Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[Doc_1]

not much for the round from your windows, the radiant still gets from as far as there.

It is why a round suffers more from obstruction as per my post yesterday Doc

Agree! and i see your point,
On the other hand RD's point is the crushed ice radiant ( and here Garry we are talking about this particular look which is the core of the debate) utilized the light better and stayed sparkly drawing light in a smart way from allover your office, this point of RD i can see too.
True the RB when sits in its sweet spot (red zone) will dance and show up more, but it is a narrower zone compromised by head obstruction. the radiant dances all the time non stop.

 

[arjunajane]

I highly doubt a lot of the folks on your list would care to be associated with you- or your actions ccl.

Actually, I for one feel that CCL, StoneCold and Garry all have the patience of saints to continue as they have in this thread.
The thread long ago became an observation only matter for me, as personally I know I would become too frustrated to contribute.


Yes, CCL is direct in his posting nature, but it is in the name of education, which I respect.

 

[Doc_1]

I highly doubt a lot of the folks on your list would care to be associated with you- or your actions ccl.

Actually, I for one feel that CCL, StoneCold and Garry all have the patience of saints to continue as they have in this thread.
The thread long ago became an observation only matter for me, as personally I know I would become too frustrated to contribute.


Yes, CCL is direct in his posting nature, but it is in the name of education, which I respect.

To me am amazed how much my knowledge had expanded from both camps...Its a luxury i cannot find somewhere else!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

not much for the round from your windows, the radiant still gets from as far as there.

It is why a round suffers more from obstruction as per my post yesterday Doc

Agree! and i see your point,
On the other hand RD's point is the crushed ice radiant ( and here Garry we are talking about this particular look which is the core of the debate) utilized the light better and stayed sparkly drawing light in a smart way from allover your office, this point of RD i can see too.
True the RB when sits in its sweet spot (red zone) will dance and show up more, but it is a narrower zone compromised by head obstruction. the radiant dances all the time non stop.

The round draws from the red and the blue zone which is 90 degrees of the 180 degree hemisphere. The blue is only obstruction in pefect face up - as soon as you move the stone the dark stars flash very brightly.

You also know that it depends where the lights are.
There is no orgaization that agrees that crushed ice appear brighter than well cut rounds, and no-one I have ever shown diamonds too in store would agree.

That is not a criticism of crushed ice - it is an observation.
Again, no one has claimed the $100 - please try.

Here is a DiamCalc light return and dark zone comp's on RD's radiant. Well cut rounds score 0.95 to 1.00. The cushion we have cut outperforms a round on many of these light return parameters.

 

[Doc_1]

not much for the round from your windows, the radiant still gets from as far as there.

It is why a round suffers more from obstruction as per my post yesterday Doc

Agree! and i see your point,
On the other hand RD's point is the crushed ice radiant ( and here Garry we are talking about this particular look which is the core of the debate) utilized the light better and stayed sparkly drawing light in a smart way from allover your office, this point of RD i can see too.
True the RB when sits in its sweet spot (red zone) will dance and show up more, but it is a narrower zone compromised by head obstruction. the radiant dances all the time non stop.

The round draws from the red and the blue zone which is 90 degrees of the 180 degree hemisphere. The blue is only obstruction in pefect face up - as soon as you move the stone the dark stars flash very brightly.

You also know that it depends where the lights are.
There is no orgaization that agrees that crushed ice appear brighter than well cut rounds, and no-one I have ever shown diamonds too in store would agree.

That is not a criticism of crushed ice - it is an observation.
Again, no one has claimed the $100 - please try.

Here is a DiamCalc light return and dark zone comp's on RD's radiant. Well cut rounds score 0.95 to 1.00. The cushion we have cut outperforms a round on many of these light return parameters.

Garry
Would you please post a radiant with crushed ice look which is the subject of the debate including the ASET so we get to see what you consider a crushed ice that can score VG and higher on your DiamCalc.
That will make for more education since we compare the two!

 

[Doc_1]

$100 for the first person to find a post or comment that I ever made that an even and overall crushed ice look in a diamond cut is bad. Or any example of me ever telling anyone who likes the look not to buy one.

Again, no one has claimed the $100 - please try.

Here is the claim Garry.

