Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[ChunkyCushionLover]

HI All,
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

RD,

Your typical tweezer shot, presented as a beauty shot has a strong component of pavilion lighting.
The result, diamond looks like glass, I suspect this diamond wasn't even as "glass like" as its appearance in your photograph.

Would look more like this when the pavilion is fully or partially blocked, in the most common range of settings, when worn on the hand.


(For the the benefit of others, Daussi cushions have proportions all over the place so no two are exactly alike.)

RD I suspect you don't agree with my example of showing a Daussi cushion in the GIA diamond dock(specially designed by the lab to compare diamonds) and the lab's recommended tray.

If so, here is a friendly reminder of your posts in the Daussi Cushion Thread "I'll be very happy to get one or a few [sarin] scans [of Daussi Cushions] performed" over in this thread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/aset-of-a-daussi.143296/page-3#post-2692527#p2692527.

With this Sarin scan, Diamcalc users(many on this forum) can produce a video simulation of how this diamond will perform under a wide variety of lighting conditions. Are those scans coming? Or would you prefer we in this forum only consider these cushions in the most appealing manner to your eyes?

 

[Doc_1]

CCL

I think i have seen this diamond you posted on a vid, and it did never stand up to the other diamond it was compared to in different lighting condition. it was cut for the spread, not for the optics.

I agree with you that the industry is going towards optic optimization cuts. and sure it has and will have many many followers among customers that will justify the trend.

 

[clgwli]

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,

I say this with all due respect, but even on this very thread people are putting down cuts that others love. I would be interested to see the video you speak of here though. I have noticed it myself while looking at fancy cuts in general. I had to look at colorless stones (J and above) to see which cut I liked best as finding good natural colored diamonds in my area isn't easy. Even if you ask for some to be called in. I had 3 jewelers say they would find something and absolutely zero called back to tell me they had what I wanted to look at. So in order to decide what cut & shape I wanted, I had to look at colorless stones. So I can say I have seen how good and bad cuts look as well as how it may affect color.

I admit I am a Daussi fan. I have seen them in video, photos and in person finally. I don't own one because I liked the crushed ice look better. I keep thinking some day a small one for a pendant, but I am kind of unsure still of what look I want for an every day look.

CCL I assume that you pulled that picture from the video on Rhino's site? It looks very familiar to me. I admit I do not like the look of that particular stone due to the over all shape, but I have to admit the Daussi stones I have seen in person look very different in RL than they did in the video. Granted yes, Daussi stones are all over the place with how they are cut but I don't think that photo is as accurate as what I saw.

And no, I didn't just see them in bright store lighting before you go there. I may not have as many posts or been here that long, but I have looked at stones a ton. I do research everything before I buy. It took me about a year to decide which stone I wanted. Granted I didn't find pricescope until I searched for M and below colored stones, but this isn't the only way I can learn.

Again it is a thing of taste and not sure what the point of putting down a Daussi stone is here. I don't personally like RBs but I don't sit here and try to trash an AGS0 simply because I think it looks like they have icky spider legs

Yes that was a joke, but I hope you see my point.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

CLGWLI,

I am not disparaging these two Daussi cushions here. I make a distinction between clear opinions like "a brand I love" from a descriptive comment "glass like".

If you and RD are going to champion this line of Cushions(which is your right), I say present a balanced view of these stones in numerous lighting conditions. RD presented his, and I presented the standardized GIA DD lighting and tray used by Rhino. I find this method is closer to real viewing conditions as in most settings the pavilion is partially or fully blocked.

Since RD's lighting and photography methods are "proprietary and secret" the great equalizer will be taking a sarin which he has already said he would do, and then myself or others will simulate the stone in structured lighting using Diamcalc. The entire post is meant to encourage RD to finally post those sarin scans he promised 3 months ago.

What would you rather do defend a Daussi Cushion in a one sided manner, or educate and present them in a objective and standardized way so that we can all learn?

Your post though is a little contradictory and confusing please clarify:

1) You are a Daussi fan but don't like this particular Daussi Cushion.
2) You think Daussi cushions don't have a crushed ice look, but there is one with this appearance in the photograph I posted, and two more like it in the video.

CCL I assume that you pulled that picture from the video on Rhino's site?

No I pulled it from here http://www.vimeo.com/13234387.

I should add Rhino has never made a disparaging comment about the Daussi brand, not in the video and not in any public forum. He respects cut diversity and consumer choice and shot the video in an unbiased manner to educate consumers and receive opinions. If you feel strongly about the video not being representative or the stones not being the best of the Daussi line you may feel compelled to post in the video comments to the other consumers who made comments and connected the stones in the video to the Daussi brand.

