What kind of cut is this?

[Rank Amateur]

Here's a pic that I came across and I've seen others like it.

What kind of cut is this? Why is it so hard to pick up on the faceting? The picture seems to be in focus, but I can't tell what I'm looking at. Is it just the lighting? Is the table not square to the camera?

 

[fuffi]

I believe that's a radiant cut. They tend to have that 'shattered glass' look.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Here is the sample radiant image on Whiteflash's site.

 

[mike04456]

It looks like a radiant to me, too. I think it's just bad photograph--gem photography can be very, very tricky, and quite of few of those trying to sell online have no idea what they're doing. (Whiteflash being a big exception--their photos are suberb.)

 

[DiamondExpert]

I would also agree that it looks like a Rad. or variant thereof, AND the crystal looks very included...I2?

 

[valeria101]

Yeah, this is a radiant and I should say I like the squarish shape and the distinctive cut. The picture is showing far too much 'flash' for its own good and may mask inclusions, but I would not venture to say wether all those things in the stone are inclusions or not given this picture only... Sam for the color.

Just one question: is this one of Mr. Lauren's diamonds? The picture seems like one I have seen some time ago at diamondsbylauren.com and the style is definitely similar. I would bet the pic could come from that site... Is it? If not and you have not taken it yourself, take a look on that site just for safety.

Ana

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Does this demonstrate why this cut is best left for fancy color stones where the goal is to darken the body color?

It is a cut that leaves me cold!

 

[dimonbob]

I once saw a beautiful vivid purple radiant cut diamond. It was one of those beauties that gets stuck in your brain and never leaves.

 

[Rank Amateur]

Let's play "Guess the symmetry grade" with this one. GIA lab report. No cheating by running off to Jonathan's site!

 

[Rank Amateur]

----------------
On 9/27/2003 5:04:36 PM valeria101 wrote:

Yeah, this is a radiant and I should say I like the squarish shape and the distinctive cut. The picture is showing far too much 'flash' for its own good and may mask inclusions, but I would not venture to say wether all those things in the stone are inclusions or not given this picture only... Sam for the color.

Just one question: is this one of Mr. Lauren's diamonds? The picture seems like one I have seen some time ago at diamondsbylauren.com and the style is definitely similar. I would bet the pic could come from that site... Is it? If not and you have not taken it yourself, take a look on that site just for safety.

Ana----------------

Yep. One of his pics. Usually he posts pics of radiant yellows and it's interesting how the pros hit the nail on the head about this cut being used to bring out the yeller in a fancy stone.

 

[Giangi]

If I remember correctly, last time I saw it on ebay, it was something like a 0.90 I/SI 1... Is that possible?

Looks shallow to me!

 

[Rank Amateur]

I believe that DBL did mention that it is a 90-something pointer.

What makes you think that it is shallow?

 

[valeria101]

Well, yellows are more often found in radiant cuts regardless, and surely the reason abovemnentioned is valid. However, the color grading has nothing to do with the shape of the cut, so I usually do not worry about this effect. After all, rounds are round to make the same material sparkle more and so on... each cut has its own!

 

[Giangi]

RA;

Maybe it's just the out of focus pic, but the stone looks a bit 'watery' and has the 'broken-glass-look' to me, as do many shallow radiants.

 

[DiamondExpert]

RA, your 2nd example looks bad - the culet is way off center to the upper left quadrant - no better than a "fair" symmetry in my opinion. Each of the face up quadrants looks completely different from all the others - just the size differences in the table are obvious.

 

[Rank Amateur]

----------------
On 9/29/2003 12:26:57 PM DiamondExpert wrote:

RA, your 2nd example looks bad - the culet is way off center to the upper left quadrant - no better than a 'fair' symmetry in my opinion. Each of the face up quadrants looks completely different from all the others - just the size differences in the table are obvious.----------------

I thought the same.

I was looking for a good pic of a radiant and I thought GoodOldGold would have some. That pic is the only one Jonathan has up, and it looks like it's been slapped upside the head. GIA gives it "Good" symmetry though. I have no idea how one grades symmetry but I hate to see one graded "fair" or "poor"!