Hi AGBF,
Regarding your post here:

https://www.pricescope.com/communit...ions-bad.148696/page-18#post-2701566#p2701566

If you loved us tech heads more than diamonds, we would paly with you more

I agree - stay away from crushed ice, go wih the vintage styles, or a pair of shallow 8 mains type and go for a larger spread because they are more likely to draw light from dead ahead rather than get that dark look on the top or the bottom from drawing light in the green ASET zones.

i.e. as much blue and red in the ASET or lots of dark in an ideal-scope.
Hope that helps my Darling!

It is obvious to me that the statement it is so powerful from a savvy expert like you it will form opinions about crushed ice look to readers, especially the discussion was not about a specific stone, it was general.

So Give me my 100 AUD please

 

[Rockdiamond]

not much for the round from your windows, the radiant still gets from as far as there.

It is why a round suffers more from obstruction as per my post yesterday Doc

Agree! and i see your point,
On the other hand RD's point is the crushed ice radiant ( and here Garry we are talking about this particular look which is the core of the debate) utilized the light better and stayed sparkly drawing light in a smart way from allover your office, this point of RD i can see too.
True the RB when sits in its sweet spot (red zone) will dance and show up more, but it is a narrower zone compromised by head obstruction. the radiant dances all the time non stop.

The round draws from the red and the blue zone which is 90 degrees of the 180 degree hemisphere. The blue is only obstruction in pefect face up - as soon as you move the stone the dark stars flash very brightly.

You also know that it depends where the lights are.
There is no orgaization that agrees that crushed ice appear brighter than well cut rounds, and no-one I have ever shown diamonds too in store would agree.

That is not a criticism of crushed ice - it is an observation.
Again, no one has claimed the $100 - please try.

Here is a DiamCalc light return and dark zone comp's on RD's radiant. Well cut rounds score 0.95 to 1.00. The cushion we have cut outperforms a round on many of these light return parameters.

Garry- putting numerical values which are designed to capitalize on how a round uses light- which is different than the radiant you compare it to is all more of the same prejudicial bunk.


If your design for the cushion mimics a round ( likely), I sincerely doubt it has the same type of look as the crushed ice this discussion was about.
We already know more people buy round diamonds- that's no secret. Your experience of people in your store that you show stones to preferring the round is likely about percentages- and the fact you don't like crushed ice- so why would you even have good examples to show- and why would you show them impartially?
We all have preferences- which will come out when we show people stones.
As a dealer in fancy colors- as well as many crushed ice colorless stones, I get to see a lot of really nice ones- and many of the folks that come to our office- or contact us prefer the crushed ice look. Stores such as Harry Winston are also experiencing a demand for such stones- I am by no means alone as a lover of "Crushed ice"
Just like you, my preference will also come through.
However I also love patterned stones- I am never in the position of trying to make them look bad in relation to crushed ice stones. IMO quoting "brilliance" figures, and relating them to crushed ice types of stones is prejudicial- and clearly, this is not only my opinion. I did not start this thread. I think you owe me the hunned bucks- but I'll let you pay me with a few drinks when we get to meet next year in Las Vegas

Not for nothing: If we compare a well cut crushed ice cushion or radiant to an EX cut grade round, the difference in price per carat is very substantial- the round costs more.
A large part of that has to do with waste in the cutting process.
The same rough that makes a 3ct round will likely cut into a 4ct radiant ( I'm simplifying it)
In fairness, the round will likely look larger than a crushed ice stone of the same weight....but the prices are also an ingredient on the mix.

As far as CCL and his one person fan club- have fun you two!
Anyone truly interested in education will welcome diversity of views.
Anyone interested in an informative public conversation will not throw insults- both personal and professional- to attempt to silence someone who's views differ from their own.

 

[cara]

Doc, the context of your Garry quote is a thread on cushions for EARRINGS. For reasons explained on that thread and this one,the reason for his advice seems to be that a crushed ice diamond gathers light from low angles, which is is often blocked by hair and face on earrings. Thus saying a crushed ice cushion would not be his recommendation for earrings is different than generically putting them down. Heck, in that thread Garry also advised against rectangular cushions, joking about looking lopsided when one is N-S and one is E-W. Hardly should that be construed as a generic put-down of all rectangular non-square diamonds.

