Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[Karl_K]

RD~thank you for the identification. Which stone is "slushy" and which is "crushed ice?" To my eyes, the Daussi seems to be very open and "flat" in appearance, while the radiant has many more facets/virtual facets. I can't speak to the brightness, as that is currently under contention, but the two stones are very different. Hence, my interest in which one is "slushy" and which one is "crushed." I understand the concept of crushed ice, but slushy is a term a don't understand RD and/or others are welcome to explain.

ETA: this is for my own education. I don't have a horse in this race

Your not the only one being confused by the terms being thrown around.
multiple people are using them in different ways and for different things.
9 pages and no one is on the same page to even begin to discuss things.

 

[Rockdiamond]

RD~thank you for the identification. Which stone is "slushy" and which is "crushed ice?" To my eyes, the Daussi seems to be very open and "flat" in appearance, while the radiant has many more facets/virtual facets. I can't speak to the brightness, as that is currently under contention, but the two stones are very different. Hence, my interest in which one is "slushy" and which one is "crushed." I understand the concept of crushed ice, but slushy is a term a don't understand RD and/or others are welcome to explain.

ETA: this is for my own education. I don't have a horse in this race

Your not the only one being confused by the terms being thrown around.
multiple people are using them in different ways and for different things.
9 pages and no one is on the same page to even begin to discuss things.

Great point Karl- but the problem is way bigger than these 9 (10) pages.
Any suggestions on how to attack this problem?
I think semantics are very important.
When someone uses a derogatory term ( like slushed ice) it creates contention before a discussion can begin.

Terms like "ideal cut" are great sales tools, but don't seem to fit in a more "clinical" discussion

 

[clgwli]

In these forums I focus on brightness and to me that is a very important aspect of beauty. The reason I do so is that I can offer an objective comment on this property well supported by reflector tests.
The second stone I posted was in answer to your quest for a bright crushed ice diamond not because I am presenting it as one of my preferred diamonds.

You have stated you value other properties more and that is fine, we are in agreement brightness isn't the only important property. However for me sacrifing brightness to get nothing but better yield from the rough doesn't seem like a valid tradeoff either.

I understand why you focus on brightness and why you feel the use of the ASET or IS is extremely important. It is a more objective way of looking at a stone. There is still a little that is left to be interpreted, but it is more so than saying "what do you think your eye can see?"

And by a little left to be interpreted, I just mean that as an example some will think a stone shows a lot of white in the photos while another might think the amount of white showing is okay.

So I do understand your points here. And in general just because I don't agree with what your preferences are, doesn't mean I think you are wrong. I hope that others realize the same.

I am happy to debate brightness with you but to do so we need a precise relative scale, not a subjective general feeling about something. The one I am comfortable with using is ASET images (from this point on image will be referring to either ASET or IS to save time) as I know how difficult it is to get repeatable lighting.

I would be happy to discuss brightness with you as well. I wouldn't call it a debate because we would most likely be diving into a realm of preferences and that isn't debatable IMO, just something we can discuss. I would be happy to look at images as well as photos in controlled lighting (or at least where stones are side by side at the exact same time). But my preference would be to have multiple photos in different lighting as well as an image. Just to give a real life example of what the eye might see (as best as we can get via internet)

I appreciate that with your ring even having it set and reset would incur unecessary costs. I would be more comfortable debating with you using other examples, that way we can both be more objective in the discussion.

I am glad you understand why I am not willing to send it in just for this. Like I said I am interested in getting the ASET kit so that I can look at some vintage stones I have in particular. I am curious to learn more about what makes them "tick" If I do get one anytime soon I would be happy to discuss even my personal stones. Though it is hard to compare relative brightness of a colorless stone to a colored one. I have been trying to make comparisons between my stones and it is tough.

Some radiants have larger virtual facets than others. They achieve this by two different ways:
i) overall general facet design
ii) facet alignment

You may like radiants with more facets in the pavilion that guaratees you won't see a defineable X in the pattern unless you are under predominantly pavilion only lighting.

