Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling ice

[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?

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.

Thanks, very helpful.

I'm posting the ASET from your page just for reference here. You can certainly see that it is drawing a lot of low angle light. But the ASET signature is interesting in that the light return is well mixed. What red is there is dispersed along with leakage in non-contiguous areas which I presume adds some positive contrast and scintillation.



Do you happen to have an example of a crushed ice cushion that is more to your taste? i.e. more red, more uniform VF's?

 

[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.

Thanks, very helpful.

I'm posting the ASET from your page just for reference here. You can certainly see that it is drawing a lot of low angle light. But the ASET signature is interesting in that the light return is well mixed. What red is there is dispersed along with leakage in non-contiguous areas which I presume adds some positive contrast and scintillation.



Do you happen to have an example of a crushed ice cushion that is more to your taste? i.e. more red, more uniform VF's?

No I have not such Crushed Ice cushion. I had not goal to create such Cushion because I prefer Fire( instead Scintillation) and better Table Colour.
I have example the cushion with more Red and uniform VF's pattern, but it is not crushed ice cushion
http://cutwise.com/stone/6_MSSCUSHION10?format=video8Fire

I think, it is not difficult to receive Crushed ice cut with more Red or even good Red-Green mix, but such cut can not have great : Fire, table colour( except D-F pavilion colour grades) and Brightness .

 

[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?

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.

Thanks, very helpful.

I'm posting the ASET from your page just for reference here. You can certainly see that it is drawing a lot of low angle light. But the ASET signature is interesting in that the light return is well mixed. What red is there is dispersed along with leakage in non-contiguous areas which I presume adds some positive contrast and scintillation.


Do you happen to have an example of a crushed ice cushion that is more to your taste? i.e. more red, more uniform VF's?

No I have not such Crushed Ice cushion. I had not goal to create such Cushion because I prefer Fire( instead Scintillation) and better Table Colour.
I have example the cushion with more Red and uniform VF's pattern, but it is not crushed ice cushion
http://cutwise.com/stone/6_MSSCUSHION10?format=video8Fire

I think, it is not difficult to receive Crushed ice cut with more Red or even good Red-Green mix, but such cut can not have great : Fire, table colour( except D-F pavilion colour grades) and Brightness .

Wow! That's an impressive cushion.

From the video it does not seem like you are giving up much in scintillation. The VF's are bigger and slower (producing a lot of fire) but still very dynamic.

Interesting point you make about color. So is it accurate to say that the crushed ice example may face up less white than it's color grade due to long ray paths, and that a cushion of the type in the second example which is returning predominantly high angle light would appear whiter than it's body color (in typical lighting scenarios)?

 

[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.

Thanks, very helpful.

I'm posting the ASET from your page just for reference here. You can certainly see that it is drawing a lot of low angle light. But the ASET signature is interesting in that the light return is well mixed. What red is there is dispersed along with leakage in non-contiguous areas which I presume adds some positive contrast and scintillation.


Do you happen to have an example of a crushed ice cushion that is more to your taste? i.e. more red, more uniform VF's?

No I have not such Crushed Ice cushion. I had not goal to create such Cushion because I prefer Fire( instead Scintillation) and better Table Colour.
I have example the cushion with more Red and uniform VF's pattern, but it is not crushed ice cushion
http://cutwise.com/stone/6_MSSCUSHION10?format=video8Fire

I think, it is not difficult to receive Crushed ice cut with more Red or even good Red-Green mix, but such cut can not have great : Fire, table colour( except D-F pavilion colour grades) and Brightness .

Wow! That's an impressive cushion.

From the video it does not seem like you are giving up much in scintillation. The VF's are bigger and slower (producing a lot of fire) but still very dynamic.

Interesting point you make about color. So is it accurate to say that the crushed ice example may face up less white than it's color grade due to long ray paths, and that a cushion of the type in the second example which is returning predominantly high angle light would appear whiter than it's body color (in typical lighting scenarios)?

Yes, see discussion here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/g-vs-h-cushion-for-the-color-conscious.212686/

 

[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?

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.

Thanks, very helpful.

I'm posting the ASET from your page just for reference here. You can certainly see that it is drawing a lot of low angle light. But the ASET signature is interesting in that the light return is well mixed. What red is there is dispersed along with leakage in non-contiguous areas which I presume adds some positive contrast and scintillation.


Do you happen to have an example of a crushed ice cushion that is more to your taste? i.e. more red, more uniform VF's?