Sometimes context is very important; try not to leave it out.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc, the context of your Garry quote is a thread on cushions for EARRINGS. For reasons explained on that thread and this one,the reason for his advice seems to be that a crushed ice diamond gathers light from low angles, which is is often blocked by hair and face on earrings. Thus saying a crushed ice cushion would not be his recommendation for earrings is different than generically putting them down. Heck, in that thread Garry also advised against rectangular cushions, joking about looking lopsided when one is N-S and one is E-W. Hardly should that be construed as a generic put-down of all rectangular non-square diamonds.

Sometimes context is very important; try not to leave it out.

If you read my post on the same thread you can see how i advised for AVC. Still that does not change things, the statement was going to deter any newbie from crushed ice look even in other than earrings, my claim stands.

 

[Rockdiamond]

We've done crushed ice earrings MANY times.
They are popular- and can look really great.

I have to agree with doc- it was a "put down" of crushed ice- again, if we want context, this is not how to do it.
The use of aset- and related info is constantly used out of context

 

[Imdanny]

Anyone truly interested in education will welcome diversity of views.
Anyone interested in an informative public conversation will not throw insults- both personal and professional- to attempt to silence someone who's views differ from their own.

Well said.

 

[FuturePsyD]

I have learned a great deal on this thread! More than I ever bargained for when I originally posted it!

After 21 pages, I do still feel a bit confused in regards to the Harry Winston/Crushed Ice question. Perhaps it is because trades members are unable to openly discuss the matter being that it is about a particular designer.

I'm not even sure whether I will go with HW or not, but I am still really confused as to why a powerhouse designer who creates heirloom quality jewelry would use a stone (modified cushion, aka crushed ice) in their most popular setting that many have stated is a very unpopular cut, optically inferior, rare to find cut well, etc.?? It just seems ridiculous in my mind. They could have easily chosen another type of "superior" "popular", etc. cut cushion to associate with their halo setting, however they very openly encourage the Modified Brilliant. Why? Are they unaware that crushed ice is hard to find cut well? Do they not realize the optics are inferior and perhaps "dull" compared to other cushions?

It's not so much HW that I am concerned about, it's that I really would like to know why ANY high end reputable designer would use, support, market, etc a type of cut that many other professionals in the same field deem inferior in many ways?

 

[Doc_1]

I have learned a great deal on this thread! More than I ever bargained for when I originally posted it!

After 21 pages, I do still feel a bit confused in regards to the Harry Winston/Crushed Ice question. Perhaps it is because trades members are unable to openly discuss the matter being that it is about a particular designer.

I'm not even sure whether I will go with HW or not, but I am still really confused as to why a powerhouse designer who creates heirloom quality jewelry would use a stone (modified cushion, aka crushed ice) in their most popular setting that many have stated is a very unpopular cut, optically inferior, rare to find cut well, etc.?? It just seems ridiculous in my mind. They could have easily chosen another type of "superior" "popular", etc. cut cushion to associate with their halo setting, however they very openly encourage the Modified Brilliant. Why? Are they unaware that crushed ice is hard to find cut well? Do they not realize the optics are inferior and perhaps "dull" compared to other cushions?

It's not so much HW that I am concerned about, it's that I really would like to know why ANY high end reputable designer would use, support, market, etc a type of cut that many other professionals in the same field deem inferior in many ways?

simple answer...high end customers of HW demand that look!
They got their name for a very good reason, it did not come from a vacuum. same goes to Tiffany, Cartier...you name it.
I had after this thread a different way of seeing the crushed ice...if all flowers were the same color this life would be a dull boring one.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I have learned a great deal on this thread! More than I ever bargained for when I originally posted it!

After 21 pages, I do still feel a bit confused in regards to the Harry Winston/Crushed Ice question. Perhaps it is because trades members are unable to openly discuss the matter being that it is about a particular designer.

I'm not even sure whether I will go with HW or not, but I am still really confused as to why a powerhouse designer who creates heirloom quality jewelry would use a stone (modified cushion, aka crushed ice) in their most popular setting that many have stated is a very unpopular cut, optically inferior, rare to find cut well, etc.?? It just seems ridiculous in my mind. They could have easily chosen another type of "superior" "popular", etc. cut cushion to associate with their halo setting, however they very openly encourage the Modified Brilliant. Why? Are they unaware that crushed ice is hard to find cut well? Do they not realize the optics are inferior and perhaps "dull" compared to other cushions?

It's not so much HW that I am concerned about, it's that I really would like to know why ANY high end reputable designer would use, support, market, etc a type of cut that many other professionals in the same field deem inferior in many ways?

