Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling ice

[Niel]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I guess I still am not understanding the appeal of mushy diamonds.

I do not consider mushy diamonds the same as crushed ice diamonds, as, like you demonstrated above with the fly diamond, you can get crisp crushed ice diamonds.

So saying you want that "disco ball look", ok,I'll go for that, why would one then choose a mushy diamond vs a crisp crushed ice stone. I'm not particularly looking for an answer of " personal preference". Sure, I suppose in theory the idea of a blurry diamond might appeal more than a crisp one, but what visual properties do a blurry diamond create that is both beneficial to the overall beauty of a diamond and occur only in blurry stones?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I guess I still am not understanding the appeal of mushy diamonds.

I do not consider mushy diamonds the same as crushed ice diamonds, as, like you demonstrated above with the fly diamond, you can get crisp crushed ice diamonds.

So saying you want that "disco ball look", ok,I'll go for that, why would one then choose a mushy diamond vs a crisp crushed ice stone. I'm not particularly looking for an answer of " personal preference". Sure, I suppose the idea of a blurry diamond might appeal more than a crisp oneone(maybe?) , but what visual properties do a blurry diamond create that is both beneficial to the overall beauty of a diamond and occur only in blurry stones?

I don't think anyone is advocating for the mushy look. If I understand correctly, one of the points drk is making is that what looks like mush in photos may sometimes be a result of virtual facets that macro photography cannot resolve, but that the human eye can. The implication would be that sometimes what looks like mush in a photo might look crisp in real life.

In the effort to understand how to better evaluate cut quality of fancies remotely one has to be able to correctly interpret photos, ASETS, etc (even videos), so it is important to understand the limitations of each of those images. Without standardization of the setup, photos are always going to be hard to interpret because a skillfully taken photo with special lighting can achieve very desirable effects. And on the other hand, a poorly taken photo can make the stone look much worse than it does in real life.

 

[Niel]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I guess I still am not understanding the appeal of mushy diamonds.

I do not consider mushy diamonds the same as crushed ice diamonds, as, like you demonstrated above with the fly diamond, you can get crisp crushed ice diamonds.

So saying you want that "disco ball look", ok,I'll go for that, why would one then choose a mushy diamond vs a crisp crushed ice stone. I'm not particularly looking for an answer of " personal preference". Sure, I suppose the idea of a blurry diamond might appeal more than a crisp oneone(maybe?) , but what visual properties do a blurry diamond create that is both beneficial to the overall beauty of a diamond and occur only in blurry stones?

I don't think anyone is advocating for the mushy look. If I understand correctly, one of the points drk is making is that what looks like mush in photos may sometimes be a result of virtual facets that macro photography cannot resolve, but that the human eye can. The implication would be that sometimes what looks like mush in a photo might look crisp in real life.

In the effort to understand how to better evaluate cut quality of fancies remotely one has to be able to correctly interpret photos, ASETS, etc (even videos), so it is important to understand the limitations of each of those images. Without standardization of the setup, photos are always going to be hard to interpret because a skillfully taken photo with special lighting can achieve very desirable effects. And on the other hand, a poorly taken photo can make the stone look much worse than it does in real life.

Ok thank you, as that was kind of the feel I was getting.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Spot on points Bryan.
Two considerations are:
Does the picture make the stone look better than it does in real life?
Or does the photo make the diamond look worse?

Niel- there's a real issue with terminology.
At this point people are routinely warned against "crushed ice" when there's really no clear cut definition of exactly what crushed ice is.
Same for "mush"

 

[Niel]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Spot on points Bryan.
Two considerations are:
Does the picture make the stone look better than it does in real life?
Or does the photo make the diamond look worse?

Niel- there's a real issue with terminology.
At this point people are routinely warned against "crushed ice" when there's really no clear cut definition of exactly what crushed ice is.
Same for "mush"

Ok but that's kind of glazing over what I asked.

Is TxL correct that we are not advocating for mushy diamonds when referring to mush as constantly blurry; as apposed to blurry due to inaccurate photography?

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Spot on points Bryan.
Two considerations are:
Does the picture make the stone look better than it does in real life?
Or does the photo make the diamond look worse?