No I have not such Crushed Ice cushion. I had not goal to create such Cushion because I prefer Fire( instead Scintillation) and better Table Colour.
I have example the cushion with more Red and uniform VF's pattern, but it is not crushed ice cushion
http://cutwise.com/stone/6_MSSCUSHION10?format=video8Fire

I think, it is not difficult to receive Crushed ice cut with more Red or even good Red-Green mix, but such cut can not have great : Fire, table colour( except D-F pavilion colour grades) and Brightness .

Wow! That's an impressive cushion.

From the video it does not seem like you are giving up much in scintillation. The VF's are bigger and slower (producing a lot of fire) but still very dynamic.

Interesting point you make about color. So is it accurate to say that the crushed ice example may face up less white than it's color grade due to long ray paths, and that a cushion of the type in the second example which is returning predominantly high angle light would appear whiter than it's body color (in typical lighting scenarios)?

Yes, see discussion here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/g-vs-h-cushion-for-the-color-conscious.212686/

Thanks,
I am posting the color comparison shot from that thread here for continuity.

 

[Christina...]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Sergey, I love how your stones are presented on the cutwise website. I wish the site had some radiant examples to share then consumers would have a much better understanding of how ASET, IS, and static images correlate to real life viewing.

David, have you had any luck acquiring a dibox? I think that if you could photograph and video many examples of both well, and not so well cut stones, then organise them similar to MSS presentation, that consumers would have a much clearer understanding of what we were seeing, and also for you (and other professionals) to explain to us what we should be looking for. One of the things I've noticed about the past couple threads is how chaotic and disorganised they seem to get. I feel that the average consumer just wants the information to be provided in some sort of standard form (ideally) across all vendors.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling



Bryan- I know it's very easy to mistake my comments for "bashing" aset- however I am really way past that.
The tool is a tool.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I do not agree with the interpretation commonly used- for many reasons- and all because I understand the technology.
So it's not about the tool is a problem - it's how we read the results that misses the mark IMO
The aset above is picture perfect crushed ice.

Your question to Sergie is central to the discussion

Do you happen to have an example of a crushed ice cushion that is more to your taste? i.e. more red, more uniform VF's?

In a stone like the aset in this post, anything more than a smattering of red is not a positive aspect at all. Large red areas will read as dark places in the diamond in real life.
In a stone like the one above you will not find "uniform" vf's any more than you'll find uniform patterns in tree bark.
That's the point, it's an organic Chaos.

Serg used the term "good enough for crushed ice"
Another remarkable cutter I know has called crushed ice "cheating"

This concept is also central to understanding what the look is all about.
Part of what makes it attractive to cutters is that they can produce excellent results while not having to make every facet symmetrical. So they don;t have devote the labor, and can also make better use of the rough n terms of spread or yield.
This is a contributing factor to price per carat advantage over certain branded cushion, or cushion brilliant diamonds.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Sergey, I love how your stones are presented on the cutwise website. I wish the site had some radiant examples to share then consumers would have a much better understanding of how ASET, IS, and static images correlate to real life viewing.

David, have you had any luck acquiring a dibox? I think that if you could photograph and video many examples of both well, and not so well cut stones, then organise them similar to MSS presentation, that consumers would have a much clearer understanding of what we were seeing, and also for you (and other professionals) to explain to us what we should be looking for. One of the things I've noticed about the past couple threads is how chaotic and disorganised they seem to get. I feel that the average consumer just wants the information to be provided in some sort of standard form (ideally) across all vendors.

Hi Christina,
We did purchase a Vibox- which is the most sophisticated camera system on the market.
It has been a valuable learning experience.
At this point, I think it might be better if we had a dibox- specifically fo the ASET capabilities.
It's on our wishlist, hopefully we'll have one sooner rather than later.

Advising people remotely- was a point you brought up yesterday.
I have thought a lot about this.
Part of the discussion that is limiting is a single minded view towards cut.

Cut is king.

In the real world, my opinion is that the best advice on picking a diamond should take more factors into account.
Of course cut is important, but not to the exclusion of all other factors.
One biggie that seems to get totally overlooked is spread.
If folks are routinely advised that they have to give something vital up to get better spread, we are missing an opportunity to assist.
The aspect they gain ( say it's a stone with more red in ASET) may in fact not be important to them at all. Maybe if they looked at a bucket of dazzle ( kisses to yssie and compared it to a stone cut to AGSL ideal light performance standards, they'd pick the dazzle /spread stone.
But if they're advised they'll be loosing important "light performance" they may not even consider it.
Of course this is not the answer of how to advise people how to select crushed ice, but I do believe it's a factor.

