- curious as to why you removed your post...
CCL had written another of his scathing posts criticizing my method of lighting for photos and video.

David (Rockdiamond) I just find your posts comical these days and I rarely reply to you anymore, despite your constant attempts at provocation to draw me into arguments. In this thread you are so over the top I had to reply with a "joke" of my own.

I like the light going through the diamond- as opposed to in a tray.

Of course you do RD, just like other jewelers like you on 47th with their strong spot lighting. You can make frozen spit look good in that lighting and its no way to critically evaluate a diamond's beauty.

I have an idea, I'll buy up all the macles and flats and just facet them freeform(imagine the yield ) and then you can sell them as just as beautiful as any other diamond and at the same price per carat. After all you keep saying how diamonds of all proportions can be beautiful to your eyes and to others.

We'll do great business together, we'll make a killing as you are already mainstream and super high volume
Plus you can feel ethically secure in knowing that you are creating and selling the biggest most beautiful stone possible from odd proportioned rough. I know you will do the honorable thing and send every stone to GIA so we can be sure of color and clarity I'll start writing up the business plan right now.

I am sure by now even lurkers and non posters notice the striking contrast between your vague, disorganized and incoherent posts and the well supported arguments Rhino is making backed up by video and images.

I'm a lurker and I guess I have to disagree with you. I have learned a lot from the Rock's posts on this thread. In fact, I don't think he has said anything that is disorganized or incoherent. A lot of times I read things that just confuse me on here. It feels like smoke and mirrors sometimes. When you get told that you shouldn't want to see what you are going to buy I wonder why is that the case? When you are told that if something looks great to you, you should ignore what you are seeing, that just reminds me of that old song "Don't trust your lying eyes." I mean, you can disbelieve what you see if you want to, but does that make sense if you see it first hand, you like it and then you ignore that and go with something else?

Thank you very much Whatsnew7824!
Just a note about CCL''s post, which you quoted.
Jon is not posting his own videos- as a seller neither of us is allowed to post our own photos or videos, except in very limited circumstances.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

When you get told that you shouldn't want to see what you are going to buy I wonder why is that the case? When you are told that if something looks great to you, you should ignore what you are seeing, that just reminds me of that old song "Don't trust your lying eyes." I mean, you can disbelieve what you see if you want to, but does that make sense if you see it first hand, you like it and then you ignore that and go with something else?

Whatsnew Welcome to Pricescope,

In Rockytalky we advise people on how to do their homework and how to make informed purchase decisions.
As a non tradesmember I donate considerable amounts of time and effort to this goal.

Trust your eyes once you have educated them.

Simplified Example:

Customer walks into a high end diamond shop of a vendor who doesn't use modern technology for diamond selection and only sells generic diamonds:

Dealer shows them 10 diamonds they are all pretty no surprise, diamonds in jewelry store lights usually are.
Customer being diamond savvy views the diamonds in the window, under a table etc. and then finds now only 3 are pretty to them in different lighting.
Dealer says "trust my experience and what your eyes see" and suggests one of the three.
Customer purchases that diamond and is confident they chose the most beautiful diamond for them. After all it was the best one out of the 10 and the "expert" dealer with 30 years experience said so.

Now customer walks down the street and looks at some branded diamonds with all the reflector tests available, priced 10 - 20% more and says wow my "most beautiful" diamond isn't as beautiful as these ones I wish I had paid the premium.

 

[FuturePsyD]

CCL:

You mentioned as a nontrades member you are able to offer more advice to posters.

Save for the basics, my bf and I are pretty uneducated when it comes to selecting diamonds. A potential purchase for us is the HW micropave with a Modified Cushion Brilliant. (we're still wondering whether its worth paying a premium for).

You mentioned you have some experience with HW, so I would like to know if you could possibly steer me in the right direction in regards to choosing a diamond from this particular store. Would it be wise to bring in someone with the ability to pick a "non slushy" stone? Or simply to view as many stones as possible and pick what looks best based on our eyes? All this talk about the majority of Modified Cushions (even from HW and other high end designers) looking slushy as opposed to bright has really thrown me for a loop. I fear it will look lovely in the store, but in real life we will find it to be of the "slushy" variety!!

You also mentioned that the HW micropave setting is a moderately closed setting, do you find that this type of setting compromises the brightness of the stone?

 

[Doc_1]

I have been through the many posts of this informative thread and it struck me how similar it is to my profession as a physician.

In the past doctor - patient relationship was totally different, the doctors know the best and the patients take it for granted . Not so now a days ...More info on the net and the patients are more educated and they need to know all the options risks, side effects...etc, they shop around for best doctors and participate in decisions concerning their health with the ton of info they acquired on the net. forums of diabetes, cancer are as informative as forums of diamonds and cars..etc, same for doctors they have to be up to date and to keep up with the new advances so they can be among the best the educated patients are looking for.

the tools like ASET, idealscope, light performance lab ratings.... are helpful in adding to one's knowledge and when comparing stones it sure makes a whole a lot of difference, those tools where invented for a reason.

Indoor lighting in the past with oil lamps is totally different than the sophisticated lighting you get in a big reception halls or the powerful diffused lighting you get in an office or a combination of the two so the standards came a long way since then.

the cutters are smart and they are adaptive and they utilized the lighting to the best by inventing different cuts that maximizes the light travel and bouncing inside the diamond to give the final performance that appeals to different tastes, they are still trying to squeeze the most number of virtual facets with their cuts to get the diamond to dance from any angle the light hits the stone.