Another interesting thing happened when I was trying to search for a well-cut radiant at the Whiteflash site. When I filtered radiants by cut quality and "good" or better cut, I got 300 returns. When I filtered by "fair" cuts I got 700 returns. Good radiants must be hard to come by.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Hi everyone,
Again, a respectful request:
If you want to use my photos please email to request such use. These photos are the property of Diamonds by Lauren. I am the owner, and the person who takes all the photos. I have no objection to most uses, but I think it's only fair that I know where my property is being used- and for what purpose.
I'm sure that the photos were used here on PriceScope to educate- but there have been many cases of fraudulent stelaiong our photos to misrepresent...something. If they steal my photo who knows what they're actually selling- if anything at all.


The diamond in question is indeed a .90 I/VS2 radiant cut- the grade is EGL USA's.
I've attached a photo of the stone after I had an 18karat white gold ring made.
Although the symmetry is not Excellent, the stone looks awesome, the owner is thrilled, and the price was quite low for such a beautiful diamond.

Best to everyone!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

There appears to have been no one using your photo's for commercial purposes David.
What is the problem?
Is there a problem?

 

[Richard Sherwood]

Hey Dave, welcome aboard.

Stick around and post a bit. The more knowledge added to the forum, the better.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Thank you very much Richard!
Cut Nut- I'm sure you have much more extensive experience here than I- but with all due respect, I really don't know if anyone here used my photos for commercial purposes. I suppose one would have to go back and check all the uses of the photos. Again- I mean no inferrence to you or any other person in particular- I just don't see how one ocould make such a blanket statement without going over thousands and thousands of posts and threads.

I do know, for sure, that people have both used my photos giving no credit to the me, OR used them and referred to me in such way that might give cause for me to defend myself, yet I was never told that this was going on- and that is clearly not cool.
I don't think anyone would like that-no?

That said- I would like to strike a positive note wherever I post. There's no hard feelings at all for those that have used my photos here- Today is the first time I've posted here to let folks know how I feel about it- I guess if I never made it clear that I object how could anyone know. Of course our eBay auctions DO make it clear that we do not authorize use without notice.

Here's how I feel: I am not against folks using my photos for the purpose of education- I wouldn't even object if someone posts a photo because they think it's an ugly diamond- or they have a complaint against me- I simply want to know when my photos are being used soI have the opportunity to respond. Therefore I request that anyone wanting to use a photo from my website or eBay store email and ask- let me know where you intend to use it.


Is that unreasonable?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thankyou David.
1. There is a google tool bar option that you can get for free that will help you to find usage of your photos anywhere on the web.

2. to the best of muy knowledge you have found the only 2 usages here on Pricescope.

3. I understand that no one needs inform an owner of educational usage of individual photo's etc. It is customary / polite to list the source.

4. Where commercial usage is made you have every right to claim damages for loss of profits etc.

5. Where I used your image it was to assist a consumer who was being 'spun a line' and I thought it was by you. We were pleased to learn that it was not you.

We welcome you David as a contributor to aid consumers in their rather scary diamond buying.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Thanks for the welcome CutNut- and also for making my point more stongly than I could.

1) thank you- does anyone have a link to the particualr google tool you refer to?

2) I found two uses after searching for only a few moments- who knows how many more photos have been used without my knowledge. Are you claiming to know every use of my photos here on PS? Have you read every post, every thread?

3)This is the internet, and of course it's totally impossible to completely prevent copywrighted material from being disseminated. You are correct- it IS polite for someone to request permission. It's also the the law, and right thing to do. If you're interested in "educational value" the particualars of the diamond make the photo far more informative. Instead of just puting it up there and having people guess, I can positively identify any of our photos- we keep detailed records.