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

From the video it does not seem like you are giving up much in scintillation. The VF's are bigger and slower (producing a lot of fire) but still very dynamic.

The video is limited its just a y axis up and down rocking hardly showcasing the full scintillation of this diamond. But fundamentally why do you "give up" scintillation to get bigger flashes? Is faster flashing with smaller flashes "better" scintillation?

this movie has simultaneous rocking in 2 directions: +-5 degree in vertical direction and +-3 degree in horizontal direction

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Sergey, I love how your stones are presented on the cutwise website. I wish the site had some radiant examples to share then consumers would have a much better understanding of how ASET, IS, and static images correlate to real life viewing.

David, have you had any luck acquiring a dibox? I think that if you could photograph and video many examples of both well, and not so well cut stones, then organise them similar to MSS presentation, that consumers would have a much clearer understanding of what we were seeing, and also for you (and other professionals) to explain to us what we should be looking for. One of the things I've noticed about the past couple threads is how chaotic and disorganised they seem to get. I feel that the average consumer just wants the information to be provided in some sort of standard form (ideally) across all vendors.

Thank You, Christina
we will find in Surat and add a Radiant sample to cutwise a soon.

reavid, have you had any luck acquiring a dibox?

David had luck do not buy the Dibox yet. First Dibox version is mainly for round cut. We are developing Dibox version for fancy cuts now.
for Fancy cuts we need use optic with longer DOF.

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

In the real world, my opinion is that the best advice on picking a diamond should take more factors into account.
Of course cut is important, but not to the exclusion of all other factors.
One biggie that seems to get totally overlooked is spread.
If folks are routinely advised that they have to give something vital up to get better spread, we are missing an opportunity to assist.
The aspect they gain ( say it's a stone with more red in ASET) may in fact not be important to them at all. Maybe if they looked at a bucket of dazzle ( kisses to yssie and compared it to a stone cut to AGSL ideal light performance standards, they'd pick the dazzle /spread stone.
But if they're advised they'll be loosing important "light performance" they may not even consider it.
Of course this is not the answer of how to advise people how to select crushed ice, but I do believe it's a factor.

Maybe I missed it, but where is the genuine "non chaotic thread" on selecting crushed ice diamonds on Pricescope.
What do you get? What do you give up over other styles?

I'd like to know.

Seems to me you seem to disagree with every other trademember here about what you "give up" by selecting crushed ice diamonds.
Why is this balanced viewpoint absent from this thread?

Most PS Trade members sale round diamonds( Red wine), David sales Fancy cuts, mainly crushed ice diamonds( Champagne ).

David fights this PS mainstream to use Red wine standards and selection rules for Champagne. He does not like to drink warm Champagne that is standard drinking conditions for high level red wines.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Do you happen to have an example of a crushed ice cushion that is more to your taste? i.e. more red, more uniform VF's?

How about this one?

That looks like a very good one. Do you happen to have a photo of that stone or other details? I think it would be helpful if someone could put together a small collection of ASET signatures for top performing crushed ice along with corresponding data and images/videos. This would give a frame of reference for evaluating them remotely. Of course it would not be definitive- you would always have to look at the diamond in real life for final selection. But it would help identify good candidates. If I was selling nice quality crushed ice, that is what I would strive to do.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

In the real world, my opinion is that the best advice on picking a diamond should take more factors into account.
Of course cut is important, but not to the exclusion of all other factors.
One biggie that seems to get totally overlooked is spread.
If folks are routinely advised that they have to give something vital up to get better spread, we are missing an opportunity to assist.
The aspect they gain ( say it's a stone with more red in ASET) may in fact not be important to them at all. Maybe if they looked at a bucket of dazzle ( kisses to yssie and compared it to a stone cut to AGSL ideal light performance standards, they'd pick the dazzle /spread stone.
But if they're advised they'll be loosing important "light performance" they may not even consider it.
Of course this is not the answer of how to advise people how to select crushed ice, but I do believe it's a factor.

Maybe I missed it, but where is the genuine "non chaotic thread" on selecting crushed ice diamonds on Pricescope.
What do you get? What do you give up over other styles?

I'd like to know.

Seems to me you seem to disagree with every other trademember here about what you "give up" by selecting crushed ice diamonds.
Why is this balanced viewpoint absent from this thread?

Adelina, you have not been here long enough to see the other viewpoints that represent a counterbalance to some of these statements. If you backtrack you will see them. Some tradesmembers grow weary of countering the same statements endlessly.

