What's the difference between cushion and radiant?

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

RD Stan made it clear patent's did not work.
It is a big problem for cutters who are prepared to do the work to design new cuts.
If the problem is not solved it removes much of the incentive. The same is happening with drug research with some companies ignoring patents and allowing generic usage inside the usually 5-10 remaining years for a patent monopoly.

Regarding the Computer Generated images, your ludite ignorance (or whatever it might be called?) should certainly not be taken as an indication that you armed with a camera = science or reapability.

Your example a D is also quite easily explained - a diamond that is totally colorless will look like a D from all directions IN ANY CUT because IT HAS NO COLOR. Not rocket science.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The fact that a simple question- "Are those images real photos ( which seem to be heavily doctored) or computer generated images" elicits an insult is reprehensible- how can we have a discussion if we can't speak in civil manner?

You mention repeatability. How are people looking at diamonds? In a science lab with "repeatable conditions? No. In my opinion that makes "real" photos far more useful- although CG images have their place. So which were your images ( braces for more needless insults).

 

[RedRobbin]

RD Stan made it clear patent's did not work.
It is a big problem for cutters who are prepared to do the work to design new cuts.
If the problem is not solved it removes much of the incentive. The same is happening with drug research with some companies ignoring patents and allowing generic usage inside the usually 5-10 remaining years for a patent monopoly.

Regarding the Comuter Generated images, your ludite ignorance (or whatever it might be called?) should certainly not be taken as an indication that you armed with a camera = science or reapability.

Your example a D is also quite easily explained - a diamond that is totally colorless will look like a D from all directions IN ANY CUT because IT HAS NO COLOR. Not rocket science.

I thought his points about each diamond having it's own characteristics and reaction to light to be very insightful. I think the point of his response was that it Isn't "rocket science" and so each stone should be looked at on it's own merits.

 

[kenny]

The rules of optics are not romantic or squishy.

The laws of physics apply even when not understood.

The dumbing down of society is regrettable but unavoidable; these days growing masses identify with and actually embrace leaders who are stupid and proud of it.
Science and education is increasingly seen as the purview of the enemy.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Kenny- the problem with applying rules in this case, is that the environment which the stone is viewed is not static.
There's different lighting scenarios- and then we have tilt, the angle at which the diamond is held in relation to the eye- and these are just the firsts aspect which prevent us from making broad based assumptions based on the laws of physics and optics.
What about the setting? Bezel setting as compared to prong setting produces differing optics. The setting of stones in general produces some surprising results at times.

I agree that intellectual pursuits are very important, and should be encouraged- especially in our young people.
Yet I find your broad based statements rather condescending and biased. Does everyone need to think like you for you to consider them intelligent, or deserving of respect?

Garry- my example will work with H color- or any color diamonds as well.

 

[RedRobbin]

The rules of optics are not romantic or squishy.

The laws of physics apply even when not understood.

The dumbing down of society is regrettable but unavoidable; these days growing masses identify with and actually embrace leaders who are stupid and proud of it.
Science and education is increasingly seen as the purview of the enemy.

I'm sorry, but I don't think saying that diamonds are best assessed in person as well as on paper is an embrace of ignorance. There is room for personal preference and if someone sees something differently from you, or prefers different optics, that doesn't make them "dumb" or against science, right? For example, some people don't like bold arrows in a diamond. H&A diamonds aren't for everyone. Another example: If every diamond cutter saw things the same way, we'd never have all the great new cuts out there. We'd never have the radiant if there was a preordained "optic" for rectangles and squares and that preordained optic was just emerald cuts. I really don't understand all the personal attacks.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Please- let's get back to the discussion.





Garry- I am asking with all due respect- are the diamond images above taken with a camera, or generated by computer software?

 

[RADIANTMAN]

Hi everyone:

The discussion of how color faces up in radiants is an interesting one. The answer is that it depends. Fancy color radiants are cut differently than white radiants, because the objective is to maximize color rather than brilliance and spread. When cut with this objective in mind, no other diamond shape (other than a modified cussion since it's reflects light the same way) works as well as a radiant cut.