I for my self loved the AVC and i was sold when i saw the performance on the video and in person when i got it, my wife was happier when she saw it in person but also she considered the radiant look of a cushion because she liked it too.

I also was taken by the modified round brilliant cut GOG has for round shapes, and even if it is a different shape than the cushion it goes to the point i mentioned earlier on how in this point of time the industry is trying to maximize the usage of the light and i find that fascinating.

So on one hand the industry is very smart and adaptive, on the other hand the customer is smart and more educated and demands better, they shop around the same way patients shop around for the best doctors and the whole thing is a win win situation to both the industry and the customers.

So i echo a phrase said in one of the posts here, trust your educated eyes, once you like it go for it it is you who will pay for it and you who will wear it all the time.

Just a thought i liked to share!

 

[LGK]

If I were shopping for a modern cushion, I would go look at a LOT of them, of all varieties. At a bunch of different stores, In a lot of different lighting. And I'd buy an ASET scope and practice with it.

Then, have the store of your choice call in as many stones/rings as you can that match your budget.

I wouldn't trust an appraiser or someone I hired to select for me- with cushions it is *such* a matter of personal taste, and an appraiser or expert isn't going to know what appeals to you better than you do, IMO.

However, I would *absolutely* educate my eyes before plunking down tens of thousands. And then decide based on what *I* loved, after viewing the diamond in as many lighting situations as possible. It is quite easy to be dazzled by the lovelies in a jewelry store, especially on an incredibly emotional purchase at a luxe store like HW.

Frankly, I might also pay to have some of the premium cut cushions, like the square H&A cushions or an august vintage, sent to me so I could compare them in person to the ones in HW and see if the brand, cut and setting are indeed better to your eye than cushions that are premium cut. Just a thought.

Also, I'd be prepared to wait and or not buy, if you don't find what you're looking for right away.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Doc,
This has been an interesting thread.
All due respect, but you are making assumptions, and drawing comparisons that don't strike me as true.
Advances in medicine can't be compared to ASET, or other reflector technologies for many reasons. These tools were invented to sell diamonds. Not every expert in the field agrees with how to intepret the results because the methodology is inconsistent. In terms of usage by consumers, there's no consensus- many well meaning honest dealers don't feel they help consumers due, in part, to inconsistencies of methodology of use. Also that the information provided may not be relevant- again, depending on the person;s taste, and type of stone they want.

I agree that patient advocacy has moved light years ahead due to greater info on the web- but again, you're confusing proprietary concerns versus scientific advances in medicine.
If one vendor claims "superior optics", it is their opinion, not a scientific fact.

I'm sure, as a physician, you'd advise folks to read what they can online, but NEVER to substitute that for the advice of, and examination by a real doctor, with hands on experience.


It's important to point out that the consumers posting here are anonymous. My interest is quite clear- I am a diamond dealer- with a website.
It is my strong belief that my writings are educational- and assist consumers in purchasing.

Where were the "prosumers" trained about diamonds?
What are their motivations?
Is there a pattern of recommending the same thing ( or vendor) over and over again?
Do we have to like what they likes?
Or dislike what they dislike?


FuturePsyD- aside from this being a valuable exchange of ideas, it has also had the effect of making your head spin ( apparently)
One thing that is SUPER important here, with regard to you specifically.
Crushed Ice, Chunky facets, Slushy ice.....none of these words means anything.
They are as meaningful as the word "red"
You see a rose, and you know it's red ( or whatever color it is)
I agree that you should, by all means, look at as many different types of cushions as you can.

Going back to Doc- this is unlike medicine.
You can NOT trust what I say- or what anyone else here says is the best or nicest most beautiful- you MUST trust your eyes.
By looking at different stones, you will be able to decide what you love. Trust yourself.
Some people are crazy in love with stones others might call "slushy"

By going to a "big brand name" you have assured that you will , at least, be treated fairly.
Make sure you get a money back guarantee- so that you have some "alone time" with your purchase- and in a variety of lighting situations.
You can even take your new ring to other stor4es and compare.
You won't need any special tools- just your eyes.
The reason I am against the "tools" especially in this situation, is that they may cause you to doubt what your eye sees in natural lighting.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

CCL:

You mentioned as a nontrades member you are able to offer more advice to posters.

Save for the basics, my bf and I are pretty uneducated when it comes to selecting diamonds. A potential purchase for us is the HW micropave with a Modified Cushion Brilliant. (we're still wondering whether its worth paying a premium for).

Can you get a GIA report # and pictures of the diamond you are considering? The sales rep sent me a really small photo of a diamond I was considering after some arm twisting.

You mentioned you have some experience with HW, so I would like to know if you could possibly steer me in the right direction in regards to choosing a diamond from this particular store. Would it be wise to bring in someone with the ability to pick a "non slushy" stone?

I think you are taking this far in the wrong direction. All you have to do is make a private appointment and see the diamonds outside, under a table, by the window, under normal lights, under spot lights etc. After all what does it matter what an "expert" says you will be wearing it and your eyes have to like it. Print out the pictures Charmy posted of three types of cushions that were set in the Micropave and tell the SA to show you examples of each. Call or e-mail beforehand and ask them to call in several varieties for you to choose from.

If you can also see some other well cut cushions (SCHA, AVC, Novo etc) under the same lighting(maybe outside) than you are as educated as I could ever hope, and far more than most.

