What's the difference between cushion and radiant?

[kenny]

Is it that cushions have curved sides and radiants have 8 straight sides?

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

I think that's the main difference...

 

[clgwli]

Well I have seen some round cornered radiants as in GIA classified it as a round cornered rectangular modified brilliant or something like that. And not a cushion (modified) brilliant.

Not sure what the difference is. Hopefully a pro can tell us.

 

[TakingthePlunge]

Wasnt the radiant a branded cut at one point in history?

 

[clgwli]

Wasnt the radiant a branded cut at one point in history?

There still is the "Original Radiant Cut" from what I understand. I understand it's kind of like most asschers out there are square cut emeralds. Most radiants out there are a "generic" so to speak.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Great question Ken-meister!

Basically, as far as GIA is concerned, "Radiant" is not a name used to describe a diamonds' cut.
Same can be said of some other popular shapes, such as princess.
What we think of as a Princess is generally a Square Modified Brilliant.
A Square radiant is a "Square cut cornered modified brilliant". Or it can be rectangular in either case.

In terms of cushion, it is a name used by GIA- with a few variations. Such a cushion Brilliant, and Cushion modified Brilliant
Complicating matters further are "rounded Corner" stones as clgwli mentioned.
Some of these look like a cross between what we think of as Radiant and cushion.

SO- any answer will be based on interpretation.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

The Radiant Cut is a modified emerald shape that was developed, patented and trademarked by Henry Grossbard of the Radiant Cut Diamond Company (RCDC) in 1977. It was the first emerald shaped diamond cut to have brilliance and fire similar to that of a round brilliant diamond. Upon the expiration of the patent, the Radiant Cut became a fully accepted diamond shape in the jewelry business.

RCDC launched the 'Original Radiant Cut' diamond brand In 2002, and all Original Radiant Cut diamonds weigh at least 0.70 carats and come with a GIA Certificate and an "Original Radiant Cut Diamond Certificate" guarantying that the stone meets the ideal proportions as designed by Henry Grossbard. There are 25 crown facets and 36 pavilion facets for a total of 61 facets (not including 8 girdle facets). The pavilion is similar to a Barion cut, and the table is a bowed out rectangle.

Since the expiry of the Radiant patent the term is used by trade loosely to refer to any of the following facet structures as can be found on GIA grading reports:

Cut Cornered Square Brilliant
Cut Cornered Rectangular Brilliant
Cut Cornered Modified Square Brilliant
Cut Cornered Rectangular Modified Brilliant

The first step is for a GIA lab grader to determine if the outline is square or rectangular and has cut corners.
The determination of whether the description is CCSB or Cushion Brilliant is determined exclusively from shape of the girdle outline. In the very rare case of an outline that fits in between the two a judgement call is made by the GIA lab grader whether they feel outline is considered more square or cushion shaped.

To be called modified facets have to be systematically added deleted or modified usually on the pavilion altering the brilliant cutting style. Plots of radiants found in this thread https://www.pricescope.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=139145

 

[Rockdiamond]

A few points about what you wrote CCL-
First, Henry Grossbard never made ANY attempt to prevent other cutters from using the design he created- as such the modifications came early- and there are a lot of variations on the theme. The cut was accepted and embraced by the trade very quickly- not only after a patent had expired.
Second, there's more than just the girdle that indicates what the stone will be called.
GIA consider the facet pattern on the pavilion, for example.
Sometimes a stone has a square outline but is still not called square by GIA. This is partly due to pavilion design

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

A few points about what you wrote CCL-
First, Henry Grossbard never made ANY attempt to prevent other cutters from using the design he created- as such the modifications came early- and there are a lot of variations on the theme. The cut was accepted and embraced by the trade very quickly- not only after a patent had expired.

So according to you the expensive process of obtaining a patent and trademark was just for fun?
The description of the patent listing was taken from here http://www.khulsey.com/jewelry/patented_diamond_cuts.html.
Second, there's more than just the girdle that indicates what the stone will be called.