If a white radiant were cut in the same manner as a fancy color radiant, it would indeed face significantly yellower for its color than other shapes. It would also not have the best brilliance and would likely spread small for its carat weight.

A well cut white radiant will face slightly lower for its GIA color than a round, but not much. It will be pretty comparable to other fancy shapes. A radiant can be cut in a way that will face as white as a round, but it will be a dead stone.

Someone asked my opinion of Tiffany's lucida cut. It is definitely a hybrid cut with its own unique look. It sounds like you purchased a diamond that you love, and that's the name of the game. Just wear it and enjoy it.

Garry - I'd be happy to use my old name if I could figure out how to make it work.

 

[kenny]

If a white radiant were cut in the same manner as a fancy color radiant, it would indeed face significantly yellower for its color than other shapes.

Thanks, that's logical and what I suspected.
The longer the light path due to multiple reflections, the more body color will be picked up, regardless of whether the diamond is fancy-colored or white.

So, as I wrote before, side by side a well-cut radiant GIA H will look more yellow face up than a GIA H emerald cut.

As a diamond education site, this is something we should let radiant shoppers know, just like we let shoppers know that asschers face up small for their weight.
Not a criticism; just a characteristic of the cut.

Next, you wrote, "If a white radiant were cut in the same manner as a fancy color radiant . . . ".
Does this mean they are not?
I thought the official patented radiant (like other branded cuts) had tight cut parameters.
Is there a set of proportions patented for fancy-colored diamonds and another set for white?

 

[RedRobbin]

A well cut white radiant will face slightly lower for its GIA color than a round, but not much. It will be pretty comparable to other fancy shapes. A radiant can be cut in a way that will face as white as a round, but it will be a dead stone.

Someone asked my opinion of Tiffany's lucida cut. It is definitely a hybrid cut with its own unique look. It sounds like you purchased a diamond that you love, and that's the name of the game. Just wear it and enjoy it.

Thank you Mr. Grossbard! I do love it and can attest it is the whitest H color I've ever seen. I might have it regraded to be sure they didn't make a mistake. My round diamond was not this white, and it too was H in color.

 

[Rockdiamond]

If a white radiant were cut in the same manner as a fancy color radiant, it would indeed face significantly yellower for its color than other shapes.

Thanks, that's logical and what I suspected.
The longer the light path due to multiple reflections, the more body color will be picked up, regardless of whether the diamond is fancy-colored or white.

So, as I wrote before, side by side a well-cut radiant GIA H will look more yellow face up than a GIA H emerald cut.

That was NEVER stated by either Stan or myself- and in fact, it's not true. Stan mentioned he feels a round of the same color will face slightly lighter than a radiant of the same color- I would not make a definitive statement, but I respect Stan's opinion. But in regards to your statement, Stan specifically mentioned that Radiant faces in a comparable manner to other fancy shapes.

As a diamond education site, this is something we should let radiant shoppers know, just like we let shoppers know that asschers face up small for their weight.
Not a criticism; just a characteristic of the cut.

Next, you wrote, "If a white radiant were cut in the same manner as a fancy color radiant . . . ".
Does this mean they are not?
I thought the official patented radiant (like other branded cuts) had tight cut parameters.
Is there a set of proportions patented for fancy-colored diamonds and another set for white?

The best cut colorless radiants are cut differently than the best cut fancy colored Radiants. There's no specific set of proportions patented for Fancy Colors

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Please- let's get back to the discussion.





Garry- I am asking with all due respect- are the diamond images above taken with a camera, or generated by computer software?

read this post RD 08
Aug 2010 04:31

 

[Rockdiamond]

What is this- a game???

Garry, can you please give a simple answer?
Are these photos or computer generated images is all I'm asking.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Of course they are computer generated, can you not read?

 

[Rhino]

Excellent illustration Garry. It really explains a lot regarding face up appearance of these, cushions and other cuts that share these features of multiple internal reflection before it exits. Thanks for posting that.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Can I read?