For instance, the notion that advising a consumer that they are giving up some aspects of light performance (notice the quotes) to get a crushed ice flavor diamond is somehow unfair. Because then "they might not even consider it". The implication is that this information should be witheld. We should only talk about spread and price and buckets of dazzing ice.

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Most PS Trade members sale round diamonds( Red wine), David sales Fancy cuts, mainly crushed ice diamonds( Champagne ).

Well we are talking about Champagne not red wine in this thread perhaps the red wine rules have to be applied differently and properly to Champagne. However a Champagne connoisseur should be able to describe the Champagne for what it is but not call it "better" or the "equal" in every aspect to red wine.

"a fruity while structured Champagne. It has both fresh and fragrant fruit as well as richness, a soft, creamy texture and bright acidity. There is no sense in bottle aging here—drink this wine because of its crispness"

versus

"An elegant and monolithic red, pure and powerful, with hints of lushness to the concentrated red plum, raspberry and dark currant flavors. This is filled with black olive and baker’s chocolate notes, backed up by grippy tannins. Finishes with refined accents of slate and white pepper."

David fights this PS mainstream to use Red wine standards and selection rules for Champagne. He does not like to drink warm Champagne that is standard drinking conditions for high level red wines.

I wouldn't want to drink warm champagne either. But I also don't want to change the the restaurant where customers enjoy both. Its the same restaurant and drinking conditions. I don't want to drink my Champagne in the wine fridge just to keep it cold.

it is exactly that David tried to do early several time but was attacked buy ASET/IS , pseudo scientific mainstream. He has not so perfect language as Vine industry developed during thousand years. Nobody in diamond industry has such language and it is big industry weakness . this weakness is bad for all cuts( round cut and fancy cuts). Diamond industry have not even good consumer definitions for Brilliancy, Fire , Scintillation.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

From the video it does not seem like you are giving up much in scintillation. The VF's are bigger and slower (producing a lot of fire) but still very dynamic.

The video is limited its just a y axis up and down rocking hardly showcasing the full scintillation of this diamond. But fundamentally why do you "give up" scintillation to get bigger flashes? Is faster flashing with smaller flashes "better" scintillation?

Scintillation is an important aspect of light performance where there is a fair amount of disagreement as to what makes for the best appearance. Crushed ice trades off larger, slower virtual facets for smaller, faster flashes. This creates a more subtle twinkle effect vs a bold flashy effect. It is a matter of taste to a large degree. However, it is a real trade off with real consequences for light performance in terms of brightness, fire and the ability for the diamond to be appreciated from afar. And as Serg illustrated, the long ray paths of crushed ice can accentuate whatever body color the stone has and project it to the eye, causing those stones to face up lower in color than their grade. This effect is precisely why this cutting style is preferred for fancy color diamonds.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Thank you Serg– We are obviously on the same page on a lot of issues.
Bryan – I never said, or even implied that a discussion of cut should not include brightness, larger flashes, the things that produce red in ASET
What I did say directly, is that by excluding spread from these discussions we are missing a huge aspect of Diamond cut.
For example, your statement in bold below – if a diamond is 20% larger, and 3% less bright using AGSL standards, which one would be more visible across the room?

From the video it does not seem like you are giving up much in scintillation. The VF's are bigger and slower (producing a lot of fire) but still very dynamic.

The video is limited its just a y axis up and down rocking hardly showcasing the full scintillation of this diamond. But fundamentally why do you "give up" scintillation to get bigger flashes? Is faster flashing with smaller flashes "better" scintillation?

Scintillation is an important aspect of light performance where there is a fair amount of disagreement as to what makes for the best appearance. Crushed ice trades off larger, slower virtual facets for smaller, faster flashes. This creates a more subtle twinkle effect vs a bold flashy effect. It is a matter of taste to a large degree. However, it is a real trade off with real consequences for light performance in terms of brightness, fire and the ability for the diamond to be appreciated from afar. And as Serg illustrated, the long ray paths of crushed ice can accentuate whatever body color the stone has and project it to the eye, causing those stones to face up lower in color than their grade. This effect is precisely why this cutting style is preferred for fancy color diamonds.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

From the video it does not seem like you are giving up much in scintillation. The VF's are bigger and slower (producing a lot of fire) but still very dynamic.

The video is limited its just a y axis up and down rocking hardly showcasing the full scintillation of this diamond. But fundamentally why do you "give up" scintillation to get bigger flashes? Is faster flashing with smaller flashes "better" scintillation?