 

[Rhino]

Hi clgwli,

Thanks for your response. Dave, I saw yours to mine and will respond shortly as time allows. My thoughts between yours clg.

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,

I say this with all due respect, but even on this very thread people are putting down cuts that others love.

It's one thing to put another person down for their opinion but it is another thing to express ones personal opinion about what they think about a particular cut. There is a difference. One is personal the other is not and I realize it is sometimes difficult to delineate the difference. I see people have expressed their opinion on cuts they do not care for and simply do not like. We are all free to express those opinions and there is no harm in that. I myself am vocal about my personal preferences but I do not put anyone down who does not share my preferences. That is personal. There are people who do not like princess cuts. I happen to love certain princess cuts but I would never criticize a person's preference against them. Same with what I describe as watery crushed ice. I do not care for them and majority of people I show the comparisons to do not either but if someone came in and said I LOVE THAT, I would not put them down for that. My job as a distributor is learning what it is that pleases the eyes of the individual person I am helping and help them to find that. My own personal preference is not even considered when I do this unless I am asked.

I would be interested to see the video you speak of here though. I have noticed it myself while looking at fancy cuts in general. I had to look at colorless stones (J and above) to see which cut I liked best as finding good natural colored diamonds in my area isn't easy. Even if you ask for some to be called in. I had 3 jewelers say they would find something and absolutely zero called back to tell me they had what I wanted to look at. So in order to decide what cut & shape I wanted, I had to look at colorless stones. So I can say I have seen how good and bad cuts look as well as how it may affect color.

That is good. There is a girl who used to post here named Valerie and her little quote at the end of her posts said "A person's experience is the sum total of what they have seen/experienced." Or something like that. The more we see the more we learn so that is good that you educated yourself as best you could to make as informed a decision as possible. This is what its all about in the end. Having peace of mind about our decisions. I had published the clip on my Vimeo account if you are interested to watch.

[I admit I am a Daussi fan. I have seen them in video, photos and in person finally. I don't own one because I liked the crushed ice look better. I keep thinking some day a small one for a pendant, but I am kind of unsure still of what look I want for an every day look.

If you like them then you should get one.

CCL I assume that you pulled that picture from the video on Rhino's site? It looks very familiar to me. I admit I do not like the look of that particular stone due to the over all shape, but I have to admit the Daussi stones I have seen in person look very different in RL than they did in the video. Granted yes, Daussi stones are all over the place with how they are cut but I don't think that photo is as accurate as what I saw.

And no, I didn't just see them in bright store lighting before you go there. I may not have as many posts or been here that long, but I have looked at stones a ton. I do research everything before I buy. It took me about a year to decide which stone I wanted. Granted I didn't find pricescope until I searched for M and below colored stones, but this isn't the only way I can learn.

Again it is a thing of taste and not sure what the point of putting down a Daussi stone is here. I don't personally like RBs but I don't sit here and try to trash an AGS0 simply because I think it looks like they have icky spider legs

Yes that was a joke, but I hope you see my point.

[/quote]

LOL... it is perfectly ok to express how much you hate rounds! That is your opinion and your entitled to it. Thank God we live in a country we can do that in.

Kind regards,

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI All,
ccl- thank you for reminding me of my committment to get a Sarin ( or OGI) scan of a Daussi.
It being Friday, a lot of places that I would have it done are closed- but I will make sure to have one drawn on Monday.
No time to respond to some important points that have been raised at this moment- I'll try a bit later.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

HI All,
ccl- thank you for reminding me of my committment to get a Sarin ( or OGI) scan of a Daussi.
It being Friday, a lot of places that I would have it done are closed- but I will make sure to have one drawn on Monday.
No time to respond to some important points that have been raised at this moment- I'll try a bit later.

Have a nice week-end. If I had my preference it would be the most accurate helium scanner, sarin is fine too. We need the full file in a format like .srn that can be imported into DC. Very pleased to see your commitment to education

 

[CharmyPoo]

I don't personally like RBs but I don't sit here and try to trash an AGS0 simply because I think it looks like they have icky spider legs

<PIC REMOVED - IT WAS TOO SCARY>

 

[Rhino]

I don't personally like RBs but I don't sit here and try to trash an AGS0 simply because I think it looks like they have icky spider legs

LOL!

 

[clgwli]

I'll come back later, but I nearly had a heart attack there Charmy... I hate spiders. I really do, they scare me to death! So as I scrolled for a split second I thought I was going to see one. If I had I would never have come back to this thread to avoid the picture

Yes I am laughing at myself now, but wow for a second you had me there! I do have pizza to make for my family tonight (dough is mixing right now) and errands to run before the bank closes, but I will be back later to comment on other things I want to

 

[CharmyPoo]

Sorry .. just trying to lighten the mood here.