I had made a practice saving a lot of facet structures from GIA reports and loose stones that are lit so you can see the structure and I have noticed I do like more facets. I looked and I did delete them from my HD which I now regret, but I'll see if I can explain another difference in how a radiant is cut that I like. Many of them have a generic X in the structure going from the center of the stone. Some have the X go all the way to the corners. Some have the X way more flat and some are right in between. My stone, for example is not very squat, but it doesn't go exactly to the corners. That seems to be a favorite of mine. Next is flat and then the ones that go corner to corner are not my favorites. So combine with more facets as well as certain angles and I get my dream cut.

I am not saying that you are please don't take that meaning. It is important to clearly differentiate between comments about brightness that are objective, and subjective comments about overall beauty.
Most of these arguments occur because that line is blurred, I choose specific language so that the two are distinct from one another and I hope you see this.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain this better. I agree that there is a difference between the two as well, and I admit I wasn't quite following what you were saying before.

I am highly interested in comparing the two though. What do we think/feel we see vs what the images see.

David did make an excellent point along these lines. You stated a poor cut RB would be about the same brightness as a nice crushed ice. I stated I thought a nice crushed ice would be brighter than a poor cut RB. Now I am using this example to say this would be a neat thing to study.

Not saying one is right or wrong, because we are dealing with perceptions. But this would be neat to use images as a reference point and our opinions to see what we feel. Kind of like recently there was a thread about RB vs Princess apparent size. There can't be a real right answer, but it would be a neat study to see how people feel.

I think it would be wise, if a study was done, to do all sorts of controlled lighting and videos but make it a blind study. As in we don't reveal the images until the end. Of course many will be biased towards their favorite cut I am sure, but it would still be neat all the same to see.

I do want to add that while I am feeling better my brain is still a wee bit foggy. So again if I make little sense on something please feel free to ask.

And a final note to all reading still. I only posed my question to David about having a well cut colorless RB the way I did because I know that's not what he specializes in usually. I'm not one to look at RBs much in general, but I have noted an AGS0 on his list and some GIA triple X at some point. I just can't remember if those were colorless (J or above) or not. I also am full aware that colorless and colored diamonds aren't usually cut the same. I was never implying that his stones are cut poorly at all. In fact I generally feel otherwise.

I know there is a fantastic cut gray diamond on his site that for the heck of it one day I put in the HCA to see the score. It received a 1.2 (TIC) but obviously a gray diamond next to a colorless won't work.

It is also worth reading GIA's response contained in related links at the bottom.

Thanks for that. I will have to read those. I meant to last night but I ran out of time.

Just to comment on the blue diamond. I do see some similarities under the table with how it looks to some OMC. Almost more so than some labeled OECs I have seen as well. The outline is very RB to me, but the "innards" are very complex and have a total vintage feel to to it.

 

[Karl_K]

Great point Karl- but the problem is way bigger than these 9 (10) pages.
Any suggestions on how to attack this problem?

Define terms then discuss.
For example:
Crushed ice: A diamond or part of diamond with many small virtual facets that returns many small flashes of light often with no discernibly pattern. I looks like a bag of crushed ice when in the ice is in sunlight which is how it got its name.
Then discuss crushed ice diamonds with good light return which you posted an excellent example of in this thread and the stone of Jon's being another.
Then discuss crushed ice stones with little light return because the virtual facets are not returning light to the viewer. I am sure you could find an example.
Have it posted in the PS journal, then discuss in a thread.

 

[lyra]

I agree with you Karl. However, it seems some innocent terms get different connotations here on PS. Crushed ice is mostly used in the derogative sense. And don't dare call something a "cocktail ring" either. Maybe a more standardized glossary of terms would be adapted if it IS posted as an informative article.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Clgwli- I would not agree that aset is neccesarily a more objective way of looking at a diamond.