Niel- there's a real issue with terminology.
At this point people are routinely warned against "crushed ice" when there's really no clear cut definition of exactly what crushed ice is.
Same for "mush"

Any single Photo does any diamond look worse. Fancy cuts( and specially crushed ice cut, cuts with long length path) lose "Crispy appearance" much more than classical round cut. High aperture number ( big DOF) is not solution at all because it reduce resolution ( image become fuzzy if AV higher than 16-22.)
Stacking Photos could be solution for static photo.
Movie, low magnification , stereo give more adequate appearance.

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

First aspect that bears closer discussion:
Precision
With a stone which is cut for optical symmetry, it's fairly clear if the cutter was successful.
This makes reading ASET and other such tools far more straightforward.
When cutting for a pattern, making sure everything lines up exactly is crucial.
Not so with "crushed Ice". Sometimes a stone that has some asymmetry in the facet design looses nothing in the actual appearance.
Part of what makes the "crushed ice" look so amazing is that the light is bouncing around in ways that are kind of "chaotic"
We need this sort of "light chaos" so that the stereoscopic viewer ( your eyes ) perceive the sparkle.

Below are two photos of the same stone, taken in a light box.
The "Sharp" picture shows the actual facet pattern of the pavilion coming through the table.\
In the "Soft" picture the camera is focusing at a slightly different spot on the stone- more like what our eyes do.
All of a sudden the sharply defined facets seem to blur together. This is part of how we perceive "crushed ice"





Part of why this is far more difficult to plot out with ASET is because the diamond is using the light in a totally different manner.

David,
{quote}

In the "Soft" picture the camera is focusing at a slightly different spot on the stone- more like what our eyes do.
{/quote}
human eyes does not need such trick . Human eye has much higher DOF due muck less focal distance then Macro lens.
if want receive photo which is similar to diamond image in human eye, you need use similar optical magnification as human eye does. Take bigger distance or shorter focus lens, camera with small sensor and many megapixels +Photoshop ( there are many "Photoshops tricks " in Human brain , sharpness, Global contrast, Local contrast, TM,../. Moreover a human brain has much more tricks for image enhancement than Adobe implemented yet in Photoshop.)

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I agree with the thought behind what you wrote Sergie.
1) there's plenty of photoshop tricks to achieve the look of crushed ice
2) the eyes and brain have exponentially more ability to adjust and compensate for white balance, brightness, dof etc.
But when I look at a "crushed ice" stone, it does feel like my eyes simply can't "keep up" with the way the light is being reflected so many different directions at once.
Almost like the diamond "tricks" the eye a bit.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I guess I still am not understanding the appeal of mushy diamonds.

I do not consider mushy diamonds the same as crushed ice diamonds, as, like you demonstrated above with the fly diamond, you can get crisp crushed ice diamonds.

So saying you want that "disco ball look", ok,I'll go for that, why would one then choose a mushy diamond vs a crisp crushed ice stone. I'm not particularly looking for an answer of " personal preference". Sure, I suppose in theory the idea of a blurry diamond might appeal more than a crisp one, but what visual properties do a blurry diamond create that is both beneficial to the overall beauty of a diamond and occur only in blurry stones?

Niel, my apologies, I was not trying to avoid the question.
The stone above could be seen as having a lot of "mush" in my photo. What that equated to in real life was a stone that had consistent sparkle, edge to edge. 100% disco ball- no perceptible dark areas. A definite "top scoring" crushed ice cut that looks like mush in that particular pic.
This is precisely why the term "mush" might be confusing.

More about how VF's look in pictures
Using the stone below as an example- when I was looking at the stone in person, I was far more concerned about the darker (crisper) area in the center of the stone.
The circled areas were bouncing back the light nicely.
It was not a badly made stone- but the parts that might be termed "mush" were not my main consideration.
I was more concerned with the areas that were not "crushed ice"
The darker areas in the center of the stone might have been problematic. They were not as the flashed bright and dark with slight movement- which can be very pretty.
If you think about a fancy shape with a large concentration of red in the middle of the ASET- that can often look like a "hole".
If that's static- in other words, the darkness persists though tilt and movement, I consider it a detriment.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Niel- I will also say that I have seen a lot of people asking about fancy shaped stones on JA/WF and other sites that get knocked because of mush- and other reasons like leakage.
I have seen people steered away from stones that I would have also rejected based on the photographic/ ASET evidence.
In other cases, a stone I felt was worthy of consideration was knocked.
A stone sitting on it's pavilion spinning on a turntable is certainly an acceptable way to take a video/picture. But it definitely puts some "crushed ice" stones like this at a disadvantage over stones not using VF's

 

[autumngems]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I purchased a 1.0 carat radiant from DBL some years back, it has the crushed ice effect and I get compliments every time I wear it. It's an I1 as well.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Thanks Autumn!!