That is the first and dominant criteria considered in GIA's naming convention.
The structure of the pavillion and crown determine whether the the name includes modified or not.
Considering Kenny's question this is precisely what distinguishes between cushion and square in the two.

Within a week my paper on the naming conventions of cushions which was extensively reviewed and corrected by GIA will be published on pricescope and this point will be even more clear. I can assure you that in 2010 that you will have a difficult time finding a stone with sharp cut corners and edges that is called cushion by GIA no matter what the pavillion looks like.

 

[Asscherhalo_lover]

Great question Ken-meister!

Basically, as far as GIA is concerned, "Radiant" is not a name used to describe a diamonds' cut.
Same can be said of some other popular shapes, such as princess.
What we think of as a Princess is generally a Square Modified Brilliant.
A Square radiant is a "Square cut cornered modified brilliant". Or it can be rectangular in either case.

In terms of cushion, it is a name used by GIA- with a few variations. Such a cushion Brilliant, and Cushion modified Brilliant
Complicating matters further are "rounded Corner" stones as clgwli mentioned.
Some of these look like a cross between what we think of as Radiant and cushion.

SO- any answer will be based on interpretation.

I had no idea that there is actually a kind of cross over between cushion and radiant! Can anyone find a pic of one?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Great question Ken-meister!

Basically, as far as GIA is concerned, "Radiant" is not a name used to describe a diamonds' cut.
Same can be said of some other popular shapes, such as princess.
What we think of as a Princess is generally a Square Modified Brilliant.
A Square radiant is a "Square cut cornered modified brilliant". Or it can be rectangular in either case.

In terms of cushion, it is a name used by GIA- with a few variations. Such a cushion Brilliant, and Cushion modified Brilliant
Complicating matters further are "rounded Corner" stones as clgwli mentioned.
Some of these look like a cross between what we think of as Radiant and cushion.

SO- any answer will be based on interpretation.

I had no idea that there is actually a kind of cross over between cushion and radiant! Can anyone find a pic of one?

RD just so you are aware for educational and non promotional purposes you ARE allowed to post images of stones. If in doubt just ask Andrey and I'm sure he will preclear anything you want to post if it is for educational purposes only.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Nice link CCL- amazing, but yes, I disagree with something written somewhere on the web- mainly I disagree that the expiration of the patent had anything at all to do with the wide acceptance the Radiant cut has enjoyed since day one.
It brings up a great point- How can a company protect a branded cut?
Here's the thing about a branded cut- in reality, you can't prevent cutters from cutting a stone however they want, so all you can really protect is the name.
Someone can cut a stone that is identical to a royal Branded Asscher Cut, for example.
As long as they don't advertise it as a Royal Branded Asshcer Cut, there's not going to be any punishment.

In fact, they can change one tiny detail, and call it the Assetteburger Deluxe Radiobrilliant. Or Joe- or whatever they want.
That's another reason you can't protect a stone's cut. Change a small detail and it looks almost the same, but it's different enough not to infringe.
This is a lot different than the case of a cutter copying the Octavia ( for example) and advertising as an Octavia. I'm sure Karl has a lot of variants that he came up with during the work designing it.
If a cutter cut something like that and advertised it as an "Octavia", it' would still be a royal pain in the butt- but you could more easily stop them than if they changed a small aspect and called it the ...."Volcano" for example

Starting a trademark case is costly- and can take years.

As far as what the motivation was behind the patent, I'll be glad to call Stan Grossbard tomorrow and ask him- but having known the family for many years, I firmly believe Henry only wanted to secure the fact that it was his idea- the man had a great impact on this business. He was well aware of the difficulties in enforcement- especially since his cut was such a logical evolution- it almost had to be discovered. I believe his motivation was to create something beautiful that would be loved, a design that would endure- if that was his goal, he clearly succeeded.

As soon as other cutters saw it, they saw the potential, and modified it in a myriad of ways- such as the "Starburst Cut" which comes only one year after the Radiant- and validates my statement that the basic design immediately caught on.
But you don't hear many people even using that term.
If any of us saw a Louis Glick Starburst, we'd call it a Radiant.