Speaking on a personal/ professional level I thank you future
This thread has brought to light some important issues.
It's very important to again stress that the perspective of many of the tradespeople and consumers posting here is by no means "accepted industry standard " Nor is mine- it's a big diamond business with a lot of smart people with independent ideas.
AGS lab is well respected, yet their cut grades of fancy shapes are controversial at the highest levels of the diamond business
That's just one aspect of this
The Internet makes tools like aset seem like the be all end all.
There's a saying about how a guy with a hammer and no nails will find some other use for the hammer
If we have a tool(aset) by all means let's use it seems a reasonable point
But what if the tool ( or the way the results are interpreted )was designed for other types of diamonds?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Doc, the context of your Garry quote is a thread on cushions for EARRINGS. For reasons explained on that thread and this one,the reason for his advice seems to be that a crushed ice diamond gathers light from low angles, which is is often blocked by hair and face on earrings. Thus saying a crushed ice cushion would not be his recommendation for earrings is different than generically putting them down. Heck, in that thread Garry also advised against rectangular cushions, joking about looking lopsided when one is N-S and one is E-W. Hardly should that be construed as a generic put-down of all rectangular non-square diamonds.

Sometimes context is very important; try not to leave it out.

And I, one of the biggest cushion lovers of all time, discouraged even using cushions for earrings. There's no haters in that topic.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc, the context of your Garry quote is a thread on cushions for EARRINGS. For reasons explained on that thread and this one,the reason for his advice seems to be that a crushed ice diamond gathers light from low angles, which is is often blocked by hair and face on earrings. Thus saying a crushed ice cushion would not be his recommendation for earrings is different than generically putting them down. Heck, in that thread Garry also advised against rectangular cushions, joking about looking lopsided when one is N-S and one is E-W. Hardly should that be construed as a generic put-down of all rectangular non-square diamonds.

Sometimes context is very important; try not to leave it out.

And I, one of the biggest cushion lovers of all time, discouraged even using cushions for earrings. There's no haters in that topic.

Based on what?

 

[Cehrabehra]

One reason some cutters might prefer to use crushed ice stones is that there is a lot of room for error - things like symmetry become irrelevant in the chaos of champagne sparkles. I like the crushed ice stones - but I find them more amusing than breathtaking. My stone has regions with glitter and regions with bang - and as unconventional as that combo is I love that I have the best of both worlds. There really is something to appreciate in thousands of tiny little pops of light going off at once, but they don't travel farther than a couple feet. The two biggest facets on my stone can send rainbows 20 feet. The bigger the facet, the bigger the fire. Fire tends to be a very popular thing here with brilliance taking a back seat. In the past fire was considered more of a biproduct while brilliance was the star. Ultimately all of these things fall under preference. My earrings are 10 years old, pre PS and have almost no fire whatsoever, but they are extremely brilliant and I like that quality for earrings and pendants. For rings I like fire - the more the better, the bigger the better. When I hold a crushed ice stone I think it is pretty and entertaining, for a while. And I can see how some would prefer that over other cuts. There's nothing wrong with that. Our culture here on ps is influenced by the two dimensional view we have here. Two ACA owners can look at each other's pictures and see identical stones, and know they are having identical experiences. There's great security in that. I imagine that a company like HW chooses their stones to have that glittery *adornment* quality rather than uberflashy. Historically diamonds were not often cut to superb standards and people STILL LOVED THEM. They are magical, whether the sparkles are small or big - and for decades the industry was based on the eyes and I imagine it's really a tough pill to swallow the internet and embrace the new technologies that go with it. After all, this is science and in the past diamonds were magical.

Some people learn better by arguing. That's just a fact. Sometimes you have to come at something from every angle in opposition to understand the new concept. Preference though is a funny thing and isn't necessarily supported with science.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Doc, the context of your Garry quote is a thread on cushions for EARRINGS. For reasons explained on that thread and this one,the reason for his advice seems to be that a crushed ice diamond gathers light from low angles, which is is often blocked by hair and face on earrings. Thus saying a crushed ice cushion would not be his recommendation for earrings is different than generically putting them down. Heck, in that thread Garry also advised against rectangular cushions, joking about looking lopsided when one is N-S and one is E-W. Hardly should that be construed as a generic put-down of all rectangular non-square diamonds.

Sometimes context is very important; try not to leave it out.