Hmmm, that's an interesting question Garry.
So, in your opinion, the word "may" makes it clear these are CG images.
Yes, I can read, and no I don't find it clear in any way from reading what you wrote ( up till your last post where you finally answered a direct question) that the images you posted are not actual diamonds.
I believe it's a crucial point- as many of the site advertising diamonds are not using real photos ( or specific photos of the diamonds they offer) with NO clarification of that fact.

Of course that begs the question- isn't possible real diamonds will look ( and behave ) differently?

 

[kenny]

Of course that begs the question- isn't possible real diamonds will look ( and behave ) differently?

Yeah, cause diamond is just like wood.
Since nothing is for sure just turn yoiur brain off when buying diamonds.
Just follow your heart and trust the seller.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Kenny- I think you need to take out an ad in your favorite newspaper to make sure you can warn everyone about "The Radiant Conspiracy"
Stupid people won't read it- only geniuses like you.


If you're as interested as you make yourself out to be in educating the public, why attempt to hamper an informative discourse among professionals?

 

[stone-cold11]

RD,

Stan already stated that he agrees with the simulation of Garry.

If a white radiant were cut in the same manner as a fancy color radiant, it would indeed face significantly yellower for its color than other shapes. It would also not have the best brilliance and would likely spread small for its carat weight.

A well cut white radiant will face slightly lower for its GIA color than a round, but not much. It will be pretty comparable to other fancy shapes. A radiant can be cut in a way that will face as white as a round, but it will be a dead stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I'd leave it to Stan to say what he agrees with Stone.
Since Garry simulated the diamonds, who's to say what type of cut he used for his Radiant.
As Stan ( and I ) have said, there's a different style of cutting used by the best fancy color cutters as compared to the Original Radiant- and other extremely well cut colorless Radiant cuts.

ETA- Stan can certainly comment with great authority on the cutting of Fancy Colors- however it's not something he buys every day- we do compare notes about what we feel Fancy Colors should be cut like- and agree on many substantive parts- but not all.

 

[stone-cold11]

So you are ignoring the second part of Stan's statement and saying that you know better than him?

 

[kenny]

SC don't hamper an informative discourse among professionals.

He makes money here so he has cred.

 

[Rockdiamond]

So you are ignoring my prior comments about what type of cutting Garry used in his sim?

I do not agree that brilliance or spread must be lessened in improving color retention- if that's what Stan meant.
Again, let's let Stan speak for himself- he's perfectly capable of doing so.
If he feels Garry's simulation is indicative, he's free to say so- but he has not done that thus far.

Good point Kenny!!

 

[stone-cold11]

So you are ignoring my prior comments about what type of cutting Garry used in his sim?

I do not agree that brilliance or spread must be lessened in improving color retention- if that's what Stan meant.
Again, let's let Stan speak for himself- he's perfectly capable of doing so.
If he feels Garry's simulation is indicative, he's free to say so- but he has not done that thus far.

Good point Kenny!!

I am not Garry, I do not know what type of cut proportion he is using, so how can I comment on that?

Stan replied after Garry, if he felt the statement that Garry made was wrong he could have said it but he did not.

 

[RedRobbin]

If a white radiant were cut in the same manner as a fancy color radiant, it would indeed face significantly yellower for its color than other shapes.

Thanks, that's logical and what I suspected.
The longer the light path due to multiple reflections, the more body color will be picked up, regardless of whether the diamond is fancy-colored or white.

So, as I wrote before, side by side a well-cut radiant GIA H will look more yellow face up than a GIA H emerald cut.