If one thing has become clear to me through this thread it's that "mush" is an undefined characteristic that may actually be a positive based on the method of photography.

One more point- leakage, which I have said many times is an essential element in a well cut "crushed ice" stone.
No one has disputed that statement.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Here's another aspect that has a huge impact on how we view diamonds:
If we take a 000 round diamond- super ideal
Put it in ASET and move it a 2degrees- how much change is there going to be in the ASET?

Answer: not much

Now, take a well cut "crushed ice" stone, tilt it 2degrees and the entire aset changes.
Scintillation.

This is an essential element in how a diamond sparkles.

 

[Niel]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Thanks Autumn!!

If one thing has become clear to me through this thread it's that "mush" is an undefined characteristic that may actually be a positive based on the method of photography.

One more point- leakage, which I have said many times is an essential element in a well cut "crushed ice" stone.
No one has disputed that statement.

I think thats a dangerous statement. You could say that, depending on the photography of a static diamond, it is difficult to determine if "mush" is the result of poor cutting or inaccurate photography.

Also, I feel like thats been your stance at the onset

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

HI Niel,
I have never heard or used the term "mush" to describe a diamond till recently when posters here starting using it to denigrate diamonds.
This is not some long formulated plan.

Thanks Autumn!!

If one thing has become clear to me through this thread it's that "mush" is an undefined characteristic that may actually be a positive based on the method of photography.

One more point- leakage, which I have said many times is an essential element in a well cut "crushed ice" stone.
No one has disputed that statement.

I think thats a dangerous statement. You could say that, depending on the photography of a static diamond, it is difficult to determine if "mush" is the result of poor cutting or inaccurate photography.

Also, I feel like thats been your stance at the onset

Why is the statement in bold "dangerous"?

I have personally experienced- thousands of times- looking at a diamond, and it's photos.
The bulk of those have been photos I've taken- but I have also obtained many diamonds that were previously photographed on other websites for clients.
So I have a very strong idea of how such diamonds actually look in real life and in pictures.

Did you read what I wrote about how an ASET will change based on slight tilt in some type of diamonds?
That aspect itself makes photographing such stones nearly impossible.

 

[Niel]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Long formulated and formulated aren't the same. My point is that at the onset of this thread, you have not change you opinion, and you seem as though you want people not to ignore a diamond just because it looks cloudy due to the type of cut it has (which is what people mean by mush, vs cloudy or hazy due to clarity). IOW, I think you came into this thread with an assumption and motive and I haven't heard that change as the thread progresses. I'm not complaint,but I havent seen an evolution, thats all.


But your statement that mush is a positive implies that, like I said you were alluding to before, that mush has some sort of positive characteristics.....which again, if thats your point, please provide some info on what the positives are.

What I feel like a more accurate and thus less dangerous statement (dangerous meaning not causing innacurate assumptions) would be that mush in a photo doesn't automatically mean its a poor performing stone. In other words. It doesn't prove a good diamond, but it doesn't prove a bad one.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Thanks for having an open mind Niel.

I like your phrasing- "mush" in a photo may not be giving us the information we think it is.

Going back to another point I've made- ASET and slight movement- I believe this can be relevant to the discussion.
If ASET reacts dramatically to slight movements in crushed ice stones, maybe photos are the same.

Movement has a HUGE impact on how a diamond looks, and since it's being worn, movement is inevitable.
If we consider the type of movement when the diamond is laying on it's pavilion spinning- it's nothing like the type of natural movement a person makes when wearing a diamond.
Thus, trying to judge a crushed ice stone sitting on the pavilion may be giving us all the wrong information.
What may look like "mush" in a picture or video can may be beautiful scintillation in real life.
But since there's no clear definition of "mush" in diamonds or photos of diamonds, I don't see how it's a useful term at all.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

HI Niel,
I have never heard or used the term "mush" to describe a diamond till recently when posters here starting using it to denigrate diamonds.
This is not some long formulated plan.

Thanks Autumn!!

If one thing has become clear to me through this thread it's that "mush" is an undefined characteristic that may actually be a positive based on the method of photography.

One more point- leakage, which I have said many times is an essential element in a well cut "crushed ice" stone.
No one has disputed that statement.