And I, one of the biggest cushion lovers of all time, discouraged even using cushions for earrings. There's no haters in that topic.

Based on what?

I explained myself in that thread, quite thoroughly. Feel free to c&p it here if you want redundancy.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc, the context of your Garry quote is a thread on cushions for EARRINGS. For reasons explained on that thread and this one,the reason for his advice seems to be that a crushed ice diamond gathers light from low angles, which is is often blocked by hair and face on earrings. Thus saying a crushed ice cushion would not be his recommendation for earrings is different than generically putting them down. Heck, in that thread Garry also advised against rectangular cushions, joking about looking lopsided when one is N-S and one is E-W. Hardly should that be construed as a generic put-down of all rectangular non-square diamonds.

Sometimes context is very important; try not to leave it out.

And I, one of the biggest cushion lovers of all time, discouraged even using cushions for earrings. There's no haters in that topic.

Based on what?

I explained myself in that thread, quite thoroughly. Feel free to c&p it here if you want redundancy.

We can keep the discussion here, i thought i posted my claim on this thread and it turned out to be posted on her thread, the mods will fix the problem.
I just out of respect to the OP on the other thread asked them to transfer the post here, so our discussion can continue here.

As far as cushions for earrings, RD mentioned that they had many crushed ice made, actually in the video he took the radiant to the lowest possible position which is much worse than what your earring may get light wise yet it danced with life, true not those broad red zone fires that i personally like in AVC, but am sure some people like that crushed ice pinpoint flashes, including high end HW customers.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

One reason some cutters might prefer to use crushed ice stones is that there is a lot of room for error - things like symmetry become irrelevant in the chaos of champagne sparkles. I like the crushed ice stones - but I find them more amusing than breathtaking. My stone has regions with glitter and regions with bang - and as unconventional as that combo is I love that I have the best of both worlds. There really is something to appreciate in thousands of tiny little pops of light going off at once, but they don't travel farther than a couple feet. The two biggest facets on my stone can send rainbows 20 feet. The bigger the facet, the bigger the fire. Fire tends to be a very popular thing here with brilliance taking a back seat. In the past fire was considered more of a biproduct while brilliance was the star. Ultimately all of these things fall under preference. My earrings are 10 years old, pre PS and have almost no fire whatsoever, but they are extremely brilliant and I like that quality for earrings and pendants. For rings I like fire - the more the better, the bigger the better. When I hold a crushed ice stone I think it is pretty and entertaining, for a while. And I can see how some would prefer that over other cuts. There's nothing wrong with that. Our culture here on ps is influenced by the two dimensional view we have here. Two ACA owners can look at each other's pictures and see identical stones, and know they are having identical experiences. There's great security in that. I imagine that a company like HW chooses their stones to have that glittery *adornment* quality rather than uberflashy. Historically diamonds were not often cut to superb standards and people STILL LOVED THEM. They are magical, whether the sparkles are small or big - and for decades the industry was based on the eyes and I imagine it's really a tough pill to swallow the internet and embrace the new technologies that go with it. After all, this is science and in the past diamonds were magical.

Some people learn better by arguing. That's just a fact. Sometimes you have to come at something from every angle in opposition to understand the new concept. Preference though is a funny thing and isn't necessarily supported with science.

Hi Sara Cehrabehra - Thankyou for pointing out to Doc that I did not criticise crushed ice, but pointed out the reasons why they would not be the best choice, just as I recomend shallower round stones for earrings (and not most H&A's proportion sets).
I also would not suggest pear or heart studs because they can turn upside down (but they make great drops).

I like your fire point of view too.


But - there is not a lot of room for error in cutting good crushed ice - the fancy colored diamond experts manage to remove the ASET Blue thru a range of rocking motions to remove the dark zones and make the color even - it requires much greater skill and knowledge than H&A's.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I hope this helps.
Of course in a real life situation the face and hair will have a much greater effect on the radiant and almost none on the round.

I like crushed ice.
I like fancies.
I am sickened by the current post GFC situation where far too many potential fancies are sacraficed because XXX rounds sell fast to China

 

[diagem]

But - there is not a lot of room for error in cutting good crushed ice - the fancy colored diamond experts manage to remove the ASET Blue thru a range of rocking motions to remove the dark zones and make the color even - it requires much greater skill and knowledge than H&A's.