That was NEVER stated by either Stan or myself- and in fact, it's not true. Stan mentioned he feels a round of the same color will face slightly lighter than a radiant of the same color- I would not make a definitive statement, but I respect Stan's opinion. But in regards to your statement, Stan specifically mentioned that Radiant faces in a comparable manner to other fancy shapes.

of course
The best cut colorless radiants are cut differently than the best cut fancy colored Radiants. There's no specific set of proportions patented for Fancy Colors

Precisely. Mr. Grossbard stated that the cutting technique for white radiant diamonds differs from the cutting technique for colored radiant diamonds. Somehow, there is an agenda going to make it seem that he did not say that. But he did. And he stated further that a white radiant would face up as white as any other white fancy shape, including mine or many others. Somehow this statement was interpreted by a person who claims to hold superior intelligence to everyone else as saying that a white radiant would face up with more color than a white emerald cut. That wasn't what Mr. Grossbard said, just the opposite. And as far as the images posted by Mr. Holloway go, I will only say that of course it matters that they are computer generated! This is obvious to anyone without an agenda because computer generated images can be altered to show whatever a person wants it to show. You don't need to have a superior IQ in the realm of Kenny's to understand that.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I am not Garry, I do not know what type of cut proportion he is using, so how can I comment on that?

Stan replied after Garry, if he felt the statement that Garry made was wrong he could have said it but he did not.

Right Stone- none of us know what type of cutting Garry used- and just getting a simple answer about what type of images they were was like pulling teeth- so I don;t know how easy getting this answer will be.
I'd like to again make clear the fact that I respect Garry- and the work he does. I do not agree with all of it, but I do find it impressive.
Likely Garry can create a few different simulations showing different faceting CA/PA/Table/Depth to show possible variations. I stand by my point that two diamonds that are ostensibly identical can have different appearances- which means the simulation is only a single piece, in a much larger puzzle.

In terms of Stan, and his opinions- I can only urge all of you to make this a place where Stan will want to come and discuss what he does, or does not agree with- if he chooses to comment.
The simple omission of mention should not be taken as an implied agreement.
I am very fond of Stan- and respect him as much as anyone in this business- yet he and I do not agree on everything. But we do tend to agree on the most important things.....

 

[RedRobbin]

And thank you RockDiamond for keeping the discussion honest. As a simple minded consumer , I appreciate your digging for the truth very much, despite being ganged up on and having insults thrown at you.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I think the Robin is a lovely creature- delicate in it's beauty

Thanks!

 

[stone-cold11]

Of course stones can look different even with the same parameters, heard of symmetry in cut? DiamCalc assumes perfect symm, you can use actual scan proportion as input too, cut stones cannot achieve that.

I expect Garry uses the best radiant cut parameters, since he could easily design proportions for much better color retention with DiamCalc's fancy color cutting software, thus go for a much larger drop in color.

I do not see it as an omission of mention but as a reinforcement of the radiant cut's effect on color as his statement comes after Garry and basically says the same thing. One grade drop in color for both emerald and radiant from the simulation, which is similar to what Stan said, face up color slightly lower than that of a round but not much worse than other fancy shapes.

If a white radiant were cut in the same manner as a fancy color radiant, it would indeed face significantly yellower for its color than other shapes. It would also not have the best brilliance and would likely spread small for its carat weight.

A well cut white radiant will face slightly lower for its GIA color than a round, but not much. It will be pretty comparable to other fancy shapes. A radiant can be cut in a way that will face as white as a round, but it will be a dead stone.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Can I read?

Hmmm, that's an interesting question Garry.
So, in your opinion, the word "may" makes it clear these are CG images.
Yes, I can read, and no I don't find it clear in any way from reading what you wrote ( up till your last post where you finally answered a direct question) that the images you posted are not actual diamonds.
I believe it's a crucial point- as many of the site advertising diamonds are not using real photos ( or specific photos of the diamonds they offer) with NO clarification of that fact.

Of course that begs the question- isn't possible real diamonds will look ( and behave ) differently?

Clearly you can not read RD.
"Regarding the Computer Generated images, your ludite ignorance (or whatever it might be called?) should certainly not be taken as an indication that you armed with a camera = science or reapability. "

The cut is of a different type of radiant to those of Stan's I have seen. The issue of what Stan's stones do has been covered by Stan.

I think RD that you are on your old game of getting your links out from a heavily trafficed site up.
My suggestion to all is that we not bother replying to your silly posts.