4)I'm not complaining about the commercial use because I want money- I'm not looking for any money from the photos- BUT- I would like to prevent them from being used for fraudulent purposes. There have been cases of sellers using my photos and claiming they were selling that particular diamond- I do not want to see someone robbed by a crook using my photo. I repeat- this has been attmepted on numerous occasions. In all the cases we caught, it was sharp eyed people that recognized my photos and let me know. I take steps to notify and protect potential victims in these cases.


I quote you "5. Where I used your image it was to assist a consumer who was being 'spun a line' and I thought it was by you. We were pleased to learn that it was not you."

What you are saying here is that you accused me of underhanded behavior on a public forum. You made this accusation without the courtesy of even asking me about it- or giving me the opportunity to defend myself, and you use my own photo to make this accusation.
Would anyone like this kind of treatment?
I would never use anyone's photo without asking for permission.

Again- thanks for the welcome, and thanks for making my point crystal clear.

 

[aljdewey]

David, welcome to the forum. A few comments below in red:

----------------
On 10/18/2003 11:44:27 PM diamondsbylauren wrote:

2) I found two uses after searching for only a few moments- who knows how many more photos have been used without my knowledge. Are you claiming to know every use of my photos here on PS? Have you read every post, every thread?

You may find this hard to believe, but yes, most of us follow nearly all the threads. The volume here on PS is not difficult to keep up with at all. However, that's beside the point. Even if it occurred 20 times, what's the point? This forum is strictly for educational purposes, none of which are exploited in the context of employment.

3)This is the internet, and of course it's totally impossible to completely prevent copywrighted material from being disseminated. You are correct- it IS polite for someone to request permission. It's also the the law, and right thing to do. {edited to add another comment by DBL: I do know, for sure, that people have both used my photos giving no credit to the me)

The proper term is copyright......with an r, not a w. (A distinction I point out only in case someone goes to learn more about it subsequent to this discussion.) Second, the law does recognize some uses that do not require permission.......it's called fair use. Fair use is intended to promote the advancement of progress and enhance the knowledge of the general public. Instances of fair use include purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, parody, teaching, scholarship, or research. One individual's use of a single photo for a discussion on PS certainly falls within those exemptions.

On your comment about getting no credit.......attribution is a separate issue from copyright. It is intended to insure that someone doesn't plagarize, or pass off your work as theirs. In the context of copyright law, Garry is correct......it's polite to give credit to the copyright owner, but not required as a tenet of copyright law.

Fair use depends on a number of factors.....the purpose/character of the use (commercial or non), the amount used, the nature of the work, and the effect the use has on the potential market value of the work.

The nature of the use on PS is non-commercial.....for consumers to learn more about diamonds for their own personal knowledge and education in hopes of making a well-informed, smart purchase. It's typically individuals posting a single photo, not posting every picture of every diamond you sell. Further, it's hard for you to argue that using it on the net is damaging your potential market value when you yourself make those pics even more widely accessible on the net through listing on ebay.

If you're interested in 'educational value' the particualars of the diamond make the photo far more informative. Instead of just puting it up there and having people guess, I can positively identify any of our photos- we keep detailed records.

Perhaps that's true, but some may want unbiased opinions that are uncolored by someone who stands to profit from the sale of the stone. The potential value of the particulars may be somewhat diminished in that instance. Note that movie reviews are done for the purpose of criticism....which is how they include small clips from the film. The movie critics are not obligated to seek permission or even to notify the studio of their review under copyright law. The same is true for uses of photos for the purpose of criticism and/or individual scholarship/research.

4) I'm not looking for any money from the photos- BUT- I would like to prevent them from being used for fraudulent purposes. There have been cases of sellers using my photos and claiming they were selling that particular diamond- I do not want to see someone robbed by a crook using my photo.

I completely empathize with your point, but is has little relevance to use on PS. If this were the only place ill-meaning crooks could obtain copies of your images, that argument would have substantial weight. However, all one has to do is visit ebay to have the same access (and in fact, greater access to YOUR works by simply pulling a search of all YOUR auctions), so it's hard for you to make a case that the few educational uses on PS are the platform for crooks to operate from.