Or simply to view as many stones as possible and pick what looks best based on our eyes? All this talk about the majority of Modified Cushions (even from HW and other high end designers) looking slushy as opposed to bright has really thrown me for a loop. I fear it will look lovely in the store, but in real life we will find it to be of the "slushy" variety!!

You also mentioned that the HW micropave setting is a moderately closed setting, do you find that this type of setting compromises the brightness of the stone?

No it does not, a well cut cushion(modified or otherwise) will look great in that setting. I wrote a 7 page design summary with photographs of that setting for my jeweler to be inspired by, it is one of my favourites and my wife's as well. I just didn't like the pricetag at HW(our final ring cost less than half of what it would at HW), and wanted some small changes to be made to the design.

 

[kenny]

Wonder why get a lot of "newbies who have been lurking but never regestered" when this guy gets called onto the carpet.

Hmm.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I have been through the many posts of this informative thread and it struck me how similar it is to my profession as a physician.

I can definitely see the similarities, I spent two summers doing research in Neuroradiology and Neurosurgery, the peer review process for research is much the same in both disciplines.

If you are interested this is one of the best in depth articles on cut research in diamonds. I have spoken in depth with many of the authors on this paper about their most crucial research http://www.agslab.com/spie/spie_lo_res.pdf.

the tools like ASET, idealscope, light performance lab ratings.... are helpful in adding to one's knowledge and when comparing stones it sure makes a whole a lot of difference, those tools where invented for a reason.

Yes they were, but just like new advances in medicine, they are often shunned by older physicians who are very hardened in their thinking. This changes over time, but some never embrace new technology and methods, they may just end up retiring.

The unfortunate part that slows down research in gemology is that most of the research done in the field is commerically motivated and not shared openly. That is why we are lucky the Amercian Gem Society Laboratories often shares openly its research with members of the trade and consumers.

the cutters are smart and they are adaptive and they utilized the lighting to the best by inventing different cuts that maximizes the light

In the next few years I beleive we will experience a new era in cut design, with many new designs for fancy shapes increasing in popularity.

So on one hand the industry is very smart and adaptive, on the other hand the customer is smart and more educated and demands better, they shop around the same way patients shop around for the best doctors and the whole thing is a win win situation to both the industry and the customers.

Astute observation, the level of education of the average consumer has been increasing because of the internet, and despite protests from the traditional diamond dealers this is going to continue even more so in this direction.

So i echo a phrase said in one of the posts here, trust your educated eyes, once you like it go for it it is you who will pay for it and you who will wear it all the time.

Just a thought i liked to share!

 

[TakingthePlunge]

To reinforce that all modified brilliant cushions are not crushed ice I give you the link to own them all:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6929/

That is the first AVC Ive seen listed as that and its weird becuse they show the same crown and pavillion cuts as the stones labeled cushion brilliant. Not sure what the grader was smoking that day.

EDIT: Ive found another one labeled modified and also one labeled old mine brillant. Seems AGS is just all over the map with naming conventions.

On another note I still havent found a high-amount-of-virtual-facets stone (the previously posted doesnt look virtualized enough to me) that has good light return. Every stone Ive found still has noticable light loss through the pavillion. I am lead to believe that the virtual facets are really a result of the diamonds inability to retain all the light and we only see whats left.

I have also given up the use of the terms "crushed ice", "light performance" and "leakage". All these terms seem to spark arguements around here so I will be replacing these terms with "high amount of virtual facets", "light return", and "light loss through the pavillion".

 

[Doc_1]

Hi Doc,
This has been an interesting thread.
All due respect, but you are making assumptions, and drawing comparisons that don't strike me as true.
Advances in medicine can't be compared to ASET, or other reflector technologies for many reasons. These tools were invented to sell diamonds. Not every expert in the field agrees with how to intepret the results because the methodology is inconsistent. In terms of usage by consumers, there's no consensus- many well meaning honest dealers don't feel they help consumers due, in part, to inconsistencies of methodology of use. Also that the information provided may not be relevant- again, depending on the person;s taste, and type of stone they want.

I agree that patient advocacy has moved light years ahead due to greater info on the web- but again, you're confusing proprietary concerns versus scientific advances in medicine.
If one vendor claims "superior optics", it is their opinion, not a scientific fact.

I'm sure, as a physician, you'd advise folks to read what they can online, but NEVER to substitute that for the advice of, and examination by a real doctor, with hands on experience.


It's important to point out that the consumers posting here are anonymous. My interest is quite clear- I am a diamond dealer- with a website.
It is my strong belief that my writings are educational- and assist consumers in purchasing.

Where were the "prosumers" trained about diamonds?
What are their motivations?
Is there a pattern of recommending the same thing ( or vendor) over and over again?
Do we have to like what they likes?
Or dislike what they dislike?


FuturePsyD- aside from this being a valuable exchange of ideas, it has also had the effect of making your head spin ( apparently)
One thing that is SUPER important here, with regard to you specifically.
Crushed Ice, Chunky facets, Slushy ice.....none of these words means anything.
They are as meaningful as the word "red"
You see a rose, and you know it's red ( or whatever color it is)
I agree that you should, by all means, look at as many different types of cushions as you can.

