- Joined
- Mar 28, 2001
- Messages
- 6,341
Rockdiamond|1322787533|3072629 said:I can't thank you enough for posting that Jon!
Here's my take:
I know you want to impart your vision- and you're both great at your craft, and passionate. I applaud you for that.
The video you posted showcases this wonderfully- however it is an advertisement- an infomercial, as it were.
An infomercial may contain some educational aspects- however the entire goal of it is to highlight a particular brand"
??? I use multiple examples of "bright" crushed ice in various shapes that are unbranded. I think the princess was the only branded example I used of bright crushed ice. Sheesh I posted that link to help you understand where I'm coming from.

Here's a few of the aspects of the video that make it highly subjective, and far less educational:
You are using descriptions such as "This is a beautiful diamond" and "This is not a beautiful diamond" "This is a 'slushy watery' diamond" To be educational it must be able to illustrate a point neutrally.
Yes I am being critical of overtly leaky diamonds. I don't like them and neither do 99.9% of people I show them to. There are cut grading systems, based on optics by AGS and GIA in place for a reason. You may not understand or agree with those cut grading systems but I do and I embrace them. Why? Because I and my clients understand them and they make sense. You can disagree but in my video I am going to give my opinion, back it with hard data and demonstrate it.
I might agree- in the case of the horrible princess cut, yes I agree that stone was not well cut.
On the next example it is the point.
You're trashing a stone you don't like- and that's your right- but I can not see, from the footage you provided what is so bad about that cut.
It might be that I would feel it is badly cut if I examined it, but you do not demonstrate this in the video you posted. It might be a pretty stone. Surely some will prefer that type of stone.
My point is, you do not need to insult others to showcase your vision.
Please do not take my criticisms of diamonds personally Dave. I do not insult or criticize people in my video. I criticize leaky diamonds.
But most importantly lacking in that video was a great example of a stone with small virtual facets which create tremendous scintillation- and very good performance in many different lighting environments.
All the "crushed ice" stones you show lack what lovers of good crushed ice seek- a bottomless pit of sparkle. They all look like the type of patterned stones you love.
If that's lacking, you call them "slushy watery"
Absolutely and for very good reason. BTW that is not a term I invented. Many consumers say the same exact thing. Also, while the video demonstrates my point between bright and watery crushed ice it is by no means exhaustive. I wasn't going to acquire every single type of crushed ice diamond in the world before I cut it. If you recall you and I were having a conversation on the subject and I put that video together in a matter of around 48-72 hours and could only use what I had on hand.
There are some amazing crushed ice stones that look nothing like the ones in your video.
And your shooting methods, like everyone else- highlights your vision- so even there- it's subjective.
WRONG. You would do well to study GIA and AGS' cut grading systems Dave before you hurl these accusations against me.
Just have a look at a few of my videos Jon- I'm an old diamond grader- so I hold the diamond in tweezers under a grading lamp- in a light box- or in natural lighting.
This gives a totally different view than your methods. Neither is more accurate than the other- but they showcase the diamonds in different ways- and your methods put the small virtual facet stones at a disadvantage.
[/quote}
I too shoot in natural lighting my friend. Both loose as well as mounted and there is consistency in every single one of my clips that agree with science, techology as well as the most conservative labs. If you think there is a flaw in GIA or AGS' system, definitions or something I can change about what I do I am open to constructive criticism but certainly not baseless accusation. I am not without my own criticisms of each of their grading systems but my criticisms will be founded in sound reasoning and observation.
And I will be honest here Jon- you force the viewer through an ad for AVC first? That's a bit much.
But first and foremost, I truly appreciate the chance to discuss this- thanks!
I use that because it is what I know to be the best example of precisely what I say it is ... the antithesis of crushed ice. If you watch any of my other videos I use the same type of approach. In my series of "Understanding Diamond Color" my first video is devoted entirely to the subject of "What Diamond Color Isn't". Why? Because when we are learning about a subject it helps the viewer to learn and see exactly what it isn't ... only you see it as an ad