I would never use anyone's photo without asking for permission.

That's admirable, but again, permission (or notification) is not required by the law in all instances.


Of course our eBay auctions DO make it clear that we do not authorize use without notice. ......
Here's how I feel: I am not against folks using my photos for the purpose of education- I wouldn't even object if someone posts a photo because they think it's an ugly diamond- or they have a complaint against me- I simply want to know when my photos are being used soI have the opportunity to respond. Therefore I request that anyone wanting to use a photo from my website or eBay store email and ask- let me know where you intend to use it.

You certainly are entitled to make that request, David, and it would be polite for folks to accommodate it, but let's be clear that the law still doesn't require them to ask you/inform you even in the face of your request. Your request does not negate an individual's right under copyright law to make a fair use without your knowledge. Having said that, I imagine most folks here will be sensitive to your request as a courtesy.

----------------

 

[diamondsbylauren]

aljdewey- I have but four words for you- THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

I ( obviously) have a lot learn about the use of "copyright". I am extremely grateful to you for taking the time to explain some of the fine points to us. It's clear you've studied this.

As I've said, I have no problem with anyone using my photos for educational usage- if that was the purpose and they were used 1000 times, I have no objection at all- on the contrary I am really flattered- it is a compliment.
As fas as how many times they have been used, I am quite sure there are members who could probably answer- not neccesarily Cut Nut.
Can anyone answer the question of how many times my photos have been used? It's not hard to understand that I'd like to know.

As far as "blind" usage on PriceScope:
I do not consider this comparable with a movie review, in the context of a forum about diamonds. Unless you wanted to run a "blind" contest to guess what the stone is, knowing measurements, weight, and GIA info ( if it exists) can only assist those seeking to use the photos to educate about diamonds.
If you wanted to use the photos to discuss the artistic, and photographic qualities, rather than gemological discussion, then that would be similar to the Movie Critic comparison.
In this context, I again have no objection.

I never meant to imply that any member of PriceScope would steal our photos for commercial reasons- or fraudulent ones.
I do point it out so members of this forum understand why I try to prevent use of my photos without my knowledge- Again to be clear- I am not claiming that any PS members used my photos for illicit purposes, and I have no objection to my photos being used for purely educational purposes.


"You certainly are entitled to make that request, David, and it would be polite for folks to accommodate it, but let's be clear that the law still doesn't require them to ask you/inform you even in the face of your request. Your request does not negate an individual's right under copyright law to make a fair use without your knowledge. Having said that, I imagine most folks here will be sensitive to your request as a courtesy."

I am quite sure you're correct! I have no objection to anyone complaining about me, or my photos or my company or products. Not that my objection to complaints means didly- but my purpose here is NOT to prevent anyone from airing legitimate beefs with Diamonds by Lauren, or me.

Now that I have joined I'm sure any member wanting a FAIR forum would like to give me the opportunity to respond to critisism



One last question. If someone was to use my photos to slander my company- again ,I'm not talking about honest complaints or critisism- if the purpose was slander- is that considered "Fair Use"?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

https://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/find-the-inclusion-t9678.html


Case in point-
If I had been a member when this photo was posted, I could have identified exactly where the imperfections lie- remember, as opposed to site just listing database diamonds, I have every stone that we offer in stock. I can answer specific questions on imperfections etc.

Also a good example of "fair use" and I again am flattered

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 10/19/2003 4:33:53 PM diamondsbylauren wrote:











aljdewey- I have but four words for you- THANK YOU VERY MUCH!
You're very welcome! (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt that this is meant in a sincere way and not in a flippant way.)

I do not consider this comparable with a movie review, in the context of a forum about diamonds.

You're certainly entitled to disagree with my analogy, but the bottom line is this: the law treats both instances comparably. Neither use requires permission or notification of use to the copyright owner.

Knowing measurements, weight, and GIA info ( if it exists) can only assist those seeking to use the photos to educate about diamonds.