Contrast is the enemy of keeping the color even through faceup appearance.
Thats why Fancy Colored Diamond cutters employ painting techniques in their pavilion facet designs while minimizing crown facet size allowing a larger table for viewing the pavilion.

But this technique is not as useful for color-less Diamonds as it lacks contrast.
IMO lack of contrast is one of the problems in 'crushed ice' appearances.
When you finally see a nice/good 'crushed ice' out there with the right attributes..., there is not a lot of room for cutting error.
Simply put..., the more out-of balance the 'crushed ice' appearance..., the wider the error range used.

Preferences....? To each their own

 

[risingsun]

But - there is not a lot of room for error in cutting good crushed ice - the fancy colored diamond experts manage to remove the ASET Blue thru a range of rocking motions to remove the dark zones and make the color even - it requires much greater skill and knowledge than H&A's.

Contrast is the enemy of keeping the color even through faceup appearance.
Thats why Fancy Colored Diamond cutters employ painting techniques in their pavilion facet designs while minimizing crown facet size allowing a larger table for viewing the pavilion.

But this technique is not as useful for color-less Diamonds as it lacks contrast.
IMO lack of contrast is one of the problems in 'crushed ice' appearances.
When you finally see a nice/good 'crushed ice' out there with the right attributes..., there is not a lot of room for cutting error.
Simply put..., the more out-of balance the 'crushed ice' appearance..., the wider the error range used.

Preferences....? To each their own

Thank you for posting this information. I have been following this thread and am learning, which is my purpose for being here.

 

[arjunajane]

As far as CCL and his one person fan club- have fun you two!
Anyone truly interested in education will welcome diversity of views.
Anyone interested in an informative public conversation will not throw insults- both personal and professional- to attempt to silence someone who's views differ from their own.

RD - you honestly cannot be for real

Can you PLEASE point out for the good readers where I have ever 'thrown an insult' at you? Please, do so - just like in every thread where you implore people to 'reveal their agendas', what is your agenda against me as a consumer? Is it that I am not your customer, and likely never will be? Or that I am not in your 'one man band' like Doc is? Doc is throwing insults at posters left and right, however he doesn't receive a 'telling off' by professionals on the other side of the debate - hrmm...

You and I have exactly what you are purporting to promote - differing view points. And not once have I (or CCL for that matter) attempted to 'silence you' - this is ridiculous and simply provocative garbage.
I have absolute open arms, eyes and mind for anyone who is willing to educate others and to educate themselves on PS, and in life in general.

I find you have a perennial victim complex that is entirely unprofessional and completely unbecoming.
Yes, I may now have strayed into the territory of a personal commentary about you with my last line - however, only after you have attempted to reduce my contribution and viewpoint on these boards with a completely acerbic and dishonest summation.

You provoked, and I fell for it - so shame on me, really.

 

[Doc_1]

As far as CCL and his one person fan club- have fun you two!
Anyone truly interested in education will welcome diversity of views.
Anyone interested in an informative public conversation will not throw insults- both personal and professional- to attempt to silence someone who's views differ from their own.

RD - you honestly cannot be for real

Can you PLEASE point out for the good readers where I have ever 'thrown an insult' at you? Please, do so - just like in every thread where you implore people to 'reveal their agendas', what is your agenda against me as a consumer? Is it that I am not your customer, and likely never will be? Or that I am not in your 'one man band' like Doc is? Doc is throwing insults at posters left and right, however he doesn't receive a 'telling off' by professionals on the other side of the debate - hrmm...

You and I have exactly what you are purporting to promote - differing view points. And not once have I (or CCL for that matter) attempted to 'silence you' - this is ridiculous and simply provocative garbage.
I have absolute open arms, eyes and mind for anyone who is willing to educate others and to educate themselves on PS, and in life in general.

I find you have a perennial victim complex that is entirely unprofessional and completely unbecoming.
Yes, I may now have strayed into the territory of a personal commentary about you with my last line - however, only after you have attempted to reduce my contribution and viewpoint on these boards with a completely acerbic and dishonest summation.

You provoked, and I fell for it - so shame on me, really.

AND DESCRIBING SOMEONE'S POST AS GARBAGE IS NOT INSULT?........WOW!

 

[Doc_1]

I hope this helps.
Of course in a real life situation the face and hair will have a much greater effect on the radiant and almost none on the round.