What would really answer this question would be a test where actual stones were shown to actual people.
GIA did this, which is one of the reasons 60/60 stones are included in EX cut grade.

I firmly believe that many of the stones categorized negatively here would be preferred by many folks.
Daussi cushions are a great example- and I can see why they are knocked.
Yet at the point of sale- where people really vote with their dollars, Daussi stones are proven to be popular.

We actually do have a GIA triple ex round in stock to use for photography, and also I've made a few calls to get a few AGS "triple zero" rounds in to use for comparison photos- they should be here tomorrow.

Karl- your point is very well taken- as is lyra's.
In fact, this is one of the first conversations where we have tackled a main difference between Jon and myself- I think we both have a strong method of displaying what each of us finds attractive.
In fairness, I need to say that I feel that some statements Jon has made are phrased in such a way to denigrate certain looks he does not find attractive. Again- this has been the first time I can remember that the questions have been posed in a manner to allow a more open discussion about some of these comments.

I am also working on collecting some photos of some examples that I feel are not so well cut, in terms of light return, leakage, and patterning.

 

[clgwli]

I agree with you Karl. However, it seems some innocent terms get different connotations here on PS. Crushed ice is mostly used in the derogative sense. And don't dare call something a "cocktail ring" either. Maybe a more standardized glossary of terms would be adapted if it IS posted as an informative article.

I've noticed this as well. The term "crushed ice" to me is a good thing. To others it is negative (as an example). I wish we could get a standardize glossary, but I am not sure everyone would agree enough to be able to make one in the first place

David, I think you and I might be in more agreement than you realize, but we are speaking semantics differently. An ASET or IS will show a percentage of red, white, blue and green (depending on which one you look at). That part is not open to interpretation. The actual colors themselves you can't debate over. That part and *only* that part is objective. However what those colors mean to the eye in real life when looking at a diamond ie. if the stone is beautiful or not is totally up to what the person sees. The interpretation of such images are also subjective as well. What one person sees as an acceptable amount of red vs white (or other colors) can greatly vary, though here it seems the tolerance is relatively tight.

These images also IMO do not show off a personality of a stone. That to me is another important aspect of buying a stone. The stone needs to "speak to me" and obviously these images are very "sterile" looking.

I've said before I don't feel the usefulness of such images myself when it came to buying a stone. I know what my eye prefers and what my tolerances are. Some people feel the need and while I don't, I can't say to someone their methods are wrong. I'm that way about everything in life though. If it makes someone feel better, so be it. I personally trust my eye more after educating myself on stones in general.

The biggest part of me buying online was trust. I had to trust the photography and the vendor as well. What might shock most people here is that I had 2 pictures of the stone I bought. Which is way less than what I thought I would need. But the photography was great and I really got to know what I was seeing just from those two photos. No ASETs and no video even. That part was left to trust. The only thing I needed to be sure of was that I picked right right color in the end. And that's why I spent so much time looking at my stone. I never saw an IS of the stone until long after I knew I'd keep it. I was simply curious yet confident that the stone would be "acceptable" to those here even... at least those who like radiants.

I am interested in comparing the two to see how much of a difference the eye can really see. At what level do these percentages of the "good" vs "bad" colors really make a difference.

I would use the images as a reference point to compare and discuss. That is why I would like a blind study. Obviously in person would be better, but not easy to do on the forum... he he he. The images would only be shown after people make their comments on a stone. That way for those who want to see the 'reference point' of the image would have them.

It would be a curious study to see from a few standpoints. And I am very curious by nature.

I really cannot wait to see what you find in the way of stones to use for comparison. Of course I love looking at all stones whether they are my favorite type or not. I've really come to appreciate other people's stones even if I don't like them for myself much.