I removed the picture .. so we don't have to see it over and over again.

Jon - can you edit your post and pull it out too?

 

[Rhino]

done

 

[Rhino]

Wazzup amigo.

Thoughts below.

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.

Amen to that.

First, I ask you this- is it fair for you to repeat claims of "backlighting" when you admit you have not studied my photos?

Only made this comment once and based on what I've read here. Is it fair for me to repeant claims of it? I'm not. If I was not sure of anything and wanted to investigate and clarify I'd ask you directly or just call ya. You know my line is always open to you as well.

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.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying. Also, I do not align myself with anyone nor do I allow the personal opinions of people to dissuade me one way or another when it comes to facts and factual data. I am friends with Kenny and CCL as I am with many people but this does not determine what I think or believe one way or the other regarding diamond beauty or appearance. It is true that majority consumer opinion will influence what I purchase for inventory (ie. I'm not going to lay out lots of capital for things that will collect dust) but insofar as data goes ... nope.

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.

That's honest. I think its good that you make the effort and that you are service oriented. 99% of websites out there make no effort but then again they are set up this way and that is their business model. People may not like how you or I represent the diamonds in the manner we do but at least we are doing what we can to show what it is we see and how we perceive it.

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.

I just published mine earlier but woudl like to see what you classify as watery and what you classify as bright.

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.

I think we may have different things in mind with regards to how we're defining darkfield illumination. The type I'm talking about is microsopic darkfield illumination as defined by the labs. Not necessarily a dark room. Microscopes with darkfield illumination provide strong lighting hitting the pavilion from underneath and to the sides with the light directly covered from directly underneath the diamond in the microscope. This type of illumination literally lights up any pinpoints or imperfections within the diamond being analyzed making clarity grading that much easier.

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?

Nope.





LOL... jk Dave, all diamonds leak to some degree. I will say this though, most of the ones we feature are handpicked to elminate, as much as humanly possible excessive leakage on the pavilion. Leakage however is only one part of the equation. A diamond's pavilion can be as reflective as possible yet if the crown is drawing in too many reflectinos from resources that are not bright but dark ... darkness in = darkness out even when the pavilion is not leaking. Those would be diaonds suffering from too much head/body shadow. Akin to heavy bowties we see in fancies. Leakage can positively influence the appearance in diamond if it is properly distributed amongst bright reflections. if it isn't though then it will contribute to a watery appearance regardless of the shape.

Kind regards,

 

[clgwli]

Sorry .. just trying to lighten the mood here.

I removed the picture .. so we don't have to see it over and over again.

Jon - can you edit your post and pull it out too?

Oh dear! I so didn't mean for you to do that. Really I found it funny, but you did get me at first. It wasn't too scary, but you are so kind to think of others (both of you)

CCL, I am not entirely sure why this is such an argument right now. I just lost a long post thanks to my son pushing a button so if this is short sounding, it's out of my frustration with having to retype. And I only have until the pizza is out of the oven to re-write this. But I have this bad feeling I was read wrong or rubbed you the wrong way. I am not here to argue and prove you wrong. Just here to discuss. Yes I got on the back lighting issue because I know shadows aren't always the correct thing to use to judge where light is coming from and since David says he doesn't back light, why do people say he is? That kind of stuff bugs me I admit. I am a bit "harsh sounding" I know particularly for a Midwestern gal but I blame it on my spitfire attitude. I always say us petite little gals are way too spunky at times. So I apologize if you ever thought I was trying to be mean. It sure wasn't my intention.

I am not trying to say the Daussi should be pushed, just saying I like the majority of the ones I see. This isn't about right or wrong for me but just a preference and stating that one preference isn't better than another. It is just that. A preference and definitely not trying to champion it since I know it is a niche type of cut (much like the CrissCut that I also adore).

Now I realize that Jon uses the GIA DD for stones and I am actually not so much a fan of those. I will am not going to pick on the GIA DD but like in certain home remodeling places they have a box for you to put your paint & cabinet color choices in and then you choose the lighting so you can see what your choices will look like in different lighting. I never find them to be all that good for me as not one room is just lit with CFLs or sun or incandescent lighting. It's usually a mix of at least two. So the colors I see there aren't always accurate. Again this isn't meant to be an exact comparison, but I wanted to take the GIA DD out specifically as well as any other "box" a jewelry store has shown me and make it similar w/o pointing bad fingers. Because I really do not want to point a negative finger at the GIA DD as I know how useful it is!