Congratulations on the article. Your dedication to learning is impressive, to say the least. Good to see it is appreciated.

 

[Imdanny]

The Radiant Cut is a modified emerald shape that was developed, patented and trademarked by Henry Grossbard of the Radiant Cut Diamond Company (RCDC) in 1977. It was the first emerald shaped diamond cut to have brilliance and fire similar to that of a round brilliant diamond. Upon the expiration of the patent, the Radiant Cut became a fully accepted diamond shape in the jewelry business.

RCDC launched the 'Original Radiant Cut' diamond brand In 2002, and all Original Radiant Cut diamonds weigh at least 0.70 carats and come with a GIA Certificate and an "Original Radiant Cut Diamond Certificate" guarantying that the stone meets the ideal proportions as designed by Henry Grossbard. There are 25 crown facets and 36 pavilion facets for a total of 61 facets (not including 8 girdle facets). The pavilion is similar to a Barion cut, and the table is a bowed out rectangle.

Since the expiry of the Radiant patent the term is used by trade loosely to refer to any of the following facet structures as can be found on GIA grading reports:

Cut Cornered Square Brilliant
Cut Cornered Rectangular Brilliant
Cut Cornered Modified Square Brilliant
Cut Cornered Rectangular Modified Brilliant

The first step is for a GIA lab grader to determine if the outline is square or rectangular and has cut corners.
The determination of whether the description is CCSB or Cushion Brilliant is determined exclusively from shape of the girdle outline. In the very rare case of an outline that fits in between the two a judgement call is made by the GIA lab grader whether they feel outline is considered more square or cushion shaped.

To be called modified facets have to be systematically added deleted or modified usually on the pavilion altering the brilliant cutting style. Plots of radiants found in this thread https://www.pricescope.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=139145

Exactly right, and Kenny, you can still buy radiants from this company (or at least you could the last time I checked).

 

[Rockdiamond]

I've just had a long conversation with Stan Grossbard- I believe he'll come on and correct part of what I wrote.

 

[RADIANTMAN]

David (Rock diamond), who has been a longtime friend of mine and of my family told me about the discussion here and asked me to weigh in to clarify the record. My father obtained 2 patents covering the radiant cut - the first in 1977 or 1978 and the second, covering the facet arrangement that we use today, in 1981. Both patents were utility patents which provide far broader protection than the design patents that are in use today and that can be circumvented fairly easily. The patents were for 17 year terms, so the more recent one did not expire until 1998.

CCL is correct that we did indeed take steps to enforce the patent, but he is incorrect in his statement that the industry's acceptance of the cut did not occur until the patent expired. 5-6 lawsuits were filed in the late 1970's one in israel and the rest in the USA. The American lawsuits were all settled promptly with the infringers agreeing to cease and desist. The Israeli lawsuit which involved individuals still quite prominent in the international diamond scene, went to trial and resulted in a judgment in our favor.

Despite the results of these lawsuits, the infringing became more and more widespread because the beauty of the cut and the manufacuring advantages from the then alternatives with certain rough made infringing irresistable . The diamond manufacturing industry was far less centralized than it is today, and despite our success, the litigation process seemed to benefit the lawyers more than it did us. We made a decision as early as 1982 or so to refrain from future litigation and to permit the radiant cut to become, in today's parlance "open code."

We understood that most manufacturers would continue to cut their radiants poorly, focusing on weight retention rather than beauty, and were satisfied with being the company that sold the finest radiants, as opposed to the only radiants. In 2002, we added more bells and whistles to our brand to help explain who we were and what we were doing and began to market our ideal cut radiants under the name The Original Radiant Cut Diamond.

As for the original question on here regarding nomenclature, the early radiants were called by GIA "cushion octogon modified brilliants." The GIA declined to call them radiants because they deemed that a trade name and also because they said that they were delineating shape rather than cut. At some point, I'm not sure when, the GIA changed to "rectangular or square modified brilliant" presumably because they realized that because the edges were straight it in fact was not a cushion.