 

[Rockdiamond]

If all aset images were standard, then yes, we could use the colors as an objective method of comparison.
But as this thread has so clearly pointed out, not aset photos are taken the same way. So there will be variances from one vendor to the next- and possibly one stone to the next.
Ever see an aset for a yellow diamond? ( I know there are likely errors in my methodology of taking this particular photo)

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

"But my preference would be to have multiple photos in different lighting as well as an image. Just to give a real life example of what the eye might see (as best as we can get via internet)"

" am highly interested in comparing the two though. What do we think/feel we see vs what the images see."

Photographs no matter how well taken or varied cannot be used to precisely evaluate a diamond's light performance especially dynamic properties. Any conclusions drawn from them will be weak at best and require stronger proof. If you still disagree with that statement than we can discuss very little effectively. http://www.pricescope.com/journal/camera_may_not_lie_it_tells_different_truths

"You stated a poor cut RB would be about the same brightness as a nice crushed ice. I stated I thought a nice crushed ice would be brighter than a poor cut RB. Now I am using this example to say this would be a neat thing to study."

"Not saying one is right or wrong, because we are dealing with perceptions."

No you are not understanding the context of my statement.

First we must agree on the definition of brightness, I will use brightness and brilliance interchangeably in this context. I use the definition of brilliance as defined by the Sassian et al. and the AGSL research in this paper http://www.agslab.com/spie/spie_lo_res.pdf one of the most vigorously peer reviewed journal articles of its kind.

Gemstone brilliance refers to the ability of a stone to appear illuminated to an observer. For this to occur light must be
directed from the virtual facets to the observer’s eyes. .... For understanding the illumination appearance of a gem it is useful to think of a gem’s facets and their optical projections, the virtual facets, as a collection of tiny prisms that direct light to an observer’s eyes. Brilliance [can be defined] as the percentage by area of such tiny prisms that can direct light to the observer’s eyes. This definition is simple and does not intend to account for obliquity factors that could be included to account for differences in the relative position of facets or illumination conditions.



Do you agree to this definition?, if not we can not move forward.

I see no point in debating photographs of diamonds (with undefined lighting especially) in a non specific, unproven, unstructured manner. In general this confuses other posters and lowers the quality of the educational discussion to a basic form where it appears to be my preference versus yours. This isn't the case as I haven't given my personal preference in this thread, and have only pointed out differences in cut quality as it relates to virtual facet size and brightness, but you have already stated that this how you view it.

Discussions along these lines are what RD has lowered many promising threads to for years, and it has led to nothing but consumer confusion, his self promotion of certain types of diamond designs that he sells and a general lack of interest by more experienced and prominant members of the diamond trade. These types of conclusions drawn from photographs would easily be dismissed as inconclusive by anyone with more than a basic understanding of diamond design and optics. Don't take my word for it, independantly ask members of GIAL, AGSL, AGS and other prominant tradesmembers that you are confident can offer an informed opinion.

 

[clgwli]

David point very very well taken on the ASET/IS images. Here is where I fully admit to skimming over how to take the photos and different methods used because I don't have one to play with. I'd be searching again if I ever get one myself. So I really didn't know there were different methods when using one.

again before people point fingers at me, I do fully admit to not reading because I didn't see a point in reading how it was done as of yet. So there's my totally uneducated part. I guess an ASET would be good if only they were all taken by the same methods.

I've seen photos of more brownish colored diamonds ASETs and they kind amuse me still to see the color of the stone pop through. Not what you see here for sure

CCL, I will read over the article you posted tonight. I do not have time right now to do so. So no point in replying more about that to you until I do so. I am getting confused with what you are trying to say in your last post too so I want to reread when I have time and no distractions. I was speaking of a study that would be on perceptions not judging "performance". Much like perceptions of color in diamonds in the near colorless region. I am curious what people find to be a bright stone and where can we see a difference. It's not a science study, it's a perecption study from my point of view.

If we are speaking of different things, then tell me. I just cannot agree that an ASET is the only way to judge a stone and how that translates to my eyes. Particularly knowing that ASET photography methods change so much. I read directions on how to do it once, but I did not know there were other types or ways to do it.