Perhaps, and if the person posting it feels similarly, I'm sure they'll ask you for those specs. However, it's not devoid of educational value without this information. The person who posted here simply wanted to know what kind of cut it is. It isn't necessary to have access to the cert specifications to answer that question.

If you wanted to use the photos to discuss the artistic, and photographic qualities, rather than gemological discussion, then that would be similar to the Movie Critic comparison.

Not so. This is a forum where amateurs come to learn about diamonds. Yes, several professionals (including yourself) frequent the site, but the primary function of this site is to educate the general public. Learning how to "see" inclusions, etc. is how all of us learn. This post started because an amateur asked what kind of cut it was. He can't ask the question by describing it. Further, it's a question so he can learn.....well within the mandates of fair use. The fact that it's posted to a diamond amateur forum doesn't negate its use as fair use...in fact, it strengthens the assertion of fair use.

Further...in the instances of critique, the critique is of the diamond.....an object. Commenting on inclusions contained within a diamond is not a commentary on your personally or on your company.

Again to be clear- I am not claiming that any PS members used my photos for illicit purposes

I didn't take your post to be an accusation at all. However, it's pretty clear that the person who posted the pic above just wants to understand what kind of cut this is. He's not making any complaint or beef about DBL, and you're still taking issue with him for having posted the photo. This is an educational use, and his use was indeed a fair use.

I have no objection to anyone complaining about me, or my photos or my company or products. Not that my objection to complaints means didly- but my purpose here is NOT to prevent anyone from airing legitimate beefs with Diamonds by Lauren, or me. Now that I have joined I'm sure any member wanting a FAIR forum would like to give me the opportunity to respond to critisism

Believe me, I don't believe that your comments are to stifle criticism or feedback at all....which is good. But I think you are looking at the use of your photos only as an opportunity to air a beef with DBL....and that's not the context in which this photo was used.....at all.

You'll find people here aren't shy, so I'm sure you'll have ample opportunity to respond is someone does air a beef.

One last question. If someone was to use my photos to slander my company- again ,I'm not talking about honest complaints or critisism- if the purpose was slander- is that considered 'Fair Use'?

I don't think the photo itself could be taken as slander, but I cannot state that with absolute certainty. I would imagine it would be the accompanying text that could potentially be deemed slanderous. Perhaps LG could comment on that one.

Examples of uses that would NOT be "fair use".....1) if someone posted your pic to their own website which sells diamonds.....2) if someone were to sell the image (say as "art")......3) if someone were to represent your image as their own (which isn't a copyright issue but a plagarism issue)......4) if someone related to the diamond industry in a for-profit capacity (like an appraiser or perhaps a jewelery insurer) used your photo in their literature or displayed it.

Hope this helps.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 10/19/2003 4:40:07 PM diamondsbylauren wrote:





https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/find-the-inclusion.9678/


Case in point-
If I had been a member when this photo was posted, I could have identified exactly where the imperfections lie- remember, as opposed to site just listing database diamonds, I have every stone that we offer in stock. I can answer specific questions on imperfections etc.

Also a good example of 'fair use' and I again am flattered
----------------

Yes, you could have identified it "exactly".....and that may have been helpful. However, it's hard to imagine that Dave Atlas.....an appraiser.....isn't equally qualified to comment on this without the specs in front of him. In fact, most independent appraisers do JUST that.....they offer their opinion of a stone without benefit of the cert right in front of them.

Also, remember that the teacher in a class has all the answers, too....but having him/her provide them all isn't the best avenue toward having the students learn. Sometimes the best way to learn is to try one's own hand at it.

Finally, if someone knows how to find this picture (on your website), then I'd imagine they also know how to contact you for precise input on the specs if that is a desired contribution.

And yes, it is a good example of fair use.....and you should be flattered.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

My thanks were heartfelt and sincere- the information is timely and relevant. Also sincere are my best wishes for all the members of PriceScope- both those involved in the jewelry business and those just here to talk about it.

For those who don't know me, I can sometimes have a sarcastic way. I am never in favor of comments, or humor intended to personally insult anyone.
I am also probably making an I1 out of a VVS.