Many of today's "cushion modified brilliants" are essentially cushions (meaning rounded edges) with radiant rather than traditional pavilions. This results in life similar to a generic radiant - nice if cut well terrible if cut poorly. Much like with generic radiants, most of these stones are poorly cut leading to life more similar to a poorly cut than a well cut radiant. Since an old fashioned "cushion brilliant" does not derive its attractiveness from maximizing brilliance, poorly cut "modified cushions" are often easier to sell than poorly cut radiants.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

As for the original question on here regarding nomenclature, the early radiants were called by GIA "cushion octogon modified brilliants." The GIA declined to call them radiants because they deemed that a trade name and also because they said that they were delineating shape rather than cut. At some point, I'm not sure when, the GIA changed to "rectangular or square modified brilliant" presumably because they realized that because the edges were straight it in fact was not a cushion.

Many of today's "cushion modified brilliants" are essentially cushions (meaning rounded edges) with radiant rather than traditional pavilions. This results in life similar to a generic radiant - nice if cut well terrible if cut poorly. Much like with generic radiants, most of these stones are poorly cut leading to life more similar to a poorly cut than a well cut radiant. Since an old fashioned "cushion brilliant" does not derive its attractiveness from maximizing brilliance, poorly cut "modified cushions" are often easier to sell than poorly cut radiants.

Stan,

Thank-you for the coming back to Pricescope and posting, your insight into Radiants will be invaluable to improve the knowledge about radiants on this forum which is limited as compared to other cuts.

I read your comments in this article which shed even more light on the history http://www.radiantcut.com/Content/RCDC NY Diamonds Reprint.pdf The comments at the end about 9 criteria for an ORC are interesting are they found anywhere on your website?

I wonder why did you start a new account instead of posting under Radiantman your previous nickname?

Could you please post an image of the facet plot of a Radiant pavillion if different from below? I've never heard of such a term nor seen a cushion described with such a facet arrangement no step cut crown and particularly when it comes to the Lower Girdle and Corner Facets in the pavilion.



Images copied from http://radiantcut.com/RP_Cutting.aspx

The closest I have seen would be this type of Cushion Modified Brilliant

 

[RADIANTMAN]

CCR - the cushion modified brilliant diagram you posted is the one I was refering to - the pavilion is faceted like a radiant with 4 culet breaks coming from the corners that do not reach the girdle leaving a step cut girdle break below the girdle. It is that step cut element that makes it a "modified" or "hybrid" brilliant rather than a "brilliant" cut.

We have an explanation of our cut standards on our website in the section called the science behind the beauty, though some of the standards that we maintain are kept confidential for proprietary reasons.

As for my screen name - I tried what I thought was my old one and it didn't work so I re-registered.

 

[kenny]

With cuts like round, emerald and asscher a light ray that enters the top, bounces twice and exits.
(We've all seen those simplified diagrams.)
With cuts like radiant the facets angles are such that the light bounces more than twice.
The length of diamond material the light travels through it longer, so the light picks up more body color.

With white diamonds this is bad because a lower color grade is worth less.
With fancy naturally-colored diamonds this is good because stronger color makes is more valuable.
You see a lot more radiant than round, emerald or asscher in colored diamonds for this reason.

Am I right thinking that the same white rough cut into a radiant would get an H but it may have gotten F or G if cut into an emerald?
If so how many GIA color grades hit is the result of the radiant cut?

Or, since I believe labs grade color when the diamond up side down does this multiple-reflection thing even apply?

 

[WinkHPD]

Nice link CCL- amazing, but yes, I disagree with something written somewhere on the web- mainly I disagree that the expiration of the patent had anything at all to do with the wide acceptance the Radiant cut has enjoyed since day one.
It brings up a great point- How can a company protect a branded cut?
Here's the thing about a branded cut- in reality, you can't prevent cutters from cutting a stone however they want, so all you can really protect is the name.
Someone can cut a stone that is identical to a royal Branded Asscher Cut, for example.
As long as they don't advertise it as a Royal Branded Asshcer Cut, there's not going to be any punishment.