Going back to Doc- this is unlike medicine.
You can NOT trust what I say- or what anyone else here says is the best or nicest most beautiful- you MUST trust your eyes.
By looking at different stones, you will be able to decide what you love. Trust yourself.
Some people are crazy in love with stones others might call "slushy"

By going to a "big brand name" you have assured that you will , at least, be treated fairly.
Make sure you get a money back guarantee- so that you have some "alone time" with your purchase- and in a variety of lighting situations.
You can even take your new ring to other stor4es and compare.
You won't need any special tools- just your eyes.
The reason I am against the "tools" especially in this situation, is that they may cause you to doubt what your eye sees in natural lighting.

Hi RD

I see some contradiction in what am reading in your post.

first off i NEVER said that the tools are a substitution for the eyes, also i NEVER said that the advances in medicine and in the diagnostic tools are a substitution for the hands on experience of a trained physician. so i do not know where you have gotten this conclusion from my post.

There are LAWS OF PHYSICS that nor you or me can argue.

when a light hits a surface of a different density part of it is reflected and part goes through. depends on the difference of those two medium if i may call them the light path is written. now playing with the angles and the polished surfaces ...etc to create the most eye candy light return is the industry's own business not mine, MY BUSINESS is having the tools that measure that and then when i get the most accurate idea about how the light is traveling inside the stone i will compare with my educated eye apple to apple or here diamond to diamond and make my educated decision.

There are constants and variables, i cannot have control over the size of the pupil that is seeing the diamond at a certain point in time, me and you may stand in front of the diamond at the same distance you may see a nice fire coming out of it i may see a blue pastel , those are variables and we are not discussing them.

Now constant is the cut quality of the particular diamond am looking at those will not change no matter how you turn twist flip the diamond and those what i need to know. There where those tools can HELP and ADD to my educated decision, then the final decision by the eye and that what i finished my post with.

No sir, CT scan , MRI , advanced cancer markers are not substitution to hands on experience but they add a darn whole a lot info to the physician when used properly. same as the tools that map the light path in the diamond (and used by the most respected labs even if there is no consensus on some of them, same as in medicine), are not a substitution to an educated eye but it is darn sure adds more info to the customer and the final judgment is wiser and happier.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Advances in medicine can't be compared to ASET, or other reflector technologies for many reasons. These tools were invented to sell diamonds.

Going back to Doc- this is unlike medicine.
You can NOT trust what I say- or what anyone else here says is the best or nicest most beautiful- you MUST trust your eyes.

You know what throws me off about all this. Doctors usually don't make their diagnosis until they have ran the proper tests. Most doctors won't conclude you have cancer by finding a lump - they will run the approriate tesets to make sure. In some ways, this parallels why the use of tools like ASET can support the analysis of a diamond.

A layman will not necessarily be able to understand medical lab results or read an x-ray. This also applies to the world of diamonds - not everyone knows how to take proper ASETs or interpret them.

Heck .. I have friends who are doctors and not the brightest bulb. They admit to misdiagnosing patients.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

CCL I am curious about your post. Do you think if you had an even more open setting that you would find the stone to be better looking?

Yes it would be brighter for sure but even ideal cut diamonds(which my wife's diamond is not) can benefit from girdle or pavilion lighting. I used the example of my wife's ring to highlight that the HW Micropave setting when worn will not allow much low angle light to enter the pavilion or girdle.

I have earrings that are intentionally shallow (though I am considering replacing them with slightly less included shallow stones some day) and I have some that are "ideal" cuts.

Earrings are a much different thing, the viewing and lighting angles are much different. Many prefer to have a shallower cut in an earring as you don't have to worry as much about obstruction and shallower gives you better spread. Still some tradeoffs in doing this in the fire and scintillation properties though.

Kenny I know we've been over this before and I am not sure I want to rehash again here. However two questions. Are you sure that this "light" you are seeing on the tweezers is light and not just worn away metal? You should see some of my banged up tweezers compared to the others. They constantly have a bright tip no matter what. And two you do realize that an angle with the light source mainly from the front can create the exact same look?

As I think I have said in several different ways in the other thread, it is not a back/front or top/bottom issue, diamonds are 3 dimensional. A diamond's appearance depends on which direction it is receiving light from and where that light enters the diamond.
Kenny, Garry H, myself and others have said that RD's photographs are different because of the extra amount of light that is entering from the pavilion. Whether the light path is front overhead, or back overhead is just confusing the issue and is largely irrelevant because in tweezers the diamond can be tilted in all directions.

If you still contend that the reason why RD's photographs are different has something to do with how a camera works or focus depth or distance I really suggest you take some photography lessons and learn more about the mechanics and optics of a camera so you can seperate this from the lighting conditions of a diamond. I can respect the time and effort you put into your posts, I'm sure you want your opinions to be well supported.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Doc,
Why are the variables not being discussed? I am certainly discussing them, and taking them into account.
These variables make the results of reflector technology far less important, and meaningful.
By comparing reflector technology to MRI or Ct scan you are drawing the conversation to comparisons between medical advances and reflector technology which is a very poor comparison.
You use the term "cut quality"- who's to say which cut is the best quality? By no means is "cut quality" a constant- particularly when discussing cushions.
Who's to say that a diamond drawing light from different angles won't be just as beautiful?
I'm not an advocate of consumers using ASET- and for the reasons I discussed.
We can see the results of these mixed messages in the title of this thread.
Why are readers led to believe "crushed ice" is a negative aspect?

Doc, say someone studied all they could about medicine on the internet. Would that qualify them to diagnose people?

I posed a question to Jon- do his diamonds leak?
Doc, do you think leakage, by definition, is a bad thing?

