David,Rockdiamond|1416521920|3787558 said:Stan, a discussion of Octavia- or any cut, that involves spread is stating facts, as opposed to opinion, or speaking disparagingly.
I have already mentioned that I have seen Octavia in person, and my personal opinion is that I like them.
The spread issue is not a knock, it's a fact that the design calls for a very high crown, and corresponding pavilion. I have found that there are indeed Asscher cuts that are both spready, and well cut. Such stones will have a greater spread than Octavia.
That is the basis for my statements.
I truly wish that Karl would simply give his point of view as opposed to looking at this as a knock.
Chrono|1416511346|3787399 said:I like a balance between spread and sparkle. I do not want spread at the expense of sparkle and vice versa.
That!..diamondseeker2006|1416538970|3787724 said:Chrono|1416511346|3787399 said:I like a balance between spread and sparkle. I do not want spread at the expense of sparkle and vice versa.
This.
I'm no programmer, but the Google method I described in my last post has always brought up more relevant topics than the one embedded in PS. I feel like if PS is to be an effective resource for diamond consumers, easy and categorical access to archives should be a top priority. There are some many useful threads hidden away!Tekate|1416501439|3787257 said:PS uses google doesn't it? it always says 'powered by Google".. hmm.
diamondseeker2006|1416540643|3787741 said:RandG, I am planning to make earrings with rose cuts in the near future! I love them! I don't think one really buys rose cuts in the same way they buy a new diamond for an engagement ring, though. Most people coming here are looking for new stones for engagement rings or as an upgrade.
Antique stones are very popular with PS regulars, however. I do not classify old cuts in the same way as newly cut stones, because they were never cut to have light performance like modern stones are. Every stone has to be evaluated on its own merits. Sadly so many of the nice higher color antique stones have long ago been recut. To me, antique stones are an entirely different discussion. This forum primarily attracts people buying new modern cut diamonds. And in those cases, I cannot imagine not recommending well cut stones. Those who are looking for antique stones never consider cut grades, because they don't work with antique stones. You do have to rely solely on what your eyes see and personal preference knowing that outstanding light return is not usually something you're going to be getting. However, as I have said previously, there are some better cut antique stones than others, so I would recommend buying the finest examples possible.
Here are two examples. Is anyone here really going to argue that one of these is not better cut and preferable to the other??? (Well, I take that back. I suppose if the one with the poorer cut has better spread, there is one person on the thread who might prefer it.)
Please do!..Karl_K|1416514573|3787438 said:David,
Stop discussing octavia
1: it is against the rules.
2: I would have to break the rules on self promotion to counter your bs.
Thanks
David, I am willing to play and discuss....Rockdiamond|1416523643|3787583 said:Karl- this is definitely an educational thread.
The decisions made in your designing the Octavia regarding spread, versus what you are getting in return will be informative and interesting.
I am NOT criticizing your choices- I like the way the design looks.
This is an opportunity for you to illustrate the advantages, and do so without self promotion.
I think that we all have a great opportunity here to work together in a way that makes PS a better place for consumers and tradespeople.
diamondseeker2006|1416540643|3787741 said:RandG, I am planning to make earrings with rose cuts in the near future! I love them! I don't think one really buys rose cuts in the same way they buy a new diamond for an engagement ring, though. Most people coming here are looking for new stones for engagement rings or as an upgrade.
Antique stones are very popular with PS regulars, however. I do not classify old cuts in the same way as newly cut stones, because they were never cut to have light performance like modern stones are. Every stone has to be evaluated on its own merits. Sadly so many of the nice higher color antique stones have long ago been recut. To me, antique stones are an entirely different discussion. This forum primarily attracts people buying new modern cut diamonds. And in those cases, I cannot imagine not recommending well cut stones. Those who are looking for antique stones never consider cut grades, because they don't work with antique stones. You do have to rely solely on what your eyes see and personal preference knowing that outstanding light return is not usually something you're going to be getting. However, as I have said previously, there are some better cut antique stones than others, so I would recommend buying the finest examples possible.