Scintillation is an important aspect of light performance where there is a fair amount of disagreement as to what makes for the best appearance. Crushed ice trades off larger, slower virtual facets for smaller, faster flashes. This creates a more subtle twinkle effect vs a bold flashy effect. It is a matter of taste to a large degree. However, it is a real trade off with real consequences for light performance in terms of brightness, fire and the ability for the diamond to be appreciated from afar. And as Serg illustrated, the long ray paths of crushed ice can accentuate whatever body color the stone has and project it to the eye, causing those stones to face up lower in color than their grade. This effect is precisely why this cutting style is preferred for fancy color diamonds.

Thank you Serg– We are obviously on the same page on a lot of issues.
Bryan – I never said, or even implied that a discussion of cut should not include brightness, larger flashes, the things that produce red in ASET
What I did say directly, is that by excluding spread from these discussions we are missing a huge aspect of Diamond cut.
For example, your statement in bold below – if a diamond is 20% larger, and 3% less bright using AGSL standards, which one would be more visible across the room?

David,
It would not be meaningful to speculate on your hypothetical. If you have examples you can post with information to compare we might be able to gain some insight.

What I think can be said is that the small virtual facets and quick scintillation of low angle light in the mostly green ASET example above, which you described as "picture perfect crushed ice", would be too small and low in brightness to project well at any significant distance. You would have to be observing a stone like this at pretty close range to appreciate its special qualities.

I would also question the assumption implied by your hypothetical that simply because the stone is "20% larger" (by which I think you are referring to spread or dimensionality), that it's virtual facets would be any larger. And if comparing the crushed ice example to Serg's cushion with the non-crushed ice look, there would be far more than 3% difference in brightness.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Bryan,
Here's one issue.
We can measure, using calibrated, scientific measurements how much larger one stone's surface area is as compared too another.
We can also measure it's weight in the same manner.
We can not do the same thing for Brilliance. So there's no possible way to assign a percentage to the difference in brilliance, as we can with size.

To your point about a stone being noticed from across the room.....this is similar to a discussion about fluorescence where you're basing conclusions on studies which are in no way conclusive.
You may believe that, from an optical standpoint, the smaller VF's can't be seen from across the ring.
You'll find stark opposition from people who have worn these diamonds and had them be easily noticed from a distance.
Like on the red carpet at the Oscars.

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Bryan,
Here's one issue.
We can measure, using calibrated, scientific measurements how much larger one stone's surface area is as compared too another.
We can also measure it's weight in the same manner.
We can not do the same thing for Brilliance. So there's no possible way to assign a percentage to the difference in brilliance, as we can with size.

To your point about a stone being noticed from across the room.....this is similar to a discussion about fluorescence where you're basing conclusions on studies which are in no way conclusive.
You may believe that, from an optical standpoint, the smaller VF's can't be seen from across the ring.
You'll find stark opposition from people who have worn these diamonds and had them be easily noticed from a distance.
Like on the red carpet at the Oscars.

Observer does not see VF's in clean diamond. Instead VF's he sees reflections ( light source reflections) . VF is like hole in a fence.
Round diamond create medium number of medium size holes in a fence. Crushed ice cuts create huge number holes in a fence, the fence become a sieve. you will see some light through a sieve with even tiny holes( invisible holes) , but brightness will less. If light source is very bright in compare with human eye adaptation level then brightness reduction due using invisible holes is not "visible ". If light source brightness is close to human adaptation level then difference in brightness is easy visible. So Difference in brightness between round cut and Crushed ice strongly depends from light conditions. this difference is bigger in "Office light environment " and much less( may be negligible) in "Theatre light environment" . May be Red Carpet at the Oscars with many very bright Camera flashes has similar light environment to Theatre . ( never saw in live Red Carpet light environment )

 

[Rockdiamond]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Incredibly interesting concepts Serg!!

Great point about seeing the VF versus seeing the reflection.
Also about how different the results are when we change lighting scenarios.
To me, this is an underlying fault in current AGSL methodology.

Bryan- I thought about you yesterday- since I know you're also an NPR fan, This American Life has a great story this week about changing people's minds. Very hard to do in most cases. It reminded me of many discussions here
I'd like to think that we have a very good chance to open the discussion in a way that allows each "side" to find more value in the other's viewpoint.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Incredibly interesting concepts Serg!!

Great point about seeing the VF versus seeing the reflection.
Also about how different the results are when we change lighting scenarios.
To me, this is an underlying fault in current AGSL methodology.