We all know that a lump under the skin is a potential life threatening situation.
Is leakage?
Is it correct to draw comparisons between the two?

None of this has anything to do with "laws of physics" as the resultant diamond is not going to be judged by a machine- rather by the eye.
Taking theplunge- sorry, but the term "light return" as it applies to this conversation is just as prejudicial as "leakage", "Light Performance" and "Crushed Ice"
The reason relates to my comments about Doc's post.
If a machine can measure that one diamond returns more light than another, does that make it more beautiful?
No- Therefore quantifying "light return is meaningless.
There are diamonds that return less light that are far more beautiful to many observers.

 

[Rockdiamond]

CCL- yes my photos are different- as is just about every other seller who publishes photos.
There's no rules or laws on how to take photos of diamonds.
Many Internet diamond connoisseurs can tell you who the vendor is simply by looking at a photo.
What's wrong with that?

Charmy- again, the comparison between medicine, and diamond grading is a poor one, for many reasons.
The best (IMO) diamond buyers do not use machines, rather they use their eyes to select.

 

[clgwli]

Yes it would be brighter for sure but even ideal cut diamonds(which my wife's diamond is not) can benefit from girdle or pavilion lighting. I used the example of my wife's ring to highlight that the HW Micropave setting when worn will not allow much low angle light to enter the pavilion or girdle.

Earrings are a much different thing, the viewing and lighting angles are much different. Many prefer to have a shallower cut in an earring as you don't have to worry as much about obstruction and shallower gives you better spread. Still some tradeoffs in doing this in the fire and scintillation properties though.

As I think I have said in several different ways in the other thread, it is not a back/front or top/bottom issue, diamonds are 3 dimensional. A diamond's appearance depends on which direction it is receiving light from and where that light enters the diamond.
Kenny, Garry H, myself and others have said that RD's photographs are different because of the extra amount of light that is entering from the pavilion. Whether the light path is front overhead, or back overhead is just confusing the issue and is largely irrelevant because in tweezers the diamond can be tilted in all directions.

If you still contend that the reason why RD's photographs are different has something to do with how a camera works or focus depth or distance I really suggest you take some photography lessons and learn more about the mechanics and optics of a camera so you can seperate this from the lighting conditions of a diamond. I can respect the time and effort you put into your posts, I'm sure you want your opinions to be well supported.

[/quote]
CCL thank you for your reply on your wife's ring. I was simply curious since you brought it up, and yes the point is valid that even "ideal cuts" will have some benefits to a more open setting. I honestly never gave much thoughts to settings and the good and bad to certain types until I came here. I find it an interesting and not very well discussed topic in the real world.

And trust me, I do realize earrings are different beasts than rings. In general I am not a fan of modern RB but I use them for studs that I wear. My first set I bought are what would be considered "ideal" They were bought years ago from a trusted jeweler who took time to educate me on cut quality of diamonds. My second set were a little larger and not quite as tight of a cut so to speak, but still well above the average cut. My third were even larger and those are the ones I intentionally bought as shallow. I realized for earrings for me, I prefer shallow and I also made the discovery that I really don't like the pattern of contrast arrows give. That's why I am more fond of older cuts for myself. The symmetry being off and the different angles used really bring out a look that I like. The 8 arrows drive me mad for some reason and I just don't appreciate them in large stones at all. (For those who have them, don't worry I don't think they are inferior just not for me) Oddly enough the earrings really taught me a lot about my tolerances for diamonds and definitely the modern RB.

I am not sure why you are bringing up focus distance or anything like that though this time because I don't recall mentioning that at all. I did a lot of testing with my point and shoot after the last discussion since I was curious about the shadows mentioned before on the tweezers. I have said it before, I am not new to photography, though I am more to how to get a point and shoot to work to my advantage since I hadn't used one in many years (just got a small one this winter to keep in my purse at all times). I have taken classes and I have even sold some prints in the past of nature scenes. I do not do anything really serious with photography any longer as I don't have time. I hope to again in the future though.

So my points that I spoke to Kenny about were simply addressing the light on the tips of the tweezers. Nothing else. That was Kenny's argument about how he knows the diamonds are back lit. Which I was trying to say you can't tell just from a shadow. Photos are 2D and sometimes the shadows do not react the way you might think.

Nothing at all was about depth of focus. If you are referring to my comment about the point and shoot not being able to get a decent shot of a diamond with the light source from behind, that has to do all with automatic focusing and nothing to do with depth of field. The camera simply could not find the diamond to focus on with such a strong source in the background. Everything came out blurry. I hope you understand what I am saying. Not a single photography class that I have taken will help with that Maybe a better camera in my case, but it isn't a user error so to speak.

I simply stated that yes I see a difference in David's photos and I get why many of them are brighter. I just do not agree with you on them being bad.

Like I said I have bought a lot of vintage pieces and am more used to David's style of photography. Some in brighter indoor lights, some in sunlight, some somewhere in between. I like seeing stones in all those conditions since it really does help me decide if an older stone is good. I'm very used to this style and I like it. I personally get a better feel for a stone with this type of photography than I do some vendors. Then again I am looking for the stone's personality which I want. Probably why I like leaky stones... they have their own personality that speak to me and I need photographs that will show me if it has the right feel for me or not.

I have a feeling that like cut preferences, we won't agree. Not that it is bad, just that it is what it is.