Now keep in mind this is a preference of mine. I actually like it when Jon places a stone in a temporary holder and takes it next to his window, or outside in the sunshine or on a cloudy day. To me *that* is what I see when I look at my jewelry. My family room is a mix of soft CLF and a LOT of sunlight. My kitchen has very bright CFLs and an average amount of sunlight. They aren't just one type or another and that's my only issue with the GIA DD is that it is so controlled I never see a stone actually looking like that. That is what I was getting at when I said the stones I saw didn't look like what I saw in the video.

Again it is a preference of mine and I hope it makes sense. I don't have an issue with GIA DDs at all obviously, for me, I just would want additional video in other lighting.

I was never saying that we should not look at a stone in an educated manner so I am not sure why you wrote that bolded part. The original point of this thread was if crushed ice is bad or not. My opinion is just an opinion and I wasn't here to debate education. In fact I said to look at lots of stones (via video if need be) and see what you love and then choose your stone.

I also fail to see how I was contradictory. I said I am a fan of Daussi stones in general. That particular stone you posted was of an over all shape that I am not keen on for my own personal reason. I just don't like the outline of the stone.

I don't consider personally that most Daussi (though i am sure there are ones out there) to have a crushed ice look, no. They have a different type of sparkle to them that my crushed ice radiant has. It's my point of view. I suppose right at the very tip there would be some sort of crushed ice look, but in general I don't consider them to be "a crushed ice stone" because the vast majority of the stone does not look at all like my radiant.

And a correction, I was referring to Jon's vimeo site (not GOG as it was implied in my post) so yes, we are speaking of the same video. It's been a while since I have watched it and I honestly do not have time at the moment. I didn't comment on the site because I am not one to do that. Don't ask why, but I just don't LOL

Jon, you brought up a valid point about what I read as a put down. When I see someone say (and this is not specific to anyone just making up a mix of something I might have read) "that stone is a dog! I wouldn't be seen with such a fugly thing" Again made that up. I read that as an insult. It's probably not meant to be, but in the world of text translations get lost. I need to be more aware of that. I guess for me instead of saying "God that is a rank looking stone" I would say "Not my taste" keeping in mind someone is going to buy that stone and will probably be insulted if they ever read what I say about it. I spent a lot of time at my job doing nearly all my work via e-mail and a little over the phone. I learned quickly to choose my words carefully based on some bad reactions our group got LOL

I do agree that one needs to look at a lot of stones to decide what is right or not. I like that quote that Valerie had. I agree with that totally!

I look forward to seeing the scan of the Daussi stone. I really do like learning about what I like. I have personally given up trying to figure out why I like things, but it is still fascinating all the same to see the scans and particularly in motion. I spend a lot of time inspecting my radiant still and looking at where and how much leakage is for example to see if I can figure out what makes me love it so. I haven't found an answer yet, but I still enjoy looking!

I hope I addressed everything. By the smell in my kitchen I think I am out of time. If I said something that doesn't make sense, feel free to ask and I will be glad to try to explain as I do feel rushed. And for anyone in NY curious, my pizza is closer to NY style than to Chicago and I love it that way

 

[Rockdiamond]

CCL

I think i have seen this diamond you posted on a vid, and it did never stand up to the other diamond it was compared to in different lighting condition. it was cut for the spread, not for the optics.

I agree with you that the industry is going towards optic optimization cuts. and sure it has and will have many many followers among customers that will justify the trend.

So many good points to discuss.
One repeating theme is a point I have raised countless times- that being, semantics are very important.
A statement like the one above is designed to assign scientifically quantify the cut....and has "better optics" therefore it's "scientifically" better- and this can be proved with reflector technology. The lesser, is not as a good cut - even going as far as questioning the motivation of the cutter.
One is for "optics", the other for "spread"
Is optics better than spread?
Does the other stone not have "optics"
Is what one person prefers "better" optics than what another person prefers?

As far as general trends in the industry: No, it's not a large trend towards "optics" in fancy shapes. I get to look at hundreds, sometimes thousands of carats a month- mostly fancy shapes.
Cutters will always need to use the rough in the way that produces profit.
The rough used to cut Daussi - and other shallow cushions can't be cut with the necessary crown height to make the more symmetrical H&A type of fancy- or an older style high crown cushion.
So it's a matter of ingenuity- use the existing rough.

In round diamonds, as I mentioned before, I see a trend towards small tables, more attention paid to optical symmetry resulting in a high percentage of stones I see -even ones that are not all that well cut- have the same type of face up look.
Lately the "off make" ( badly cut) stones I've been seeing are mainly thick girdle, deep stones.
The parcel below is off make goods. The arrow is pointing to a fisheye- horrible looking stone.


Many of the others faced pretty well- but they were thick- they were carat and a half stones that faced up like one and a quarter well cut stones.