Bryan- I thought about you yesterday- since I know you're also an NPR fan, This American Life has a great story this week about changing people's minds. Very hard to do in most cases. It reminded me of many discussions here
I'd like to think that we have a very good chance to open the discussion in a way that allows each "side" to find more value in the other's viewpoint.

David - I have an open mind about most things. I am agnostic by nature. I am also under no illusion that I will ever change your mind about anything! Nor is that my goal. Forum discussion is obviously much bigger than the two of us, and there are people here that are a lot smarter than both of us put together. As you like to say, we can always "agree to disagree" and let others make up their own minds and have their own say.

It's all good as far as I am concerned.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Bryan,
Here's one issue.
We can measure, using calibrated, scientific measurements how much larger one stone's surface area is as compared too another.
We can also measure it's weight in the same manner.
We can not do the same thing for Brilliance. So there's no possible way to assign a percentage to the difference in brilliance, as we can with size.

To your point about a stone being noticed from across the room.....this is similar to a discussion about fluorescence where you're basing conclusions on studies which are in no way conclusive.
You may believe that, from an optical standpoint, the smaller VF's can't be seen from across the ring.
You'll find stark opposition from people who have worn these diamonds and had them be easily noticed from a distance.
Like on the red carpet at the Oscars.

Observer does not see VF's in clean diamond. Instead VF's he sees reflections ( light source reflections) . VF is like hole in a fence.
Round diamond create medium number of medium size holes in a fence. Crushed ice cuts create huge number holes in a fence, the fence become a sieve. you will see some light through a sieve with even tiny holes( invisible holes) , but brightness will less. If light source is very bright in compare with human eye adaptation level then brightness reduction due using invisible holes is not "visible ". If light source brightness is close to human adaptation level then difference in brightness is easy visible. So Difference in brightness between round cut and Crushed ice strongly depends from light conditions. this difference is bigger in "Office light environment " and much less( may be negligible) in "Theatre light environment" . May be Red Carpet at the Oscars with many very bright Camera flashes has similar light environment to Theatre . ( never saw in live Red Carpet light environment )

Serg,
I really like your fence analogy. That's right up there with cars and wine

Couple of questions:
1) To clarify in my mind, are you saying that with a bright light source (like in a jewelry store) the difference in perceived brightness between crushed ice and MRB will be less noticeable, as compared to more common lighting such as an office environment where the difference in brightness between the two will be more noticeable?

2) In regards to the question of whether crushed ice style would be as appreciable from distance, that would depend on other light performance qualities besides overall brightness. Assuming more or less equal brightness, the white and colored sparkles from the diamond with larger virtual facets will project fire and scintillation greater distances. Or better stated, will be able to be perceived and appreciated at greater distances. Is that a generally accurate assessment in your view?

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I apologize for being late to the party but interestingly enough, while you folks were going back and forth discussing how to tell whether a "crushed ice" radiant has the sharp brilliant crushed ice so many people love versus the "mushy" crushed ice that has deservedly been criticized on this forum, I was discussing exactly the same issue with Pete Yantzer and Jason Quick at the AGS conclave.

The difference between "good" crushed ice and "mushy" crushed ice is pretty obvious when you see the diamonds with your own eyes side by side but how can you tell the difference without that live comparison?

The question plays into the current research being done by the AGS Lab regarding measuring scintillation. Unlike with a round brilliant, the ASET signature of a crushed ice diamond changes substantially with even a small amount of movement so a single static ASET image is far less useful than it is for a round stone.

As a result of our conversation, I sent a bunch of radiants to the Lab for evaluation so we can work together to develope the necessary metrics, which do not currently exist. Hopefully, their research will yield the answers we need to empirically separate the good crushed ice from the bad.

Until then, the reality is that while we can make educated guesses from pictures, ASET images, videos, Sarin scans etc., there is no way to know for sure without seeing the diamond.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I apologize for being late to the party but interestingly enough, while you folks were going back and forth discussing how to tell whether a "crushed ice" radiant has the sharp brilliant crushed ice so many people love versus the "mushy" crushed ice that has deservedly been criticized on this forum, I was discussing exactly the same issue with Pete Yantzer and Jason Quick at the AGS conclave.

The difference between "good" crushed ice and "mushy" crushed ice is pretty obvious when you see the diamonds with your own eyes side by side but how can you tell the difference without that live comparison?