I hope people realize I have spent a lot of time in the last decade or more trying to learn about diamonds and why I like what I like. There is one jeweler in my area that has taught me a lot and I've seen all ranges of cuts. I may have not been here for years and years but I have spent a lot of time looking at stones over time and have made my own decision about what is good for me or not. No, I could not tell you what angles are "perfect" for a RB because that is not something I really appreciate so I never bothered to learn.

I personally believe people will want a specific type of photo or video when looking at a stone. I do not think that any vendor I've seen here (obviously not including ebay listings since that's hit or miss) try to be deceptive. Old World Diamond photos are different than James Allen whose are different than Jewels by Erica Grace whose are different than Diamonds By Lauren. All these people and all the PS Vendors have different styles and IMO one isn't right. I have ones I like better, but I know not everyone will like what I do and vice versa.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

To reinforce that all modified brilliant cushions are not crushed ice I give you the link to own them all:

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6929/

That is the first AVC Ive seen listed as that and its weird becuse they show the same crown and pavillion cuts as the stones labeled cushion brilliant. Not sure what the grader was smoking that day.

Yes GIAL and AGSL were a little inconsistant before. GIA got straight Nov 2009 onwards, AGSL still had a few inconsistencies which were corrected about March 2010. I wrote about the naming conventions in my article http://www.pricescope.com/journal/new_gia_and_agsl_naming_conventions_cushion_cut_diamonds.

EDIT: Ive found another one labeled modified and also one labeled old mine brillant. Seems AGS is just all over the map with naming conventions.

On another note I still havent found a high-amount-of-virtual-facets stone (the previously posted doesnt look virtualized enough to me) that has good light return. Every stone Ive found still has noticable light loss through the pavillion. I am lead to believe that the virtual facets are really a result of the diamonds inability to retain all the light and we only see whats left.

Leakage and virtual facets are two independant terms although I can see why you feel they are linked. The ideal Tolk round has hundreds of VFs but very little leakage see below.

I have also given up the use of the terms "crushed ice", "light performance" and "leakage". All these terms seem to spark arguments around here so I will be replacing these terms with "high amount of virtual facets", "light return", and "light loss through the pavillion".

Sounds good to me

 

[Doc_1]

HI Doc,
Why are the variables not being discussed? I am certainly discussing them, and taking them into account.
These variables make the results of reflector technology far less important, and meaningful.
By comparing reflector technology to MRI or Ct scan you are drawing the conversation to comparisons between medical advances and reflector technology which is a very poor comparison.
You use the term "cut quality"- who's to say which cut is the best quality? By no means is "cut quality" a constant- particularly when discussing cushions.
Who's to say that a diamond drawing light from different angles won't be just as beautiful?
I'm not an advocate of consumers using ASET- and for the reasons I discussed.
We can see the results of these mixed messages in the title of this thread.
Why are readers led to believe "crushed ice" is a negative aspect?

Doc, say someone studied all they could about medicine on the internet. Would that qualify them to diagnose people?

I posed a question to Jon- do his diamonds leak?
Doc, do you think leakage, by definition, is a bad thing?

We all know that a lump under the skin is a potential life threatening situation.
Is leakage?
Is it correct to draw comparisons between the two?

None of this has anything to do with "laws of physics" as the resultant diamond is not going to be judged by a machine- rather by the eye.
Taking theplunge- sorry, but the term "light return" as it applies to this conversation is just as prejudicial as "leakage", "Light Performance" and "Crushed Ice"
The reason relates to my comments about Doc's post.
If a machine can measure that one diamond returns more light than another, does that make it more beautiful?
No- Therefore quantifying "light return is meaningless.
There are diamonds that return less light that are far more beautiful to many observers.

HI RD

I will repeat again what seems you do not want to see in my post.

The tools that map how the light goes inside the diamond are greatly welcome to me, i do not know about you it is your own business, but to me that is the first stage when i look for a diamond.

the most important stage in my decision is my own EDUCATED eyes...and i do not know how many times i repeated that one, i think this is the third or fourth time.

The comparison between our diagnostic tools and those diamond diagnostic tools are very close, both add in info and result in a wiser decision.

Then who said that diamonds are light tight even with the best cut ever existed, if so you will not see any thing back from the diamond except for a mirror reflection only since the light would not get into it if that was the case, i never said that for sure and am not sure if any one can make such a claim breaking the laws of physics.

For every surface in the diamond there is a part of the hitting light that is going to be reflected, and part that is going to go through, now maximizing the reflected portion based on the angles and the surfaces and directing most of it to the seeing eye is the art and science of cutting the diamond, creating more virtual facets is the industries solasferas, 129 facets....etc, so increasing the chances of making the diamond dance from whatever angle the light hits it, saying so some are in love with lesser chances of the light performance when the light hits the diamond's lesser virtual facets but larger ones........ and when the angle is right there goes the firework and light power house like in AVC that eclipse the wimpy pinpointed "crushed ice", and it happened that i am one of those that like the bold broad reflections .

And if you want to discuss variables CATARACT is a variable in the perceiving eye...do you want to discuss that?

I do respect you as a vendor and i weigh in your opinion. I expect the same from you to me as a customer.

 

[Dancing Fire]

HI All,
There are many Cushion Modified Brilliant stones that face up larger than Cushion Brilliant Stones- I'd say a "Modified" ( Nice crushed ice variety) is just as likely to be a "spreadier" stone- that is to say, looking large for it's weight.