I think thats a dangerous statement. You could say that, depending on the photography of a static diamond, it is difficult to determine if "mush" is the result of poor cutting or inaccurate photography.

Also, I feel like thats been your stance at the onset

Why is the statement in bold "dangerous"?

I have personally experienced- thousands of times- looking at a diamond, and it's photos.
The bulk of those have been photos I've taken- but I have also obtained many diamonds that were previously photographed on other websites for clients.
So I have a very strong idea of how such diamonds actually look in real life and in pictures.

Did you read what I wrote about how an ASET will change based on slight tilt in some type of diamonds?
That aspect itself makes photographing such stones nearly impossible.

David,
The fact that you have looked at and photographed thousands of diamonds and have a very strong idea of how such diamonds actually look in real life and in pictures does not really advance the goal of this thread which is to help the rest of us understand how to interpret photos, ASET, and other diagnostics for a better understanding of what makes a high quality crushed ice cut.

Your pronouncements, coupled by vague references to things like ASET tilt and scintillation, provide very little in the way of substance to support your commentary. I am not sure that tweezer shots with special lighting and your usual stance that you can't rely on any of the usual tools to evaluate crushed ice cuts, and continuing to accuse people who use terms you don't like of a conspiracy to denigrate diamonds, is really going anywhere. I am not seeing anything new from you on the subject that I could not pull from countless threads in the very distant past.

This discussion is beginning to feel like deja vu all over again. Perhaps that is why others, including it seems the OP, have lost interest.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Hi Bryan,
There's nothing vague about the photos posted- one is even notated with circles.
I am stating that parts of the photo identified as "mush" were reflecting light back nicely.
I don't like the term "mush" for the reasons stated, it's undefined- and certainly not complimentary.

I don't claim to "have the answers" - but I do have a lot of questions, combined with observations.
Instead of complaining, how about adding positive input.
If you want to assist in clarifying how to assess this type of stone, you could easily contribute.
You have pictures of diamonds, taken in WF's own "special light"
Find some pictures that have what might be termed "mush" here, and look at the actual diamonds, and report back to us.

Look at the stones in an ASET and introduce slight tilt. Compare what happens when small degrees of tilt are introduced in a well cut RBC and a "crushed ice" cushion.

I don't know if drk lost interest- timing was a bit off because I know Stan Grossbard would have input and he was off at the AGS conclave.
He's back now, and hopefully will weigh in.
But drk specifically mentioned "friendly discussion"- I'd truly welcome an exchange of ideas instead of attacks.

 

[Christina...]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Hi RD! It's been a long time, I hope all is well!

I've now had some time to catch up on this thread and the previous...including one from 2012. I've noticed many of the same questions, problems and confusion in all of them. You've mentioned several times your dislike of term 'mush' and I would have to agree with you that it has a negative connotation. I understand and respect (I don't have first hand experience enough to say I agree, or that I've been convinced) your stance. I've taken some time to consider what alternative descriptor could instead be used...it's eluding me. Neil mentioned cloudy...which IMO when not work since we define clouds and cloudiness in a diamond in a much different way...murky, still sounds derogatory, hazy, I believe is used to sometimes describe an over blue...you see my point. It's difficult to find adjectives to describe what we are seeing that sound complimentary. So even if myself and others were convinced that these 'mushy' areas were actually beneficial to the stone performance, we are still left with finding a complimentary descriptor. Same as 'crushed ice' that you also find somewhat offensive to the stones themselves. So I guess I'm asking how you would want us to define these areas and this particular cut type?

I also respect and believe that YOU are able to look at static images, asets, videos etc and pick out the likely performers. You have years and years of experience viewing this cutting style. I think that you may be missing the fact that most people that come here to find d a great performing radiant have very little to no experience viewing them and are mostly interested in being able to choose one with the aid of only video, images, and aset. If you...a trades member with many years of experience can't tell us how to do that, then how are we as prosumers supposed to be able to. We make recommendations based on our knowledge and understanding of the tools available to us. I understand that you are questioning those tools, but so far you haven't been able to convince as to why...other than that is what YOUR eye tells you. I think you will agree that a person coming here for assistance wants to hear better evidence than 'RD says we should trust HIS eye's.

I do agree that there needs a better way to evaluate these particular cuts. I also believe until that happens PSers will continue to recommend cuts that they feel confident in recommending.