You might want to check on that. The holder of the patent for the Royal Asscher is contacting people that have stones that look similar in pattern, no matter what they call it and demanding cease and desist. Perhaps it is all bluff and thunder, but perhaps they have the legal right to do so, I do not know. I just know that they have contacted several people selling CZ's that look like the Royal Asscher and demanding that they stop. I assume they will be doing the same with those who sell diamonds.

In fact, they can change one tiny detail, and call it the Assetteburger Deluxe Radiobrilliant. Or Joe- or whatever they want.
That's another reason you can't protect a stone's cut. Change a small detail and it looks almost the same, but it's different enough not to infringe.

Again, I would not be betting my farm on this, I think it depends on how badly they want your hide and how good their lawyers are.

This is a lot different than the case of a cutter copying the Octavia ( for example) and advertising as an Octavia. I'm sure Karl has a lot of variants that he came up with during the work designing it.
If a cutter cut something like that and advertised it as an "Octavia", it' would still be a royal pain in the butt- but you could more easily stop them than if they changed a small aspect and called it the ...."Volcano" for example

Starting a trademark case is costly- and can take years.

As far as what the motivation was behind the patent, I'll be glad to call Stan Grossbard tomorrow and ask him- but having known the family for many years, I firmly believe Henry only wanted to secure the fact that it was his idea- the man had a great impact on this business. He was well aware of the difficulties in enforcement- especially since his cut was such a logical evolution- it almost had to be discovered. I believe his motivation was to create something beautiful that would be loved, a design that would endure- if that was his goal, he clearly succeeded.

As soon as other cutters saw it, they saw the potential, and modified it in a myriad of ways- such as the "Starburst Cut" which comes only one year after the Radiant- and validates my statement that the basic design immediately caught on.
But you don't hear many people even using that term.
If any of us saw a Louis Glick Starburst, we'd call it a Radiant.


Congratulations on the article. Your dedication to learning is impressive, to say the least. Good to see it is appreciated.

I think Henry opened the door to many new styles of cutting, in essence giving "permission" to cutters to try new shapes and designs. I remember him as a very kind man when I spoke to him some years ago back in the late seventies, early eighties. He was still working six days a week in his 80's when he was killed, most likely by a drunk driver in a tragic hit and run some years ago.

His radiants are still the most beautiful on the street in my opinion, being cut for beauty rather than weight retention, unlike some of the junk sold under the radiant name.

I will be interested in hearing what Stan says about his father's thoughts. I did not know his father well, but I liked him!

Wink

 

[Rockdiamond]

Interesting about the CZ thing Wink- I wonder if you make them rectangular if the same problem would exist....


Imagine if somehow that patent had stuck...even if Henry had gotten $10 a stone he'd have made a huge chunk of change. I'd say that "Radiant" as a brand, if it was protected- would be the largest diamond brand by far. There's more Radiant cuts cut than many other fancy shapes.

I believe that Henry's experience kind of proves my point- there may be "a case" but instigating it can cost far more than the potential damages.
In terms of Asscher Cut diamonds, in particular, the cat is really way out of the bag there- and too many alterations are already accepted as "Asscher Cut" albeit generic stones.
If a large chain started advertising " Zales Asscher Cut", then it might make sense.
But pretty much every diamond search engine I've seen includes "Asscher" as a shape.

 

[WinkHPD]

Sadly, it does seem quite hard to protect intellectual rights. Sad.

I see that I did indeed miss Stan's comments and I was happy to see them on revisiting this thread.

I like and admire that he has carried on his father's work and that he is upholding the standards of cutting for beauty over weight.

Wink

 

[stone-cold11]

Am I right thinking that the same white rough cut into a radiant would get an H but it may have gotten F or G if cut into an emerald?
If so how many GIA color grades hit is the result of the radiant cut?

Or, since I believe labs grade color when the diamond up side down does this multiple-reflection thing even apply?

Does not apply, as you have noted, color is colorless stone is graded from the side, fancy color from the top. Only that the tint will be more apparent.