Still, I feel pretty sure Jon will agree that it's very difficult to find the type of stones that you would classify as having "superior optics" ( hearts and arrows fancy shapes)
There are few cutters that carry these goods- specialty for sure.
I do agree it may become more popular over time- but will always be a small slice of the market overall.

 

[Rockdiamond]

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,

Jon, I am really glad we're able to have this type of conversation- I believe that both of us share the passion- at almost polar opposites.
Of course we both know, that as members of this industry, we could count on the other guy - if need be- regardless of our differences.
I like and respect you a lot.

Of course we still see things a bit differently.
For example- you mentioned that "In colorless and near colorless diamonds negatively but in fancies, just amazing." referring to the "crushed ice look."
Part of the difficulty is quantifying what is "crushed ice".
It's a lot easier to quantify, and document perfect optical symmetry, as opposed to what the "crushed ice" effect achieves- basically a cacophony of sparkle- not organized at all, therefore more difficult to quantify.
I bring this up because I find that the type of modifications made to the pavilion are different on the best cut fancy colors, as compared to the best cut colorless.
Stones below I-J in color can show a lot more than a round- these photos show how the rounds and this particular cushion seem to be fairly close in color viewed from behind- but face up the cushion shows more color.



However this particular M colored cushion was cut more like a fancy color. I believe you would call this stone a "slushy ice" variety.
There were a lot of differences in both crown, as and pavilion design between this type of stone, and a well cut colorless crushed ice stone.
The best J color and higher stones can be cut to minimize the color retention- and are certainly comparable- of not better, when compared to Emerald Cut.
In very high colors ( D-E-F) the difference in color retention between a round brilliant, and the best cut radiant can be hardly detectable

 

[Rockdiamond]

CLGWLI,

I am not disparaging these two Daussi cushions here. I make a distinction between clear opinions like "a brand I love" from a descriptive comment "glass like".

If you and RD are going to champion this line of Cushions(which is your right), I say present a balanced view of these stones in numerous lighting conditions. RD presented his, and I presented the standardized GIA DD lighting and tray used by Rhino. I find this method is closer to real viewing conditions as in most settings the pavilion is partially or fully blocked.
The standardized GIA DD Lighting and tray show one view, my photos show another. You can not grade diamonds for color clarity or cut in a tray. They must be held below a light so that it flows through the pavilion.
We all know you can't grade a stone set in a bezel- because it obscures to much of the stone. Tweezers obscure a tiny percentage of the stone.
Prongs and an open basket obscure more than tweezers- but far less than the diamond dock- which certainly has it's purposes.

Since RD's lighting and photography methods are "proprietary and secret" the great equalizer will be taking a sarin which he has already said he would do, and then myself or others will simulate the stone in structured lighting using Diamcalc. The entire post is meant to encourage RD to finally post those sarin scans he promised 3 months ago.
I use natural and fluorescent lighting, tweezers, a point and shoot camera ( although I bought a digital SLR this morning to try out). I would also point out that in my photo, you can pretty clearly see the inclusions in the stone- and also the facet pattern is clear.

I will either ask Stan Grossbard to run a scan, or send a Daussi Cushion up to the DDC to have a scan run there.


What would you rather do defend a Daussi Cushion in a one sided manner, or educate and present them in a objective and standardized way so that we can all learn?

Your post though is a little contradictory and confusing please clarify:

1) You are a Daussi fan but don't like this particular Daussi Cushion.
2) You think Daussi cushions don't have a crushed ice look, but there is one with this appearance in the photograph I posted, and two more like it in the video.

CCL I assume that you pulled that picture from the video on Rhino's site?

No I pulled it from here http://www.vimeo.com/13234387.

I should add Rhino has never made a disparaging comment about the Daussi brand, not in the video and not in any public forum. He respects cut diversity and consumer choice and shot the video in an unbiased manner to educate consumers and receive opinions. If you feel strongly about the video not being representative or the stones not being the best of the Daussi line you may feel compelled to post in the video comments to the other consumers who made comments and connected the stones in the video to the Daussi brand.

 

[yennyfire]

I don't have anything intelligent to add, I just wanted to say that after reading all of these posts, my brain feels like it's been in a blender. I think that I understand about 5% of what you've all said and I'm off to re-read some of the other threads dedicated to cushion cuts in the hope of putting all of this into perspective...first, I'm stopping by the liquor cabinet to pour myself a drink...everything looks nicer when you have a pleasant buzz.

 

[Imdanny]

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.

LOL!

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

The standardized GIA DD Lighting and tray show one view, my photos show another. You can not grade diamonds for color clarity or cut in a tray.