There are some varieties of modified that are HUGE for their weight- because they are cut very shallow.
This is an area where many stones could conceivably be called "badly cut"- yet might still be desirable based on visual characteristics ( a 3.00 that looks like a five carat, for example)

RD...you are one of the very few who loves "PANCAKE" diamonds. if you have a secret formula to cut a 3ct into one that would look like a "well made 5ct" then i'm sure you can sell a truck load.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Doc- I have seen a lot of advice given that I believe to be wrong for the person asking.
As a tradesperson I can't comment on other sellers stones- even if they are being "dissed" unnecessarily.
In discussions like this I am allowed to question certain "givens" around here.
Doc, thanks for participating. You have alot of great points.
Having said that, remember I'm a New Yawka, and who's Crushed Ice are you calling "wimpy"?

You'll never hear me say chunky is not beautiful.

But performing better on a reflector does not necessarily make a stone more beautiful.
If you look at the current production of round diamonds, they follow the path you lay out, in your analysis of light performance.
For this reason, less consumers are presented with stones they might prefer more.
If I'm buying an RBC for DW it's 60/60. No Hearts and Arrows.
I won't use Sarin/ASET/IS/HCA even if the stone is $2,000,000
You judge by how it looks.
Doc, I agree that you wold likely be able to use reflector technology to assist you in getting the type of diamond you want.
Other people may want different types of diamonds- that might perform badly on the reflector.

It is a science, diamond cutting.
But some of it is almost primitive.
Yes, the computer is used to plot out the design- making the most efficient use of the rough.
But the stone is cut by hand on a cutting wheel- held in a "dop"
Human pressure is what makes it so shiny. Stone cutting goes way back- and is a large part of why diamonds are what they are.

When Henry Grossbard invented the radiant, he had "light performance" in mind- however he did not envision it performing the way a lot of the most vocal folks here think is best.
The design has evolved to where skilled cutters can adapt the modified design to create dazzling stones- adjusting facets where necessary so that the sparkle extends from "girdle to girdle"

The discussion stays heated as one side insists on quantifying things - "oh, that stone is cut better"
Of course some stones are clearly cut better than others- yet the basis of many of considerations raised about a fair percentage of stones here is not applicable.
Put simply: on many occasions well cut stones are dissed simply because they are not of the taste of the person making the comment.
It's not just crushed ice.
We have warnings of "leakage", Steep Deep, painting, digging, head obstruction, I could go on........

But this discussion was about "Crushed Ice" cushions. Which I still contend can be extremely well cut, and have just as many attractive aspects as "chunky Cushions"

 

[Dancing Fire]

Whatsnew Welcome to Pricescope,

In Rockytalky we advise people on how to do their homework and how to make informed purchase decisions.
As a non tradesmember I donate considerable amounts of time and effort to this goal.

Trust your eyes once you have educated them.

Simplified Example:

Customer walks into a high end diamond shop of a vendor who doesn't use modern technology for diamond selection and only sells generic diamonds:

Dealer shows them 10 diamonds they are all pretty no surprise, diamonds in jewelry store lights usually are.
Customer being diamond savvy views the diamonds in the window, under a table etc. and then finds now only 3 are pretty to them in different lighting.
Dealer says "trust my experience and what your eyes see" and suggests one of the three.
Customer purchases that diamond and is confident they chose the most beautiful diamond for them. After all it was the best one out of the 10 and the "expert" dealer with 30 years experience said so.

Now customer walks down the street and looks at some branded diamonds with all the reflector tests available, priced 10 - 20% more and says wow my "most beautiful" diamond isn't as beautiful as these ones I wish I had paid the premium.

yep,IMO...there're no such thing as a cheap beautiful looking diamond.something got to give and most likely it would be the cut quality of the stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI All,
There are many Cushion Modified Brilliant stones that face up larger than Cushion Brilliant Stones- I'd say a "Modified" ( Nice crushed ice variety) is just as likely to be a "spreadier" stone- that is to say, looking large for it's weight.

There are some varieties of modified that are HUGE for their weight- because they are cut very shallow.
This is an area where many stones could conceivably be called "badly cut"- yet might still be desirable based on visual characteristics ( a 3.00 that looks like a five carat, for example)

RD...you are one of the very few who loves "PANCAKE" diamonds. if you have a secret formula to cut a 3ct into one that would look like a "well made 5ct" then i'm sure you can sell a truck load.

This was a stone Daussi cut from a few years back.
It was badly cut by many standards used here, so it's a good example.
There was certainly leakage in the table. "Like a sieve" might be an apt description.
I'm not saying it should be considered a "well cut diamond" by anyone's standards. But it would be, regardless.
WEIGHT: 5.38ct
SHAPE: Cushion Brilliant
MEASUREMENTS: 12.04 x 9.58 x 5.11 mm
TOTAL DEPTH: 53.3%
TABLE SIZE: 61%
It was an 8main Cushion Brilliant ( non Modifed)

note to ccl- the plot is so unlike the diamond- GIA has gotten better. The GIA report was Feb 2009

I'd say there's agood chance this might be called "slushy"
Weak points: you've got this leakage ( or call it obstruction) thing which ends up looking something like a bowtie- yet from a lot of angles it glitters.
Maybe a weak point is that a more tradional well cut stone will maintain brillliance through a greater degree of tilt.
A stone of this depth may show some windowing at lesser degree of tilt. This one did.

But if you check the measurments, it looks more like many of the 7+carat stones in the PS db.