 

[yssie]

Am I right thinking that the same white rough cut into a radiant would get an H but it may have gotten F or G if cut into an emerald?
If so how many GIA color grades hit is the result of the radiant cut?

Or, since I believe labs grade color when the diamond up side down does this multiple-reflection thing even apply?

Does not apply, as you have noted, color is colorless stone is graded from the side, fancy color from the top. Only that the tint will be more apparent.

the 4 c's of colourless diamonds is one big mislead when you think about it -
carat - doesn't measure 'size' or 'spread' but weight, and obviously shape/cut makes a big difference
colour - is graded as if a tiny portion of stone is chipped off, so some shapes will show more tint faceup, some cut 'makes' show more tint, bigger diamond has more layers of coloured material, so more tinted than a smaller stone w/ same grade...
clarity - is based on a scale for 0.5ct stones, and only those with mystical powers are permitted knowledge of how standards change as size increases - and doesn't say anything about what you actually see anyway
cut - an entire forum devoted to this can of worms

 

[Rhino]

Great post Stan. While demand for radiant cuts isn't as high as it is for other shapes I've always enjoyed seeing what your family produces. What you say regarding common radiant cuts and cushions/cushion modified's hits the nail squarely on the head. Good post and thanks for contributing to this thread. Hope to see you at the next show.

All the best,

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Stan,
It would be good if you used the same earlier name - as there is a lot of valuable info in your older posts too.
I will see what Andrey can do

Regarding patent's, Gabi Tolkowsky is vocal about the role that labs play (or do not!).
There is no reason that labs could not be the gate keeper, with agreements from the bourses and manuafacturers associations.

But then I too have patent beef's with no likely happy resolution.

 

[Imdanny]

It's an honor, theradiantman. Thank you.

 

[RedRobbin]

David (Rock diamond), who has been a longtime friend of mine and of my family told me about the discussion here and asked me to weigh in to clarify the record. My father obtained 2 patents covering the radiant cut - the first in 1977 or 1978 and the second, covering the facet arrangement that we use today, in 1981. Both patents were utility patents which provide far broader protection than the design patents that are in use today and that can be circumvented fairly easily. The patents were for 17 year terms, so the more recent one did not expire until 1998.

CCL is correct that we did indeed take steps to enforce the patent, but he is incorrect in his statement that the industry's acceptance of the cut did not occur until the patent expired. 5-6 lawsuits were filed in the late 1970's one in israel and the rest in the USA. The American lawsuits were all settled promptly with the infringers agreeing to cease and desist. The Israeli lawsuit which involved individuals still quite prominent in the international diamond scene, went to trial and resulted in a judgment in our favor.

Despite the results of these lawsuits, the infringing became more and more widespread because the beauty of the cut and the manufacuring advantages from the then alternatives with certain rough made infringing irresistable . The diamond manufacturing industry was far less centralized than it is today, and despite our success, the litigation process seemed to benefit the lawyers more than it did us. We made a decision as early as 1982 or so to refrain from future litigation and to permit the radiant cut to become, in today's parlance "open code."

We understood that most manufacturers would continue to cut their radiants poorly, focusing on weight retention rather than beauty, and were satisfied with being the company that sold the finest radiants, as opposed to the only radiants. In 2002, we added more bells and whistles to our brand to help explain who we were and what we were doing and began to market our ideal cut radiants under the name The Original Radiant Cut Diamond.


As for the original question on here regarding nomenclature, the early radiants were called by GIA "cushion octogon modified brilliants." The GIA declined to call them radiants because they deemed that a trade name and also because they said that they were delineating shape rather than cut. At some point, I'm not sure when, the GIA changed to "rectangular or square modified brilliant" presumably because they realized that because the edges were straight it in fact was not a cushion.

Many of today's "cushion modified brilliants" are essentially cushions (meaning rounded edges) with radiant rather than traditional pavilions. This results in life similar to a generic radiant - nice if cut well terrible if cut poorly. Much like with generic radiants, most of these stones are poorly cut leading to life more similar to a poorly cut than a well cut radiant. Since an old fashioned "cushion brilliant" does not derive its attractiveness from maximizing brilliance, poorly cut "modified cushions" are often easier to sell than poorly cut radiants.