I like crushed ice.
I like fancies.
I am sickened by the current post GFC situation where far too many potential fancies are sacraficed because XXX rounds sell fast to China

What is the market premiums for the XXX RB's in china compared to US, (i would think you do business with US)?

 

[arjunajane]

Doc1 please save your 'outrage' for elsewhere. I was not addressing you, and RD has been in the game long enough to (hopefully) be able to defend his own statements without your help.
Frankly, your constant "ra-ra ing" behind everything RD posts is firstly very disruptive for this thread, and secondly it is frankly suspicious how emotionally invested you seem in this debate, when you are supposedly the owner and lover of a chunky style AVC. Why did you not purchase a crushed ice cushion, considering all your posts in this thread?

 

[Rockdiamond]

Doc- thank you.
I don't know Doc- have never sold anything to doc- as a matter of fact, this very thread started with Doc and I a little bit at odds.
Reading further we learn Doc has purchased from other vendors here- and has been extremely positive about that experience.
Doc also has shown a very open mind discussing these issues- much appreciated

This thread has brought to light many interesting aspects of "crushed ice" and indeed, Pricescope itself.
I can't thank the moderators enough for the wonderful job they do- and the open atmosphere which is clearly present here.

Although Garry and I certainly have differences of opinion, I am grateful too for his participation- Diagem as well.

I have also learned a lot during this process- including using aset.

In terms of the less than positive aspects we've witnessed, well, we've gotten past that to maintain an environment where the information is still flowing well for all who wish to learn.

I'm sorry for allowing myself to get drawn into some nasty exchanges, but I'm only human and the behavior and posts of a few people have caused me to get a bit angry.
Sorry for that again.


Diagem mentioned something I find interesting:

But - there is not a lot of room for error in cutting good crushed ice - the fancy colored diamond experts manage to remove the ASET Blue thru a range of rocking motions to remove the dark zones and make the color even - it requires much greater skill and knowledge than H&A's.

Contrast is the enemy of keeping the color even through faceup appearance.
Thats why Fancy Colored Diamond cutters employ painting techniques in their pavilion facet designs while minimizing crown facet size allowing a larger table for viewing the pavilion.

But this technique is not as useful for color-less Diamonds as it lacks contrast.
IMO lack of contrast is one of the problems in 'crushed ice' appearances.
When you finally see a nice/good 'crushed ice' out there with the right attributes..., there is not a lot of room for cutting error.
Simply put..., the more out-of balance the 'crushed ice' appearance..., the wider the error range used.

Preferences....? To each their own

We disagree that lack of contrast is necessarily a "problem" in colorless diamonds. It could also be said that this lack of contrast is due to smaller dark zones in the stones.
There are compromises that must be made with any cut- if we're looking at step cut fancy colors, for example- the color is generally not as even as in a crushed ice look- due to the greater degree of contrast in a step cut.
This is also true in colorless step cuts that can tend to show more color at the ends of the stone.

The part in bold: I have noticed a trend lately where fancy color cutters have successfully achieved even color, crushed ice, and maintained a relatively tall crown, featuring smaller table sizes. Traditionally, many fancy color crushed ice stones had larger tables.

This again makes "crushed ice" harder to define as there seem to be far less "rules" as compared to some other types of looks associated with certain trends on table size and depth , for example.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc1 please save your 'outrage' for elsewhere. I was not addressing you, and RD has been in the game long enough to (hopefully) be able to defend his own statements without your help.
Frankly, your constant "ra-ra ing" behind everything RD posts is firstly very disruptive for this thread, and secondly it is frankly suspicious how emotionally invested you seem in this debate, when you are supposedly the owner and lover of a chunky style AVC. Why did you not purchase a crushed ice cushion, considering all your posts in this thread?

It is very sad to see our country slipping this slope that is reflected on almost every walk in life.
To solidify in one camp and close the mind to the other side is a recipe for a decline that is materializing in front of our own eyes.
Some simply cannot see the other side, and if one sees it then it is a suspicious behavior....WOW !
Many times i wished to pick up the phone on RD's web site to talk to him and discuss personally some of the issues but refrained thinking lets keep it on PS board.
To suggest that my compassion about seeing a vendor being hammered with insults, and being talked down and been described that he does not understand or does not get it made me feel the urge to stand up as a free soul and say something.
if we do not open our minds and change course and try to see the other side that is different from ours...am afraid we are doomed as a nation, i hope it is not too late.

 

[kenny]

Oye Vey.