RD,

Sorry David this last statement is just wrong on so many levels and is not something I need to debate.
GIA IS the authority on grading that you have accepted.
You have ignored Rhino who very politely tried to correct you.

COLOR GRADING "D-TO-Z" DIAMONDS AT THE GIA LABORATORY
John M. King, Ron H. Geurts, A M. Gilbertson, and James E. Shigley

Gems & Gemology
Winter 2008
Pages 296 - 321


Figure is on page 304

I'm not going to respond further to you in this thread. Your last few posts are both off topic and full of glaring errors and misconceptions. I look forward to seeing the attached .srn files in TakingThePlunge's Daussi Cushion ASET thread.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for pointing that out ccl
You can indeed color grade in a tray
Not clarity or good visual inspection of facet structure. IN addition color will be graded table down, not face up as in Jon's photos and video. I do not believe GIA recommends the DD for taking photos.
Thank you as well for pulling out of the thread
Jon has admitted that you and he are friends which does call your motivation into question

 

[cara]

Thanks for pointing that out ccl
...Thank you as well for pulling out of the thread
Jon has admitted that you and he are friends which does call your motivation into question

So if someone were friends with you, that would mean they shouldn't post on this thread? What a load of crock.

I thought this was supposed to be an educational thread on crushed ice-appearance (and the use of that phrase) in cushions. No reason to restrict friends of any poster from also contributing. Vendors presumably have their own motivational biases (selling diamonds) yet are allowed to post.

 

[Rockdiamond]

If a friend of mine came on PS constantly harassing another vendor it would certainly call the motivation into question
Ccl volunteered to stop responding
If you look at his posts over time the pattern of harassment is clear.
Jon is a respected pro, making dialog between he and I a totally different story
Ccl has a vendetta ageist me- I don't blame this on Jon in any way
But knowing ccl and Jon are friends might certainly cause ccl to behave as he has

 

[cara]

Because Jon, despite being a respected pro, is friends with people whom baselessly harass others? And CCL has some kind of puppy-love for Jon that makes him go out and harass Jon's competitors? That is insulting to both Jon and CCL. And a big distracting accusation that minimizes CCL's contributions to the threads and his questions/comments about your posts.

CCL clearly has educated himself extensively about cushions and is passionate enough to keep posting here on ps. Seems much more likely that the content of your posts inspires his comments. At least to this completely disconnected observer, not friends with any of the other posters involved, and also not in any way involved with selling diamonds.

 

[Doc_1]

So many good points to discuss.
One repeating theme is a point I have raised countless times- that being, semantics are very important.
A statement like the one above is designed to assign scientifically quantify the cut....and has "better optics" therefore it's "scientifically" better- and this can be proved with reflector technology. The lesser, is not as a good cut - even going as far as questioning the motivation of the cutter.
One is for "optics", the other for "spread"
Is optics better than spread?
Does the other stone not have "optics"
Is what one person prefers "better" optics than what another person prefers?

As far as general trends in the industry: No, it's not a large trend towards "optics" in fancy shapes. I get to look at hundreds, sometimes thousands of carats a month- mostly fancy shapes.
Cutters will always need to use the rough in the way that produces profit.
The rough used to cut Daussi - and other shallow cushions can't be cut with the necessary crown height to make the more symmetrical H&A type of fancy- or an older style high crown cushion.
So it's a matter of ingenuity- use the existing rough.

In round diamonds, as I mentioned before, I see a trend towards small tables, more attention paid to optical symmetry resulting in a high percentage of stones I see -even ones that are not all that well cut- have the same type of face up look.
Lately the "off make" ( badly cut) stones I've been seeing are mainly thick girdle, deep stones.
The parcel below is off make goods. The arrow is pointing to a fisheye- horrible looking stone.

There are few cutters that carry these goods- specialty for sure.
I do agree it may become more popular over time- but will always be a small slice of the market overall.

RD,

There is a rule in life that applies to every thing , you do not have to be a rocket scientist to get it:

YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT ALL.

When increasing the size/per carat in a diamond SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE.
when you cut diamonds in a pancake shape you MAY have the size of 5 carat in a 3 carat stone, but does that appeal to eyes when a well cut 5 carat placed next to the pancake.....I do not have statistics to prove or disapprove that but common sense says NO .
And darn well you can bet any one's bottom if a diamond looks horrible in an ASET surely they will see that in their own eyes. So scientific tools ADD to our educated decisions in purchases, AT LEAST TO ME.