And yes I have given my preference. But this whole thread was about a preference IMO. Is "crushed ice" bad? My simple answer is "No, if you love it it's great!"

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

CLGWLI,

Any tool for measuring diamond properties must be used properly and on the correct subject matter. The ASET is no exception. If he were to take an image properly with a white background and a strong backlight source shining through the pavilion he could minnimize the body color of the diamond but not remove it altogether. The ASET wasn't designed with colored diamonds in mind.

I see the post of that image as just a deliberate attempt at confusion, and RD has been advised several times how to take a proper image, he persists to play this "ignorance" game.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The premise of Wink's article is faulty.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/camera_may_not_lie_it_tells_different_truths ... ent_truths

The reason is the following statement:

Unlike ASET® and Ideal-Scope® images, which are often standardized to allow photographic comparisons, “real world” photos and videos have no such standardization.

As we know these images are NOT standardized. Neither are photos, but they are far more recognizable to human eyes- therefore providing far more useful information. that would include brilliance issues. I agree photos can be messed with, rendering them useless- however that does not mean that other photos don't give relevant info.
CCL- how would you know which articles have been "vigorously reviewed? I'd also question the relevance of a 35 page dissertation to this discussion when simple visual inspection yields all the answers each of us needs for ourselves.
Not every respected trade member agrees with Peter Yantzer.

In the definition you quoted it is stated specifically that this is a simple definition- which does not take into account many potential variances.
Besides that, the well cut Radiant I posted does an amazing job of returning light from the virtual facets back to the eye.

Gemstone brilliance refers to the ability of a stone to appear illuminated to an observer. For this to occur light must be
directed from the virtual facets to the observer’s eyes. .... For understanding the illumination appearance of a gem it is useful to think of a gem’s facets and their optical projections, the virtual facets, as a collection of tiny prisms that direct light to an observer’s eyes. Brilliance [can be defined] as the percentage by area of such tiny prisms that can direct light to the observer’s eyes. This definition is simple and does not intend to account for obliquity factors that could be included to account for differences in the relative position of facets or illumination conditions.

I've asked this before, but is this your forum ccl?
What gives you the right to dictate what is and not relevant- added to your notable declarations and threats of how you won't continue to discuss things if they are not done by your rules.
Will you please follow through on your threat NOT to discuss things, and let us have a civil conversation?

 

[risingsun]

Thank you to RD and Karl for attempting to define the terms of the diamonds under discussion. Having the terms clearly defined, prior to discussion, would be of much assistance. It also would be helpful to a poster, such as myself, to see both photographs and ASETS and/or other relevant tools, in order to clearly see the differences between the Daussi v. radiant, slushy v. crushed ice, and the good v. the not so good examples of each. I am hoping that this thread will be able to accomplish that. As it was said in West Side Story, just play it cool, boy(s), real cool!

 

[clgwli]

CCL I think I give up. At one point you said you understood that amount of measured brilliancy is not always what a person has in mind while shopping for a stone. Yet now you are throwing science back in my face saying that is what you go by.

Like a lot of beautiful things in life, you can measure it by science. Like music you can measure in BPM, decibles and frequency of everything. Science lets you measure that. It'd be insane to say that there is one range of BPM that everyone loves as well as decibles or frequency. Even with frequency not everyone can hear certain frequencies. Younger people have a tendency to hear higher range of frequency. There are some sounds that I hear that hurt my ears as they are so high and literally painful that my family does not hear.

When I spoke of perceived brilliance I am curious as to a measured brilliance and how much that matters to an eye. Not everyone sees the same. Think about it. Even here we have color sensitive people (I am one of them) and I guarantee you have people who are more light sensitive than others. When you go outside you will see some who need very dark sunglasses an others who are fine. Our eye color has a bit to do with that. People with light eyes are far more light sensitive than those with color (generally speaking). I am a light eyed person and I am seen wearing sunglasses on moderately over cast days at times. Yes you can see I am super sensitive to many senses out there.