The question plays into the current research being done by the AGS Lab regarding measuring scintillation. Unlike with a round brilliant, the ASET signature of a crushed ice diamond changes substantially with even a small amount of movement so a single static ASET image is far less useful than it is for a round stone.

As a result of our conversation, I sent a bunch of radiants to the Lab for evaluation so we can work together to develope the necessary metrics, which do not currently exist. Hopefully, their research will yield the answers we need to empirically separate the good crushed ice from the bad.

Until then, the reality is that while we can make educated guesses from pictures, ASET images, videos, Sarin scans etc., there is no way to know for sure without seeing the diamond.

Stan,
Good to hear of your discussions with AGSL. That sounds really promising. I think it will be very beneficial to those shopping for these diamonds (and to those selling them), that there is at least some sort of repeatable frame of reference for separating likely nice candidates for further consideration and viewing.

I look forward to following this development.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Do you happen to have an example of a crushed ice cushion that is more to your taste? i.e. more red, more uniform VF's?

How about this one?

That looks like a very good one. Do you happen to have a photo of that stone or other details? I think it would be helpful if someone could put together a small collection of ASET signatures for top performing crushed ice along with corresponding data and images/videos. This would give a frame of reference for evaluating them remotely. Of course it would not be definitive- you would always have to look at the diamond in real life for final selection. But it would help identify good candidates. If I was selling nice quality crushed ice, that is what I would strive to do.

You would have to ask Garry or Janak.
What I can tell you is this is a rare specimen and the time labour and expertise required to achieve this level of crushed ice is likely far more specialized than that of a fine make round.

These would only be popular in colored diamonds, the expense both in yield and labour just wouldn't justify mainstream support in D-Z color diamonds.

But that is just the point, of course ASET interpertation will knock crushed ice diamonds it only considers where the crown receives light, if you are interpreting an ASET image that is what you are interpreting and it mainly relates to brightness. That has nothing to do with spread, yield, fire, or scintillation although some of these can be loosely extrapolated from an ASET image.

Those long light paths and their byproduct "crushed ice" are a result of a design that generally strives to achieve a decent yield from rectangular rough and a decent spread. The "crushed ice" or "uniform scintillation" is making the best out of a shallow pavilion and a design that if done well evens out the attenuated brightness and limits contrast zones by shallow mains combined with steep LGFs and/or a thick girdle. This type of design is quite desirable in Fancy yellow diamonds for enhancing color but not as valuable in the D-Z range where big sparkle, fire, and strong light return is more important.

Adelina,
You are clearly very knowledgeable and you have a trade badge. Since you are new to the forum (only a few posts at least) would you mind sharing a little of your background. If you are not comfortable doing that there's no obligation. I am just curious.

 

[Texas Leaguer]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Do you happen to have an example of a crushed ice cushion that is more to your taste? i.e. more red, more uniform VF's?

How about this one?

That looks like a very good one. Do you happen to have a photo of that stone or other details? I think it would be helpful if someone could put together a small collection of ASET signatures for top performing crushed ice along with corresponding data and images/videos. This would give a frame of reference for evaluating them remotely. Of course it would not be definitive- you would always have to look at the diamond in real life for final selection. But it would help identify good candidates. If I was selling nice quality crushed ice, that is what I would strive to do.

You would have to ask Garry or Janak.
What I can tell you is this is a rare specimen and the time labour and expertise required to achieve this level of crushed ice is likely far more specialized than that of a fine make round.

These would only be popular in colored diamonds, the expense both in yield and labour just wouldn't justify mainstream support in D-Z color diamonds.

But that is just the point, of course ASET interpertation will knock crushed ice diamonds it only considers where the crown receives light, if you are interpreting an ASET image that is what you are interpreting and it mainly relates to brightness. That has nothing to do with spread, yield, fire, or scintillation although some of these can be loosely extrapolated from an ASET image.

Those long light paths and their byproduct "crushed ice" are a result of a design that generally strives to achieve a decent yield from rectangular rough and a decent spread. The "crushed ice" or "uniform scintillation" is making the best out of a shallow pavilion and a design that if done well evens out the attenuated brightness and limits contrast zones by shallow mains combined with steep LGFs and/or a thick girdle. This type of design is quite desirable in Fancy yellow diamonds for enhancing color but not as valuable in the D-Z range where big sparkle, fire, and strong light return is more important.

I'm not sure I would make those assumptions, although it does seem logical. But from what I have seen in the market, there are many consumers ready and willing to pay a premium for the best cutting. If crushed ice cuts have widespread appeal, then I am quite sure there are some of those buyers looking for the best of the best in that style. It could be an opportunity for someone to cater to that niche.