Horrible looking fish eyes, nail heads,...etc could of been simply avoided had they been cut with optics, science in mind, how many times you have seen large clear diamond cut horribly and you wish they have been cut otherwise.

cutting diamonds with optics and science in mind will increase the profit of the industry since the customers are making more informed purchases, that is where the industry is going to slowly but surely and what will fasten the pace is the more education customers will have which will push the industry to improve its products and that what i described before as WIN WIN situation for BOTH, that takes us again to the benefit of tools in place that i do not know why you are opposing strongly despite the fact that i NEVER MENTIONED ONCE THAT IT IS A SUBSTITUTION TO THE EYE.

 

[CharmyPoo]

I couldn't agree with Cara more. It means nothing to me that CCL and Jon are friends - CCL in a year has educated himself about cushions and diamonds in general better than many so called pros. I appauld him for that and appreciate his contributes in helping all the consumers. CCL is not going to appeal to the same type of consumer that is drawn to RD's stones. It is just a different style.

RD tailors to a certain market and GOG tailors to another market. There is no point arguing over this. RD points are actually very simple - he says the same thing over and over again. All diamonds are beautiful to someone so all the science behind it doesn't matter. There are many buyers who agree with this and only judges based on their eyes (educated or not). Then there are other buyers who chooses to understand how optics actually work and try to make unemotional purchases and only trust their educated eyes.

I fall in the latter camp after making mistakes by trusting my uneducated eyes ... I look at my earlier diamond purchases and they are definetly no where as nice as my newer diamonds. But my uneducated eyes didn't know that before and thought they were pretty ... now I know what "pretty" really is and perhaps in a few more years .. I will even find something even better.

ETA: If pancake diamonds are so beautiful, I am surprised why everyone isn't jumping on the band wagon. Cutters can get their rough cheaper and cut diamonds that face up more ... and then consumers can buy diamonds that look bigger. Gee.. sounds like a win win .. something must be missing here.

 

[Rockdiamond]

So many good points to discuss.
One repeating theme is a point I have raised countless times- that being, semantics are very important.
A statement like the one above is designed to assign scientifically quantify the cut....and has "better optics" therefore it's "scientifically" better- and this can be proved with reflector technology. The lesser, is not as a good cut - even going as far as questioning the motivation of the cutter.
One is for "optics", the other for "spread"
Is optics better than spread?
Does the other stone not have "optics"
Is what one person prefers "better" optics than what another person prefers?

As far as general trends in the industry: No, it's not a large trend towards "optics" in fancy shapes. I get to look at hundreds, sometimes thousands of carats a month- mostly fancy shapes.
Cutters will always need to use the rough in the way that produces profit.
The rough used to cut Daussi - and other shallow cushions can't be cut with the necessary crown height to make the more symmetrical H&A type of fancy- or an older style high crown cushion.
So it's a matter of ingenuity- use the existing rough.

In round diamonds, as I mentioned before, I see a trend towards small tables, more attention paid to optical symmetry resulting in a high percentage of stones I see -even ones that are not all that well cut- have the same type of face up look.
Lately the "off make" ( badly cut) stones I've been seeing are mainly thick girdle, deep stones.
The parcel below is off make goods. The arrow is pointing to a fisheye- horrible looking stone.

There are few cutters that carry these goods- specialty for sure.
I do agree it may become more popular over time- but will always be a small slice of the market overall.

RD,

There is a rule in life that applies to every thing , you do not have to be a rocket scientist to get it:

YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT ALL.

When increasing the size/per carat in a diamond SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE.
when you cut diamonds in a pancake shape you MAY have the size of 5 carat in a 3 carat stone, but does that appeal to eyes when a well cut 5 carat placed next to the pancake.....I do not have statistics to prove or disapprove that but common sense says NO .
And darn well you can bet any one's bottom if a diamond looks horrible in an ASET surely they will see that in their own eyes. So scientific tools ADD to our educated decisions in purchases, AT LEAST TO ME.

Horrible looking fish eyes, nail heads,...etc could of been simply avoided had they been cut with optics, science in mind, how many times you have seen large clear diamond cut horribly and you wish they have been cut otherwise.

cutting diamonds with optics and science in mind will increase the profit of the industry since the customers are making more informed purchases, that is where the industry is going to slowly but surely and what will fasten the pace is the more education customers will have which will push the industry to improve its products and that what i described before as WIN WIN situation for BOTH, that takes us again to the benefit of tools in place that i do not know why you are opposing strongly despite the fact that i NEVER MENTIONED ONCE THAT IT IS A SUBSTITUTION TO THE EYE.

Hi Doc,
Being a doctor is different than being a diamond grader.
Your suppositions are simply incorrect.
There's no such thing as a "bad aset"- it's a tool designed to show how a diamond uses light.
Some like the way some diamonds use light better than others. We all agree about that.
Is one set of optics "scientifically better" . The "scientific" answer is NO- it's a matter of taste.
Jon's video made the "spreadier" cushion look bad- but it did look a lot larger than the stone it was compared to. Some people will prefer that.
I am suggesting that the method of photography has in impact on how the diamond looks.
In this thread, it's been suggested my photos make the diamond look better - the same logic can be used to say that Jon's photos and videos may make certain diamonds look worse.