 

[Niel]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Christina..... so glad you are back!

you are right. cloudy isnt the right way to put it. I added that it was it was different than clarity, but using the same terminology is also dangerous. I prefer blurry facets vs crisp facets, which seems to be the best way to describe that "mush" look. It is also a somewhat negative connection, like "mush" but i have only ever found the term "mush" used negatively, and i still havent been presented with a visual benefit of this phenomenon.

RD, I hear you trying to equate mush to the crushed ice description. I have not seen this connection. The mush people talk about is not the phenomenon you describe with your yellow diamond example. I have not myself (though i could be missing something, admittedly) seen anyone call a diamond that was cut well, such as that diamond, "mushy". I have seen stones that are not crushed ice called mushy. Ovals and cushions without that chaotic cut style. So your defense of the crushed ice cut, like always, is understandable, but not what ive seen anyone referring to when they use the term mush.

and to christinas point. yes, this thread was created, i assume, as a thread to guide buyers as to how to know how to pick a good radient or other crushed ice diamond. Your declaration that you know how to pick them after 1000s of personal experiences does not help anyone in that regard.
ASETS dont work? what does? people like to have something scientific or standardized to help aid in their choice. What can you present in that category besides personal experience

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Awesome post Christina- thank you , I'm doing amazingly well for an old dog
thanks for your post Niel.
I think we agree that better methods of assisting consumers to identify what they love from the available tools would really help.

The reason my experience counts is that I can objectively see how consumers are advised using these tools- and there's got to be a more balanced method of interpreting the tools

Ps I love the term crushed ice.

 

[sarahb]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Hi RD! It's been a long time, I hope all is well!

I've now had some time to catch up on this thread and the previous...including one from 2012. I've noticed many of the same questions, problems and confusion in all of them. You've mentioned several times your dislike of term 'mush' and I would have to agree with you that it has a negative connotation. I understand and respect (I don't have first hand experience enough to say I agree, or that I've been convinced) your stance. I've taken some time to consider what alternative descriptor could instead be used...it's eluding me. Neil mentioned cloudy...which IMO when not work since we define clouds and cloudiness in a diamond in a much different way...murky, still sounds derogatory, hazy, I believe is used to sometimes describe an over blue...you see my point. It's difficult to find adjectives to describe what we are seeing that sound complimentary. So even if myself and others were convinced that these 'mushy' areas were actually beneficial to the stone performance, we are still left with finding a complimentary descriptor. Same as 'crushed ice' that you also find somewhat offensive to the stones themselves. So I guess I'm asking how you would want us to define these areas and this particular cut type?

I also respect and believe that YOU are able to look at static images, asets, videos etc and pick out the likely performers. You have years and years of experience viewing this cutting style. I think that you may be missing the fact that most people that come here to find d a great performing radiant have very little to no experience viewing them and are mostly interested in being able to choose one with the aid of only video, images, and aset. If you...a trades member with many years of experience can't tell us how to do that, then how are we as prosumers supposed to be able to. We make recommendations based on our knowledge and understanding of the tools available to us. I understand that you are questioning those tools, but so far you haven't been able to convince as to why...other than that is what YOUR eye tells you. I think you will agree that a person coming here for assistance wants to hear better evidence than 'RD says we should trust HIS eye's.

I do agree that there needs a better way to evaluate these particular cuts. I also believe until that happens PSers will continue to recommend cuts that they feel confident in recommending.

I've thought this many times in past treads discussing this same/nearly the same topic with you: you are missing an incredible opportunity to OWN this topic.

This is a prime opportunity to create & define the guidelines for evaluation & purchase.

Christine post was spot on. How does one evaluate this type of cut. Can you provide guidance?

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Hi RD! It's been a long time, I hope all is well!

I've now had some time to catch up on this thread and the previous...including one from 2012. I've noticed many of the same questions, problems and confusion in all of them. You've mentioned several times your dislike of term 'mush' and I would have to agree with you that it has a negative connotation. I understand and respect (I don't have first hand experience enough to say I agree, or that I've been convinced) your stance. I've taken some time to consider what alternative descriptor could instead be used...it's eluding me. Neil mentioned cloudy...which IMO when not work since we define clouds and cloudiness in a diamond in a much different way...murky, still sounds derogatory, hazy, I believe is used to sometimes describe an over blue...you see my point. It's difficult to find adjectives to describe what we are seeing that sound complimentary. So even if myself and others were convinced that these 'mushy' areas were actually beneficial to the stone performance, we are still left with finding a complimentary descriptor. Same as 'crushed ice' that you also find somewhat offensive to the stones themselves. So I guess I'm asking how you would want us to define these areas and this particular cut type?