Mr. Grossbard, thank you for such an informative post in the history of radiants. My best friend has a gorgeous yellow radiant that is huge and lovely. It made me really start to think about that cut for my upgrade. Then we found the Tiffany Lucida which some sites have described as a cross between a radiant and a cushion. Our sales person here in California finally got the perfect one in this week and we bought it! I am in love! Would you mind sharing your thoughts on the " Lucida" and whether you agree that it's like a Radiant in some ways? We are off to Napa for the weekend but I hope to post some pictures next week, though I'm sure with your expertise you already know what this diamond looks like. Thank you again for a great education!

 

[kenny]

Am I right thinking that the same white rough cut into a radiant would get an H but it may have gotten F or G if cut into an emerald?
If so how many GIA color grades hit is the result of the radiant cut?

Or, since I believe labs grade color when the diamond up side down does this multiple-reflection thing even apply?

Does not apply, as you have noted, color is colorless stone is graded from the side, fancy color from the top. Only that the tint will be more apparent.

So, face up, a GIA H emerald cut will look whiter when placed next to a GIA H radiant?

Having lower face-up color than its grade seems like a significant disadvantage of the radiant that shoppers should be made aware of, much like asschers facing up small.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I hope this helps Kenny

 

[Rockdiamond]

Kenny: Generalizations don't work on groups of people any better than they work on diamonds.
Not every round brilliant hides it's color better than every radiant. Even two stones with very similar cuts and colors can face differently.
It's not an exact science as diamonds are a natural substance. We can compare them to wood- for the reason that the grain in diamonds is pervasive- and dictates the orientation the cutter must place the rough in to "block out the stone" and create the table.
Although this internal grain is most times invisible, it may have an effect which varies from stone to stone.
We can see this as sometimes a stone looks amazing on paper, measurements etc- yet does not look all that great.
But that's just one aspect.

Stan would answer this better ( if he comes back, he might read it on his own, but I ain't asking) but there's some differences in optimal facet size and placement between many Fancy Colored Radiant cuts compared to colorless.
I've seen D color Radiant Cuts which were the equal of ANY round in broadcasting the icy lack of color you expect to see in a D.
As has been mentioned- there are some radiant cuts that are heads and shoulders above others.
The cut is a durable work of art- of course not everyone will love it. However it's already proven to be extremely enduring- for good reason.

Hi Jon!!!
From what I see in the broad market in colorless stones, Radiant cut is mainstream and enjoys widespread demand on par with other popular fancy shapes. It's more popular that Marquise, or Heart Shapes. Clearly not on PS- or at shops that specialize in Cushions , Asschers, and other specialty cuts.
In Fancy Colors, both Radiant and Cushion ( Cushion Modified Brilliant) vie for top spot in which is the most common.
A lot of people reading this will be radiant cut owners for sure.

Garry's illustration is certainly plausible - and it suggests BOTH emerald and radiant show more color.
Just because those three stones appeared the way they did in that photo ( if it was a photo and not a CG image) should not be taken to mean that all stones of the cuts he used will react that way.
We also would have to see the stones in a variety of lighting scenarios.
Some shapes look better in lighting environments the work less well for other shapes.
I will see about taking photos of a GIA graded radiant next to a round to see what my results are

Interesting point about gem labs and brands Garry.
I can see many reasons it would not work well.
For one, if GIA "authorized" brands, it would in essence, loose it's neutrality, and become a totally different type of commercial entity.
Getting agreements in one single bourse is a task- much less getting all trading floors to comply.
Forget about the fact we'd need compliance from China- they are doing some fantastic diamond cutting there- as I'm sure you know.

I think one Stan's point about patents is salient.

Both patents were utility patents which provide far broader protection than the design patents that are in use today and that can be circumvented fairly easily.

Doesn't mean you can't build a brand- it's about more than the cut of the stone.