For one thing, I had no objection at all to this post, or Rank Amatuer who posted it.

I think we've established here:
I can't legally prevent anyone from using photos I've entered into the public domain for "fair use" or educational purposes.
I have no objection to my photos being used for this type of purpose- but I do request folks write to inform me of such use. If asked for particulars, I am usually glad to provide them.
[email protected]

Here's the real crux of the issue, and the reason I got angry.
Someone used one of my photos in a post here on PS to accuse me of wrongdoing. I wasn't informed of this till about a week after it had happened.
As I've made clear- I am open to critisism. The only way to progress professionally ( as well as personally) is to be open to critisism.

If, however, I don't even know I'm being accused of something, it's impossible for me to respond. And it was this use that really got me angry-it's always bad to write when you're angry, no?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Legal advice you can give- but on gemological issues you'll get some discussion from me!
"Yes, you could have identified it "exactly".....and that may have been helpful. However, it's hard to imagine that Dave Atlas.....an appraiser.....isn't equally qualified to comment on this without the specs in front of him. In fact, most independent appraisers do JUST that.....they offer their opinion of a stone without benefit of the cert right in front of them." Sorry, I don't know how to use the quotation tool yet here on PS- but the above quote is from aljdewey

I don't know Dave Atlas- but I have heard only good things about Mr Atlas, and I've no doubt that he is as qualified an appraiser as there is- I'm quite sure that he could identify this diamond without the cert ( there is none on this stone anyway)
I'm sure Dave would readily admit that it's impossible to properly grade a diamond from a photograph.
I do think my photos are some of the most descriptive I've seen- but still, holding the diamond allows much closer and thourough inspection.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 10/19/2003 7:21:51 PM diamondsbylauren wrote:
My thanks were heartfelt and sincere- the information is timely and relevant. Also sincere are my best wishes for all the members of PriceScope- both those involved in the jewelry business and those just here to talk about it. For those who don't know me, I can sometimes have a sarcastic way. I am never in favor of comments, or humor intended to personally insult anyone.

That's good to hear, David......because you should know that you've been directly quoted as calling participants here "Priceschmucks". It may help you to know that if you are met with a bit of skepticism early on here. As for me, I'm not easily offended, so no worries here.

I think we've established here:
I can't legally prevent anyone from using photos I've entered into the public domain for 'fair use' or educational purposes.

Just a minor clarification....so you aren't surprised later. "Public domain" consists of those things which are no longer protected by copyright because the copyright has expired (and in fact, due to the copyright extension act, nothing will enter the public domain due to term expiration until 1/1/2019.) I think you're referring to the internet as a "public domain"....which isn't quite the same thing.

Also, as the copyright owner, you can attempt to prevent anything you want, but it would be unlikely that you'd prevail in court if a use was deemed "fair", and therefore wouldn't be worth your time/money to pursue.

My point is......
I have no objection to my photos being used for this type of purpose- but I do request folks write to inform me of such use.

Point noted.....and it would nice if they accommodated your request, but do keep in mind that they aren't required to, and you're spinning your wheels to come down on those who may neglect to do so.

Here's the real crux of the issue, and the reason I got angry.
Someone used one of my photos in a post here on PS to accuse me of wrongdoing. I wasn't informed of this till about a week after it had happened.
As I've made clear- I am open to critisism. The only way to progress professionally ( as well as personally) is to be open to critisism.

If, however, I don't even know I'm being accused of something, it's impossible for me to respond. And it was this use that really got me angry-it's always bad to write when you're angry, no?

I can certainly understand that, but the real reason you were angry is because someone accused you of wrongdoing....and that should anger you whether or not a photo is used. But how you handle that speaks even louder about your level of professionalism, and coming down on posters who used your photos without malice surely won't help your public presence.

And yes, it's always bad to write when one's angry. I've taken to writing my comments in the heat of the moment, storing them someplace, and reading them again a day later (usually). It helps....LOL

----------------