 

[hiratop]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I apologize for being late to the party but interestingly enough, while you folks were going back and forth discussing how to tell whether a "crushed ice" radiant has the sharp brilliant crushed ice so many people love versus the "mushy" crushed ice that has deservedly been criticized on this forum.

So the difference between "mushy" and not "mushy" is the amount of visible scintillation when rocking the stone?

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I apologize for being late to the party but interestingly enough, while you folks were going back and forth discussing how to tell whether a "crushed ice" radiant has the sharp brilliant crushed ice so many people love versus the "mushy" crushed ice that has deservedly been criticized on this forum, I was discussing exactly the same issue with Pete Yantzer and Jason Quick at the AGS conclave.

The difference between "good" crushed ice and "mushy" crushed ice is pretty obvious when you see the diamonds with your own eyes side by side but how can you tell the difference without that live comparison?

The question plays into the current research being done by the AGS Lab regarding measuring scintillation. Unlike with a round brilliant, the ASET signature of a crushed ice diamond changes substantially with even a small amount of movement so a single static ASET image is far less useful than it is for a round stone.

As a result of our conversation, I sent a bunch of radiants to the Lab for evaluation so we can work together to develope the necessary metrics, which do not currently exist. Hopefully, their research will yield the answers we need to empirically separate the good crushed ice from the bad.

Until then, the reality is that while we can make educated guesses from pictures, ASET images, videos, Sarin scans etc., there is no way to know for sure without seeing the diamond.

Hi Stan,
Would you like send similar bunch of radiants to our cut group with same goals? we have version of Scintillation , Fire metrics and would like tests on good and bad radiant cuts. Movies and photos from these cuts we will publish on cutwise as we did for other cuts .
see sample. http://cutwise.com/stone/6_MSSCUSHION0?format=video360Girdle
if you are interesting send such samples please inform about conditions either me, or Janak, Garry. ( there is 2% import tax for polished diamonds in India now, so we prefer avoid expensive diamonds)

 

[Serg]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

Sergey, I love how your stones are presented on the cutwise website. I wish the site had some radiant examples to share then consumers would have a much better understanding of how ASET, IS, and static images correlate to real life viewing.

David, have you had any luck acquiring a dibox? I think that if you could photograph and video many examples of both well, and not so well cut stones, then organise them similar to MSS presentation, that consumers would have a much clearer understanding of what we were seeing, and also for you (and other professionals) to explain to us what we should be looking for. One of the things I've noticed about the past couple threads is how chaotic and disorganised they seem to get. I feel that the average consumer just wants the information to be provided in some sort of standard form (ideally) across all vendors.

Christina,

Done, see first Radiant on cutwise
http://cutwise.com/stone/10_08031095010067?format=video8Fire

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Re: Friendly discussion about bottomless buckets of dazzling

I apologize for being late to the party but interestingly enough, while you folks were going back and forth discussing how to tell whether a "crushed ice" radiant has the sharp brilliant crushed ice so many people love versus the "mushy" crushed ice that has deservedly been criticized on this forum, I was discussing exactly the same issue with Pete Yantzer and Jason Quick at the AGS conclave.

The difference between "good" crushed ice and "mushy" crushed ice is pretty obvious when you see the diamonds with your own eyes side by side but how can you tell the difference without that live comparison?

The question plays into the current research being done by the AGS Lab regarding measuring scintillation. Unlike with a round brilliant, the ASET signature of a crushed ice diamond changes substantially with even a small amount of movement so a single static ASET image is far less useful than it is for a round stone.

As a result of our conversation, I sent a bunch of radiants to the Lab for evaluation so we can work together to develope the necessary metrics, which do not currently exist. Hopefully, their research will yield the answers we need to empirically separate the good crushed ice from the bad.

Until then, the reality is that while we can make educated guesses from pictures, ASET images, videos, Sarin scans etc., there is no way to know for sure without seeing the diamond.

Hi Stan,
Would you like send similar bunch of radiants to our cut group with same goals? we have version of Scintillation , Fire metrics and would like tests on good and bad radiant cuts. Movies and photos from these cuts we will publish on cutwise as we did for other cuts .
see sample. http://cutwise.com/stone/6_MSSCUSHION0?format=video360Girdle
if you are interesting send such samples please inform about conditions either me, or Janak, Garry. ( there is 2% import tax for polished diamonds in India now, so we prefer avoid expensive diamonds)

I'd be happy to. How do I contact you?