Here are two examples. Is anyone here really going to argue that one of these is not better cut and preferable to the other??? (Well, I take that back. I suppose if the one with the poorer cut has better spread, there is one person on the thread who might prefer it.)
Karl_K|1416522911|3787572 said:David,Rockdiamond|1416521920|3787558 said:Stan, a discussion of Octavia- or any cut, that involves spread is stating facts, as opposed to opinion, or speaking disparagingly.
I have already mentioned that I have seen Octavia in person, and my personal opinion is that I like them.
The spread issue is not a knock, it's a fact that the design calls for a very high crown, and corresponding pavilion. I have found that there are indeed Asscher cuts that are both spready, and well cut. Such stones will have a greater spread than Octavia.
That is the basis for my statements.
I truly wish that Karl would simply give his point of view as opposed to looking at this as a knock.
It is not that I see it as a knock as much as I see it as a rule violation and I would be in violation of the rules to respond.
Good or bad we are not supposed to discuss competitors diamonds, you don't see me pulling up your diamonds and commenting on them do you? The rules are slightly different in specific education threads like your radiant thread where you posted diamonds for discussion vs general threads.
Stan I have been reporting the posts you are taking about.
You are not the only one that thinks they are not right.
Radiantman|1416514496|3787436 said:With regard to spread vs. brilliance: A 6.3 mm 1 ct round diamond will clearly look smaller than a 6.5 mm 1 ct round. If it is not more brilliant then it is clearly inferior since the consumer gets nothing for the trade-off in spread. If it is more brilliant, then the consumer needs to balance the loss of brilliance (which may be obvious but also may be subtle and visible only in certain kinds of light), against the gain in spread and decide where their preference lies.
MelisendeDiamonds|1416591742|3788039 said:Radiantman|1416514496|3787436 said:With regard to spread vs. brilliance: A 6.3 mm 1 ct round diamond will clearly look smaller than a 6.5 mm 1 ct round. If it is not more brilliant then it is clearly inferior since the consumer gets nothing for the trade-off in spread. If it is more brilliant, then the consumer needs to balance the loss of brilliance (which may be obvious but also may be subtle and visible only in certain kinds of light), against the gain in spread and decide where their preference lies.
I hope it would be your opinion that this principal applies equally to all cuts of diamonds not just the Round Brilliant. In both "education" threads about Radiant cuts this was never mentioned by either you or Rockdiamond despite the fact I brought it up several times. I don't beleive any cut is inherently "bad", but to ignore the tradeoffs and weaknesses that are inherent in any cut turns an education thread into a marketing one.
Well said, but I will add:Texas Leaguer|1416620456|3788295 said:In the final analysis the life blood of the forum is the consumer and so the focus should always stay on squarely on them. Although the experts are a vital part of a healthy community mix, trades people should be in the back of the room judiciously choosing when to enter a conversation and using their opportunities only when they have something of specific value to offer. I do wish there were more of them here, and that they would all heed my advice!
Radiantman|1416594000|3788063 said:"Making this more complicated is the fact that "brilliance" as we're defining it may not even be what the consumer thinks of when they use the word themselves so one person's "compromise" may not even represent a compromise to someone else. For example, scientifically, an emerald cut can have exceptional light return - it can be quite brilliant. Yet many consumers do not like emerald cuts because they are not "brilliant" to them because of the way the light is reflected. Whether one loves emerald cuts or doesn't is a matter of personal taste - whether you like the kind of brilliance it has, not by a measurement of its "performance" vs. other shapes."
On another front, I asked previously if you could provide the ORC identification # for the diamond that you have repeatedly represented as an ORC. It would be quite helpful for any further discussion if you would do so to clear up any issues as to its authenticity and so that if it indeed is an ORC I can look up any information about it that I might have in my records.
MelisendeDiamonds|1416675195|3788541 said:Radiantman|1416594000|3788063 said:"Making this more complicated is the fact that "brilliance" as we're defining it may not even be what the consumer thinks of when they use the word themselves so one person's "compromise" may not even represent a compromise to someone else. For example, scientifically, an emerald cut can have exceptional light return - it can be quite brilliant. Yet many consumers do not like emerald cuts because they are not "brilliant" to them because of the way the light is reflected. Whether one loves emerald cuts or doesn't is a matter of personal taste - whether you like the kind of brilliance it has, not by a measurement of its "performance" vs. other shapes."