I also respect and believe that YOU are able to look at static images, asets, videos etc and pick out the likely performers. You have years and years of experience viewing this cutting style. I think that you may be missing the fact that most people that come here to find d a great performing radiant have very little to no experience viewing them and are mostly interested in being able to choose one with the aid of only video, images, and aset. If you...a trades member with many years of experience can't tell us how to do that, then how are we as prosumers supposed to be able to. We make recommendations based on our knowledge and understanding of the tools available to us. I understand that you are questioning those tools, but so far you haven't been able to convince as to why...other than that is what YOUR eye tells you. I think you will agree that a person coming here for assistance wants to hear better evidence than 'RD says we should trust HIS eye's.

I do agree that there needs a better way to evaluate these particular cuts. I also believe until that happens PSers will continue to recommend cuts that they feel confident in recommending.

I've thought this many times in past treads discussing this same/nearly the same topic with you: you are missing an incredible opportunity to OWN this topic.

This is a prime opportunity to create & define the guidelines for evaluation & purchase.

Christine post was spot on. How does one evaluate this type of cut. Can you provide guidance?

Precisely.
If I were selling fancy cuts online, I would would be very keen on developing ways that remote customers could, with confidence, separate the well cut diamonds that I was selling from all the other lesser ones out there. I would be actively educating on how the available tools could be used to make those distinctions, rather than simply criticizing all the tools and the people who are making recommendations based on them.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Here's a description of the real life phenomena
The vfs are very small and flashing incredibly fast.
What you see in well cut crushed ice is total scintillation.
Chaos contained within the borders of the stone.

How does this translate into photos and aset?
Dispersed patterns of leakage, green, with no large concentrated red areas. Organic chaos in pattern.

Photos are a different story.
I don't believe any of the currently state of the art photographic systems can accurately capture the essence of crushed ice- but I think it's possible to get a pretty good idea how to better interpret with a small bit of hands on experience.

I get your point Sarahb- But remember that the reason all these discussions have taken place is because the topic comes up organically - in a sense.
Someone said "mush" and I simply asked what they were talking about. It's in no way a diamond or gemological term.
So I asked.
If I was not participating in general discussions this thread would not have been here.
I wish more knowledgable trade members would join in.
If they subscribe to the same exact formula the results won't really vary much.
I guess at this point the likelihood of new tradespeople who don't subscribe to AGSL current state of cut evaluation is very slim indeed.
Unfortunately many people who were formerly in the diamond business did not understand the importance of the Internet. So they are former colleagues.

I bug Stan to post more frequently. He's busy. We all have our priorities.
I love PS as much as anyone I'm sure- and I view it as an important discussion forum.

Eta- Bryan- thankfully our clients feel they get the sufficient information from our listings.
It's never my stone getting knocked when these discussions start.
It could be your stone that might be getting knocked needlessly.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Hi Bryan,
There's nothing vague about the photos posted- one is even notated with circles.
I am stating that parts of the photo identified as "mush" were reflecting light back nicely.
I don't like the term "mush" for the reasons stated, it's undefined- and certainly not complimentary.

I don't claim to "have the answers" - but I do have a lot of questions, combined with observations.
Instead of complaining, how about adding positive input.
If you want to assist in clarifying how to assess this type of stone, you could easily contribute.
You have pictures of diamonds, taken in WF's own "special light"
Find some pictures that have what might be termed "mush" here, and look at the actual diamonds, and report back to us.

Look at the stones in an ASET and introduce slight tilt. Compare what happens when small degrees of tilt are introduced in a well cut RBC and a "crushed ice" cushion.

I don't know if drk lost interest- timing was a bit off because I know Stan Grossbard would have input and he was off at the AGS conclave.
He's back now, and hopefully will weigh in.
But drk specifically mentioned "friendly discussion"- I'd truly welcome an exchange of ideas instead of attacks.

David, nobody is attacking you. And I HAVE been adding positive input- in this thread and previous ones- in the hope that we would get to a point that we all have some point of reference in evaluating fancy cuts remotely. In the hope that we could quit simply trashing the tools that are being used and start interpreting them with better accuracy. But despite presenting yourself as a seasoned expert with extensive experience in this area (which I am sure you are), you seem to want others do the actual education around the subject.