What I was speaking of has to do more with that. Does a certain measure of brilliancy by your terms matter to everyone?

This thread made me curious.

I am going to read the article later, but if it is more about optics then you were really missing my point. I get the science behind measuring optics of a diamond. I just don't agree that it is all about optics when buying one.

 

[Rockdiamond]

You're most welcome Marian- in fact thank YOU for having an open mind.
Regarding definitions- and the difficulty in garnering widespread agreement: for example, let's consider AGS definition of head size.
How does AGS calculate average head size for measuring obstruction?
From what I understand they average the largest male head, and the smallest female head.
I would suggest that's not an accurate average.
Then there AGS cut grading of fancy shapes- which is by no means agreed upon by the industry's top people.
It does not make the cut grades, or AGS info ( head size , brilliance definitions, etc) meaningless- but it does put them into a better context.
It's not law- or accepted science- it's the opinion of one person, or group of people. And that opinion is not agreed upon by other , well respected people in the trade.

Once we digress to vendor definitions, it really gets more murky.
One seller says is something is "superior", others feel differently. Then consumers who agree with the seller continually re-enforce the "scientific" aspect of how one is "better" than another.
Personally, I make a point not to use absolute terms.
Instead of "This is the best diamond you'll ever see", I prefer "This diamond, in my opinion, is as nice as any others you will see"

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

The premise of Wink's article is faulty.
https://www.pricescope.com/journal/camer ... ent_truths

CCL- how would you know which articles have been "vigorously reviewed? I'd also question the relevance of a 35 page dissertation to this discussion when simple visual inspection yields all the answers each of us needs for ourselves.
Not every respected trade member agrees with Peter Yantzer.

Do you even know what an impact factor is for a journal in academia? How the academic peer review process works? No I don't think you do so don't pretend to challenge my statement. I have three full article publications in academic journals as first author and 7 years of graduate research in chemistry so I have just "slightly" more experience than you in this area. Suffice as to say the editors of Optical Engineering have other criteria than personal subjective opinion that they use to determine whether an article is worthy of publication.
It isn't so much the opinion, but how well it is articulated and supported by scientific evidence that governs the quality of the research.

When considering an article for publication the editor independantly choses relevant experts in the field to anonymously evaluate the article and determine its suitability for publication.

The least you could do is properly acknowledge who the first author of the paper, Jose Sassian is and that he was a fellow at the University of Arizona at the time of writing. Diminishing his hard work to support your opinion(s) is disgusting even for you and will have the exact opposite effect as you think.

I won't even comment on the other people whose work you insulted in that post, they can take issue with you directly if they even take notice of your posts.

 

[Rockdiamond]

ccl- I agree- you have more experience publishing articles in chemistry journals than I.
If we're going by experince in a given field- ( you have written chemistry articles)- how can you begin to challenge me with regards to diamond representation, buying, selling, grading etc.
How many diamonds have you sold? How many have you bought?
How many people looked at your photos, then your actual diamonds and were satisifed with the representaion?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

ccl- I agree- you have more experience publishing articles in chemistry journals than I.
If we're going by experince in a given field- ( you have written chemistry articles)- how can you begin to challenge me with regards to diamond representation, buying, selling, grading etc.
How many diamonds have you sold? How many have you bought?
How many people looked at your photos, then your actual diamonds and were satisifed with the representaion?

So you admit you have no right to question the academic peer review process of Optical Engineering as you know nothing about it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

ccl- let me tell you what just happened.
I am sitting here, about to write about a diamond.
I realized that I have been driven to get far more technical about diamonds- and I thought of you as a motivating force in that.
It's a four main Cushion Brilliant.
Last year I would have said it was a cushion.

Thank you for that.

Having said that- please give it a rest, and let's focus on the matters at hand.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

CCL I think I give up.

Read the article its worth it .
Here are some really basic Cliffnotes:

The ASET measures potential brightness, the research behind it consides a uniform hemisphere of potential lighting about the diamond's crown.


