What's the difference between cushion and radiant?

[kenny]

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.

Very astute Garry.
I for one will no longer be manipulated into these provocative, endless tail-chasing threads, while he laughs all the way to the bank.
I'm in . . . out rather.

What keeps me involved is all the noobs who will go unprotected.
When a professional, a vendor no less, is allowed to post on PS the noob assumes their words are reputable and reliable.
If their words are not accurate but the posts go unchallenged because the vendor has won it is a sad sad day for Pricescope.

 

[Rockdiamond]

You raise lot of good points Stone.
The Radiant Garry used looked to be a very well cut Radiant, with lovely proportions.
I also feel that the images Garry posted, in those colors, are pretty darn close to what typical stones of those colors would look like in person.

We all agree the cut of a stone can affect it's perceived color.
Garry's simulation was excellent, and showed a totally plausible example of each of the stones.
It was never my intention to attack Garry's simulation.
I only pointed out that in the real world other variables come into play that might alter the results.
The same can be said of even the best photos.

The job of color grading is a difficult task ( actually impossible for some)- it's not a precise science.
Can't be.
I mean, it could be ( there are machines to color grade) but the results would still appear to be arbitrary in certain cases.
Sometimes an F shows color- even in a round diamond.
There's a range in every color- that comes into play.
Color grading certain fancy shapes becomes even more difficult- for example, the tips may draw more color than the center in a marquise.

A point that is made here in many discussions : Good cut makes a diamond appear whiter
I'm paraphrasing- but that's the jist of it.
Part of that is illusion. Whether it's the way the light is actually focused in a hearts and arrows or Tolk- or the eye is tricked by other aspects of the cut- such as sparkle ( the crushed ice effect). Sometimes, for me, that sparkle gives Radiant an edge over Emerald cuts, or chunky faceted stones- but I love them both, and don't feel either is a bad compromise.
Great cuts are great precisely because you don't have to be an expert to appreciate them.
Sometimes the beauty of the stone itself can actually make us think it's whiter.

 

[RedRobbin]

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.

He said "pretty comparable" not "not much worse". And as a consumer I don't care how much more exaggerated the illustrations could have been. I care more that there is an agenda at play here, a very obvious one that goes like this: 1. Radiants are bad. 2. Anyone who thinks a diamond should be looked at in person is stupid and/or bad. Neither of those are true, but obviously there is a reason why RockDiamond is being attacked along with anyone who sees the logic in his reasoning.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry- many people have read this thread ( which I did not start)- and many threads where there are a broad range of views expressed (also could be categorized as disagreements)
I believe they are informative about the diamond business- and that the differing views expressed are a sound addition to the learning process for people interested in the subject.

I genuinely regret that it should ever be a source of contention between us Garry- I do respect your work. I would really like to meet you in person.
I hate jewelry shows, but I am so very tempted to surprise you in Vegas next year ......

 

[stone-cold11]

RR, do not see what point you are trying to make. Did I ever say that a radiant was worse than other fancy shape?

 

[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?

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.

I see now you did answer the question earlier- I did read quickly, and the word "ignorance" kind of drew my eye - missing the word "the"...

 

[RedRobbin]

Garry- many people have read this thread ( which I did not start)- and many threads where there are a broad range of views expressed (also could be categorized as disagreements)
I believe they are informative about the diamond business- and that the differing views expressed are a sound addition to the learning process for people interested in the subject.

I genuinely regret that it should ever be a source of contention between us Garry- I do respect your work. I would really like to meet you in person.
I hate jewelry shows, but I am so very tempted to surprise you in Vegas next year ......

Mr. Lauren,

I admire your politeness and kind manners in the face of terrible hostility. Thank you for standing above the fray.

 

[RedRobbin]

RR, do not see what point you are trying to make. Did I ever say that a radiant was worse than other fancy shape?

No you did not. I assumed you were defending Kenny's mischaracterizations of Mr. Grossbard's statements on the color of white radiants vis a vis other fancy diamond cuts. I will take a page out of Mr. Lauren's book and take the high road: I apologize if I misunderstood your message.