I guess I just don't get it.

 

[Christina...]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Christina..... so glad you are back!

you are right. cloudy isnt the right way to put it. I added that it was it was different than clarity, but using the same terminology is also dangerous. I prefer blurry facets vs crisp facets, which seems to be the best way to describe that "mush" look. It is also a somewhat negative connection, like "mush" but i have only ever found the term "mush" used negatively, and i still havent been presented with a visual benefit of this phenomenon.

RD, I hear you trying to equate mush to the crushed ice description. I have not seen this connection. The mush people talk about is not the phenomenon you describe with your yellow diamond example. I have not myself (though i could be missing something, admittedly) seen anyone call a diamond that was cut well, such as that diamond, "mushy". I have seen stones that are not crushed ice called mushy. Ovals and cushions without that chaotic cut style. So your defense of the crushed ice cut, like always, is understandable, but not what ive seen anyone referring to when they use the term mush.

and to christinas point. yes, this thread was created, i assume, as a thread to guide buyers as to how to know how to pick a good radient or other crushed ice diamond. Your declaration that you know how to pick them after 1000s of personal experiences does not help anyone in that regard.
ASETS dont work? what does? people like to have something scientific or standardized to help aid in their choice. What can you present in that category besides personal experience

I was so happy to see you were still posting! It's great to 'see' you too! *hugs*

I hope I didn't offend you in anyway with the 'cloudy' comment. I was actually agreeing with you that finding alternative terminology is difficult , let alone define and agree upon.



David, I hope that you don't give up on this quest. I believe it's an important one, not only for you, but for other vendors and most certainly consumers. I think we would all agree that we would love to be able to confidently recommend beautiful 'crushed ice' (though I prefer Yssie's description 'bucket of glitter') radiants, whether it be by the tools currently available to us, or by some future development. Happy to hear that you're doing well!!

ETA. I should have said that I'd love to feel confident enough to recommend beautiful crushed ice radiants REMOTELY. As you've suggested, I'm sure it's much more easily done in person, but of course, that isn't really the point of online diamond purchases.

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

David,
Same diamond, same light, same lens, same focus plane( in to girdle)
difference is only in distance between lens and diamond that create difference in magnification and DOF.
So you do not need use "Soft focus" to show crispy facets with long ray path.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

David,
Same diamond, same light, same lens, same focus plane( in to girdle)
difference is only in distance between lens and diamond that create difference in magnification and DOF.
So you do not need use "Soft focus" to show crispy facets with long ray path.

Serg,
I'm not sure what differences we are supposed to be seeing between these two images. Could you be more specific ?
Guessing here: Photo on left taken slightly further from lens with greater DOF and showing crisper focus of VF's, particularly inside table outline?

This looks like a very nice crushed ice cushion. How would you rate it for overall cut quality? And can you post ASET view so that we can translate what we are seeing in the photos?

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

David,
Same diamond, same light, same lens, same focus plane( in to girdle)
difference is only in distance between lens and diamond that create difference in magnification and DOF.
So you do not need use "Soft focus" to show crispy facets with long ray path.

Serg,
I'm not sure what differences we are supposed to be seeing between these two images. Could you be more specific ?
Guessing here: Photo on left taken slightly further from lens with greater DOF and showing crisper focus of VF's, particularly inside table outline?

This looks like a very nice crushed ice cushion. How would you rate it for overall cut quality? And can you post ASET view so that we can translate what we are seeing in the photos?

Bryan,
Answers:
1)I try to show the difference in DOF( Depth of Field). On left image you can see more number of sharp VF's, because distance between lens and diamond is bigger. See attached photos with higher magnification for zone under table ( from same source photos).

2)Good enough for Crushed ice diamonds. This sample Garry selected for our Cut Study 5-7 years ago as best available( for his taste) . many people like such cut style because it has a lot of Scintillation. For my taste it has not good enough uniform VF's pattern ( cluster with big VF''s in one( if we account symmetry) zone and very small VF's in other zones). Also this cuts does not catch enough light from high angles( Red zone in ASET)

ASET, IS photos, different movies you can find here http://cutwise.com/stone/6_MSSCUSHION0?format=asetWhite. all MSS diamonds are available now on cutwise.com with 4 type movies and different photos.