The ASET tells you which parts of the diamond can be potentially bright. A photograph just shows which parts of a diamond are bright in one particular lighting(if it even does that). Change the lighting and the diamond won't look bright in the same areas anymore.

I don't want to guess if the lighting a vendor uses was most flattering to the diamond or not, I want to see its potential so I can correlate that to other diamonds. This correlation allows me to objectively say one diamond has the potential to be brighter than the next. Comparing two different vendor photographs won't allow me to do this.

 

[Rockdiamond]

ccl- if we can agreee that photos must be considered limited, as any representaiton, what was your impression of the stones in the diamond tray, taken under a diamond grading light?

The discussion is about different types of stones with a lot of small virtual facets, in such a manner than there is no pattern the the leakage areas ( like hearts and arrows- or whatever you will cite for the cause of H&A).
Smaller areas of leakage will create a stone with virtually no dark area in a wide reange of viewing angels, and lighting environment.
I am calling this crushed crushed ice, and the discussion is about which stones are considered to be well cut.
I belive this photos- given the limitaitons- represnts the small virtual facets of the radiant very well.

If you want to use aset to determine whatever it is you want to determine, that is your right. But please, can we talk about the subject at hand.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

RD you can take the stone to sarin's office. Amusing that I am on the other side of the earth and need to tell you that.

The szie of a persons head and all other AGS related isues are based on US Military standards. As is the 8 inch focusing distance which I believe is too close, and is the reason I prefer slightly shallower stones.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

ccl- if we can agreee that photos must be considered limited, as any representaiton, what was your impression of the stones in the diamond tray, taken under a diamond grading light?
The discussion is about different types of stones with a lot of small virtual facets, in such a manner than there is no pattern the the leakage areas ( like hearts and arrows- or whatever you will cite for the cause of H&A).
Smaller areas of leakage will create a stone with virtually no dark area in a wide reange of viewing angels, and lighting environment.
I am calling this crushed crushed ice, and the discussion is about which stones are considered to be well cut.
I belive this photos- given the limitaitons- represnts the small virtual facets of the radiant very well.

If you want to use aset to determine whatever it is you want to determine, that is your right. But please, can we talk about the subject at hand.

RD,

Why would I want to judge a diamond's brightness under a grading lamp? how often do we wear rings under a grading lamp?
A grading lamp helps a less efficient cut like a radiant look brighter.

I preferred the lighting you did at 1:41 for about 3 seconds before you took them out of focus as the most likely to illustrate what these two would look like when worn.

Here is a screencapture I am making these comments based on the video not on just this one screencapture.



Neither of these have edge to edge brilliance or edge to edge sparkle or even close.
You will not find a direct correlation between leakage and small virtual facets so stop claiming this unless you can prove it.
The star129 is an example of a diamond with smaller virtual facets than this radiant but it will be much brighter than both of these.

The Daussi cushion(on the left) isn't even close to what I would call a crushed ice cushion, it has larger virtual facets under the table and on the edges. I see plenty of dark lifeless zones in this stone but wouldn't call this one slushy crushed ice. This one is a little better than some of the other ones I've seen(more rectangular) but still mediocre in brightness compared to what is popular in these forums.

Now get the .srn files so that a proper comparison can be made.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Military specs Garry? Ah, that explains a lot.

I found the website page for the NYC distributor of Sarin.
I'll give him a call tomorrow at the crack of noon.

ccl- there is no such thing as brightness, as a quantifiable parameter that has broad relevance to consumers. Not everyone will see the same thing as brightness..
I'm showing one way these particular diamonds are using the light- with a known source.
Making it familiar to folks.
The bulbs are designed to mimic daylight.
For any person to truly judge the brilliance of a diamond, they must see it in person.
But photos can still give a very good idea of the overall appearance- suggesting an expected brilliance irl. IN this case we do have the video, so it's possible to see them in motion.