Brilliance is not a subjective term to me, and as repeatedly you will not consider adopting a simple definition even for the the purpose of education or understanding the correlation with ASET there isn't anywhere to reach agreement. The situation is further exacerbated by your insistence on providing photographs of "your" diamonds in "your" lighting for the purposes of defining performance and not disclosing what the lighting is.
Brilliance - is the ability of the diamond to return light to the viewer's eyes
In my opinion given a lack of agreement on a definition there will be a perpetual downward spiral and there can never be any education, consensus, or even agreement on a framework for critical comparison of diamonds.
The only way forward that I can see would be starting my own thread and presenting my own examples in a balanced manner with both pros and cons of each cutting style being considered. I have scans of three square radiants with the same classical radiant structure with average pavilion main angles of 1)~35 degrees 2)~38 3)~41 which I can present and post images of ASET faceup and also with 5 degree tilt, I think the comparison will be very educational in understanding "crushed ice" and radiants especially if I can also embed videos in the forum.
On another front, I asked previously if you could provide the ORC identification # for the diamond that you have repeatedly represented as an ORC. It would be quite helpful for any further discussion if you would do so to clear up any issues as to its authenticity and so that if it indeed is an ORC I can look up any information about it that I might have in my records.
While I could post the ORC number for you it will be deleterious for future comparative discussions. Once it is positively identified as one of yours (It will be it has ORC #3XXX) any tradeoffs that I highlight could be considered by some as a violation of forum rules and a "condemnation" of your business. Lets just say instead in future it has near identical proportions to the classical radiant style for an almost square radiant LW=1.05.
The moderator has not removed that image and has deemed it acceptable despite it being reported. I believe that the correct educational message has been received by that image and as I don't want future educational discussions to be derailed because Original Radiant Cut is mentioned I will avoid linking images to brands in future particularly yours given your sensitivity.
Serg|1416676594|3788547 said:Melisende ,
How did You verify your definition of Brilliancy ?
2007 in the journal Optical Engineering, entitled “Evaluation of Brilliance, Fire, and Scintillation in Round Brilliant Gemstones." Foundational work on the project was published in Optics and Photonics News in April of 2003 entitled “The Optical Design of Gemstones." and references therein.
Serg,
I have found in the past getting into too many fine technical details all at once has not had the greatest impact on the general pricescope readership and I'm not sure it is the focus of this thread but I'll answer some of your questions briefly even though you claim my posts are "personal attacks" and are "attacking" me right now in much the same way.
Lets check you definition for simplest examples
1) 2mm and 6mm round diamonds, both have same AGS0 parameters
which diamond is more Brilliant?
Which Diamond is more Bright?
Which diamond has more ability to Return more light to the viewers eyes?
Size is an important factor especially for virtual facet size and it should be taken into consideration. The large majority of examples I have posted (with a couple notable exceptions) are within 1 - 2 ct range which is the sweet spot for "light performance branded diamonds" given cost of rough, saleability, and yield concerns.
if you see any difference in Brilliancy for these 2 diamonds and you do not see any difference in ASET images for same diamonds then you need change your statements about Brilliancy and connections between Brilliancy and ASET images.
2) compare 1ct AGS0 round diamond in static position and same diamond during tilting.
please give answers for same questions.
3) if you saw 20-50 ct round diamond with AGS0 proportions, please compare Brilliancy for such big round diamond with 1ct AGS0 RBC.
A static ASET image is not the whole story, if I am presenting I would present a simulated video with the diamonds rocking under ASET lighting. If thats not practical a few ASET images with each with tilt 5 degrees in each direction would still be instructive.
Octonus Diamcalc is extremely helpful in this regard especially for providing standardized lighting and for controlling tilt so thank-you for that.
Your personal attacks to some trade persons are not pleasant and avoid other professionals to publish them opinions.