Cara- CCL's has every right to champion Jon's methods, or his videos- whatever.
But attacking me ( and others) invalidates much of what he says- and does call his motivation into question.
Personally, I think he hurts those he so closely associates with- but after all he's written, I have the right to question his motivation.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I couldn't agree with Cara more. It means nothing to me that CCL and Jon are friends - CCL in a year has educated himself about cushions and diamonds in general better than many so called pros. I appauld him for that and appreciate his contributes in helping all the consumers. CCL is not going to appeal to the same type of consumer that is drawn to RD's stones. It is just a different style.

RD tailors to a certain market and GOG tailors to another market. There is no point arguing over this. RD points are actually very simple - he says the same thing over and over again. All diamonds are beautiful to someone so all the science behind it doesn't matter. There are many buyers who agree with this and only judges based on their eyes (educated or not). Then there are other buyers who chooses to understand how optics actually work and try to make unemotional purchases and only trust their educated eyes.

I fall in the latter camp after making mistakes by trusting my uneducated eyes ... I look at my earlier diamond purchases and they are definetly no where as nice as my newer diamonds. But my uneducated eyes didn't know that before and thought they were pretty ... now I know what "pretty" really is and perhaps in a few more years .. I will even find something even better.

ETA: If pancake diamonds are so beautiful, I am surprised why everyone isn't jumping on the band wagon. Cutters can get their rough cheaper and cut diamonds that face up more ... and then consumers can buy diamonds that look bigger. Gee.. sounds like a win win .. something must be missing here.

Hi Charmy, let's make a deal- I won't speak for you, and please don't put words in my mouth.
I posted a photo of badly cut diamonds yesterday. There are diamonds considered badly cut. Some of those actually look pretty good- but they look small for their weight. Others are simply bad looking due to having a fish eye, etc.
In response to your ETA= Daussi cushions are fairly popular- and are carried by PS vendors. Diagem also cuts stones with lower depths that are quite beautiful.
A diamond is not considered badly cut simply by virtue of the fact it's shallow- or due to the fact it exhibits "crushed ice"- or even "slushy ice"

 

[CharmyPoo]

Others are simply bad looking due to having a fish eye, etc.

Now now .. someone out there actually might love fish eye .. so please don't insult them.

Some like the way some diamonds use light better than others. We all agree about that.
Is one set of optics "scientifically better" . The "scientific" answer is NO- it's a matter of taste.

I am consistently confused by your posts. If it it all just a matter of taste, how can you say that fish eye is simply bad looking? When others can't conclude a pancake diamond that looks like a chunk of glass is simply bad looking? Or is it that if you carry the diamond .. it simply can't be bad because someone will find it beautiful.

 

[Doc_1]

Hi Doc,
Being a doctor is different than being a diamond grader.
Your suppositions are simply incorrect.
There's no such thing as a "bad aset"- it's a tool designed to show how a diamond uses light.
Some like the way some diamonds use light better than others. We all agree about that.
Is one set of optics "scientifically better" . The "scientific" answer is NO- it's a matter of taste.
Jon's video made the "spreadier" cushion look bad- but it did look a lot larger than the stone it was compared to. Some people will prefer that.
I am suggesting that the method of photography has in impact on how the diamond looks.
In this thread, it's been suggested my photos make the diamond look better - the same logic can be used to say that Jon's photos and videos may make certain diamonds look worse.

Cara- CCL's has every right to champion Jon's methods, or his videos- whatever.
But attacking me ( and others) invalidates much of what he says- and does call his motivation into question.
Personally, I think he hurts those he so closely associates with- but after all he's written, I have the right to question his motivation.

Hi RD

No..... being a good doctor is not different from being a good diamond grader, good diamond cutter or good investigator.....etc!
All those share one thing in common. SOUND LOGIC and they benefit from common sense, scientific approach to problems to solve and using wisely every tool at disposal to achieve good results. It just happened that a doctor deals with patients, a diamond grader/cutter deals with diamonds and an investigators deals with crimes to solve. but all GOOD ONES have one thing in common so they are in a sense not different at all, that applies to all walks of professions out there.

ASET is a tool among others, and if a diamond looks white on an ASET, ......Well.....what can i say here?!...it is a common sense issue and can not be debated any more!

It just surprises me that you as a vendor insist on advocating against those tools, even when i say use them WITH YOUR EYES AND NOT AS A SUBSTITUTION TO THEM!