I agree the Daussi stone has larger virtual facets in the middle- as well as some honking pavilion facets that bounce the light right back- not creating a virtual facet pattern- or sometimes these larger facets bounce the light totally away. Attribute this to leakage, or obstruction it matters not, there are facets that go dark it many different orientations.
The charm that I see about the way this type of stone uses the light is the cool contrast - just as quick as that mongo facet on the bottom of the diamond is dark, it's bright white. It seems that every time one of them goes dark, another lights up- the result in motion is that there's the dark areas seem part of it's personality- more like an emerald cut, in person.

The radiant? I don't see any large dark areas in the screen shot ccl posted.
Nor in person- the areas of darkness ( leakage) are small- and never "static"- always moving
ccl- if you could notate the photo pointing out what you see as dark areas, it might be informative.
I agree they exist- and can be seen in the photo- but they are small. And not "concentrated" in one area from what I see

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Military specs Garry? Ah, that explains a lot.

I found the website page for the NYC distributor of Sarin.
I'll give him a call tomorrow at the crack of noon.

ccl- there is no such thing as brightness, as a quantifiable parameter that has broad relevance to consumers. Not everyone will see the same thing as brightness..
I'm showing one way these particular diamonds are using the light- with a known source.
Making it familiar to folks.
The bulbs are designed to mimic daylight.
For any person to truly judge the brilliance of a diamond, they must see it in person.
But photos can still give a very good idea of the overall appearance- suggesting an expected brilliance irl. IN this case we do have the video, so it's possible to see them in motion.


I agree the Daussi stone has larger virtual facets in the middle- as well as some honking pavilion facets that bounce the light right back- not creating a virtual facet pattern- or sometimes these larger facets bounce the light totally away. Attribute this to leakage, or obstruction it matters not, there are facets that go dark it many different orientations.
The charm that I see about the way this type of stone uses the light is the cool contrast - just as quick as that mongo facet on the bottom of the diamond is dark, it's bright white. It seems that every time one of them goes dark, another lights up- the result in motion is that there's the dark areas seem part of it's personality- more like an emerald cut, in person.

The radiant? I don't see any large dark areas in the screen shot ccl posted.
Nor in person- the areas of darkness ( leakage) are small- and never "static"- always moving
ccl- if you could notate the photo pointing out what you see as dark areas, it might be informative.
I agree they exist- and can be seen in the photo- but they are small. And not "concentrated" in one area from what I see

RD there is a way to guage brightness or brilliance - it is called comparison - and it is what you are being asked to provide via the .srn files. Please do your 60:60 as well as the other stones because then we will be able to do side by side comparisons like this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57VUOrYkYaI

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yes Garry, I'll call the gentleman listed as the NYC Sarin rep.
In the interest of accuracy, this is what I said

there is no such thing as brightness, as a quantifiable parameter that has broad relevance to consumers. Not everyone will see the same thing as brightness..

Different from saying you can't measure brightness

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Military specs Garry? Ah, that explains a lot.

[quote[I found the website page for the NYC distributor of Sarin.
I'll give him a call tomorrow at the crack of noon.

Good please do that, we want a direct comparison. Seems you have been given wide latitude to post images of stones you sell and post a sales pitch about their appearance in this thread over and over.

Not really sure how that happened.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Yes Garry, I'll call the gentleman listed as the NYC Sarin rep.
In the interest of accuracy, this is what I said

there is no such thing as brightness, as a quantifiable parameter that has broad relevance to consumers. Not everyone will see the same thing as brightness..

Different from saying you can't measure brightness

I take that to mean you did not and have no intention of opening the 9 second youtube link I posted RD?
So then you can continue to 'not understand' why people get frustrated with you when you give irrelevant answers?

 

[CharmyPoo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57VUOrYkYaI

Wow... that is one gorgeous cushion.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Cool simulation Garry
I honestly have no idea how the YouTube relates to the question of the broad based relevance of brilliance measurements- but it was cool
Why so short?