I'm just saying- call this type of stone badly cut if you want- but others would not- if for no other reason it looks very large for its' weight- and the large facet shallow depth give it a lot of "glitter"

I have hung around a lot with "Mavens" in the diamond business. Top people in large companies.
Many would agree such stones are not the "best cut"- But not everyone knows that the better cut diamond is actually better.
Even if you show them stones that are the best cut, then explain why it handles light better, and so on.
Show them the windowing, leakage, etc- they still might pick the lesser cut stone. Lesser by some standards. Not by all.
Then when you consider that the rough was "squeezed out" to get the stone- no one was cheated- it was the best possible use of that rough.
Shoppers of this type of stone should look for a lower price as compared to a stone of tradional better cut.

 

[CharmyPoo]

I only have one word to describe that Daussi Cushion - ugly. Sorry but that's what comes to mind. I rather have a small diamond than wear a diamond that looks like a piece of glass on my finger.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc- I have seen a lot of advice given that I believe to be wrong for the person asking.
As a tradesperson I can't comment on other sellers stones- even if they are being "dissed" unnecessarily.
In discussions like this I am allowed to question certain "givens" around here.
Doc, thanks for participating. You have alot of great points.
Having said that, remember I'm a New Yawka, and who's Crushed Ice are you calling "wimpy"?

Calling things for what they are is one of the great points i made and i will always make, a SMALL pinpoint reflection looks wimpy compared to a Bold reflection of light, after all there has to be the opposite description of CHUNKY .

You'll never hear me say chunky is not beautiful.

But performing better on a reflector does not necessarily make a stone more beautiful.
If you look at the current production of round diamonds, they follow the path you lay out, in your analysis of light performance.
For this reason, less consumers are presented with stones they might prefer more.
If I'm buying an RBC for DW it's 60/60. No Hearts and Arrows.
I won't use Sarin/ASET/IS/HCA even if the stone is $2,000,000
You judge by how it looks.
Doc, I agree that you wold likely be able to use reflector technology to assist you in getting the type of diamond you want.
Other people may want different types of diamonds- that might perform badly on the reflector.

It is a science, diamond cutting.
But some of it is almost primitive.
Yes, the computer is used to plot out the design- making the most efficient use of the rough.
But the stone is cut by hand on a cutting wheel- held in a "dop"
Human pressure is what makes it so shiny. Stone cutting goes way back- and is a large part of why diamonds are what they are.

When Henry Grossbard invented the radiant, he had "light performance" in mind- however he did not envision it performing the way a lot of the most vocal folks here think is best.
The design has evolved to where skilled cutters can adapt the modified design to create dazzling stones- adjusting facets where necessary so that the sparkle extends from "girdle to girdle"

The discussion stays heated as one side insists on quantifying things - "oh, that stone is cut better"
Of course some stones are clearly cut better than others- yet the basis of many of considerations raised about a fair percentage of stones here is not applicable.
Put simply: on many occasions well cut stones are dissed simply because they are not of the taste of the person making the comment.
It's not just crushed ice.
We have warnings of "leakage", Steep Deep, painting, digging, head obstruction, I could go on........

But this discussion was about "Crushed Ice" cushions. Which I still contend can be extremely well cut, and have just as many attractive aspects as "chunky Cushions"

I will conclude with this :
To each his/her own.
Advising any one to have the final decision made by an educated eyes is out of care and concern. I just wish she will find what she is looking for and to wear it in good health.

 

[Rhino]

I admit I have been reading this thread with interest. There are some types of "crushed ice" that I am not a fan of and other types I am. I don't like the really watery look in the tip of a pear or marquise, but on your nicely cut marquise and pear stones I consider that nice "crushed ice"

Oddly enough I like the nice crushed ice look as well as the very bold flashes. I really don't like much in between. In fact I cannot stand seeing patterns unless they are very large (like emerald cut as well as asschers) I dislike large rounds and most princess cuts where you can see a defined "X" for that very reason.

I think that look is a total preference thing and I would be very wary to put down anyone who does like that look. Maybe I am a bit defensive since I do have a what I find a lovely lemon crushed ice stone. I looked at all types of stones out there before I decided. And yes, I looked at AGS0 rounds as well as some other "ideal" cut stones. They aren't for me. Doesn't mean they are bad. In fact I am shocked that I don't like most stones that have "optimal optics" My eye doesn't find them pleasing. I prefer a nice crushed ice stone, a vintage round or cushion, asschers and some emeralds. Everything else is just kind of "eh" to me. Not that they are bad, I just don't think they fit me and my style.

I would suggest to anyone to look around at all types of videos and see what your eye finds pleasing. If you like "ideal cuts" by all means use numbers. If you don't, like me, the eye is worth a whole lot more.

Hi clgwli,

Thanks for your input. Nobody's putting anyone down here and I think you're crushed ice fancy colored radiant is absolutely beautiful. In the clip I'm putting together you'll see how this type of cutting can and does actually enhance body color. In colorless and near colorless diamonds negatively but in fancies, just amazing. In natural lighting I show how from cutting alone how an H can look yellower than an I and and I look whiter than a G all because of this effect. Regardless of personal preference everyone is entitled to their opinion and in the end ultimately votes with their own dollars. What makes each individual happy with their purchase is what counts. My online buying philosophy is just to be as informed as humanly possible. It's an important purchase and there is no such thing as being too careful IMO.

All the best,