Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[Ella]

Please remember that personal attacks, no matter the context, will not be tolerated. Please keep the discussion on topic and keep personal comments out of the discussion.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Charmy
Good point, the word "bad" was a poor choice
In the photo I posted the fisheye stone has characteristics that would be negatively categorized by most graders- and observers. Not so "crushed ice"
The deep stones in that parcel actually face up nicely- but they look smaller than stones that are not cut as deep
That is not an aspect of taste
Charmy, if anything I write is confusing to you please feel free to ask and I will clarify
Doc- again, specific aspers of the diamond business as are being discussed here by professionals have aspects that can only be grasped after much hands on experience.
I have no doubt you know what you like however that does not mean things you don't prefer are "scientifically deficient"

 

[arjunajane]

Thanks for pointing that out ccl
You can indeed color grade in a tray
Not clarity or good visual inspection of facet structure. IN addition color will be graded table down, not face up as in Jon's photos and video. I do not believe GIA recommends the DD for taking photos.
Thank you as well for pulling out of the thread
Jon has admitted that you and he are friends which does call your motivation into question

RD are you really that arrogant that you cannot see the complete irony in you continually accusing CCL and many others of 'personally attacking you' whilst you so casually throw out serious attacks and allegations such as the above? If there is such a feud between you and CCL as you complain of, and you actually do prefer for it not to continue, it seems his departure from this thread could have been a prime chance for a *dignified* conclusion. I for one really am beyond baffled why you continue to post here as in my view and experience of being a member here you have added near to nothing of educational value and simply seem to enjoy stirring the hornets nest so that you may run to your corner and cry 'foul'. Honestly shame on you and I only hope potential clients can read your hypocrisy and confused arguments and draw their own conclusions.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc- again, specific aspers of the diamond business as are being discussed here by professionals have aspects that can only be grasped after much hands on experience.
I have no doubt you know what you like however that does not mean things you don't prefer are "scientifically deficient"

With all due respect RD you are drawing the wrong conclusion from my posts so i will correct you on interpreting what i said for many times so far:

adding extra leverage to my informed purchase is a good thing.

More and more purchases are made on line now that is a trend that no one can stop.

when you buy online it is better to have every possible tool that helps weed out badly cut stones, from ASET to photos to lab reports to videos.

It is COMBINING all those together that gives the customer an edge in those online purchases. that also applies to in house checking and purchasing in local jewelery stores.

ASET is an extremely helping tool in weeding badly cut stones out....ie: too much white, it will not look marvelous or gorgeous in real life THE ODDS ARE AGAINST IT because that white color on the ASET is based on SCIENCE and not just a gimmick ....!
So that is a very welcomed tool that should be encouraged as a first step in looking.

The FINAL SAY IS TO THE EYE and I cannot be more clearer.

Doc_1

 

[clgwli]

I am not sure I should even reply at this point, but I finally found the video that Jon said he published. I will have to say I never once thought of the splintery stones as crushed ice. I simply just think "splintery" which really lookes different to me. No one is right or wrong with their answer, I simply wanted to state that before I continue. Not saying what others view as crushed ice is wrong, but to define what I feel is crushed ice as my personal baseline.

I appreciate crushed ice due to lack of visible pattern. Many of my friends have made that comment as well. They can't see a firm facet structure while the ring is in motion. As best as I can grasp that is why I like it. I am not seeing arrows or an X pattern (RB & princess for example) that make my eye look right to those instead of appreciating the over all sparkle. Now why I like really bold flashes, I can't figure out yet, but all the splintery stones are beautiful but not my thing and not at all what I think of when I say crushed ice. Kind of like highly visible inclusions, splintery patterns make my eye stop and stare at it which makes it hard for me to enjoy something. Now many people love their inclusions that are easily found, but for me I just can't stop staring at it as the stone moves. Again not saying others are bad, but saying why I don't tolerate some cuts well.

I will say that I feel there are brighter crushed ice stones than what you showed there. I have tried to take pictures of my stone to show the amount of leakage, but I'm really not good enough on a regular point and shoot to get it to show to you so please trust me when I say what I have seen is true. If I were to make a comparison, I'd say it is similar to well cut (not ideal or solasferas for example) princess stones. We all can admit princess stones do leak more than a RB I hope w/o being offensive. Gosh I wish I could take photos to share. Or if you want to compare it to another cut, I'd say my stone showed me less leakage than what I've seen in a good number of nice pears or marquise at the tips.

Yes I admit a former avid photographer cannot take pictures of her slightly leaky stone. I really feel dumb for admitting it.

The princess in that video has some serious leakage issues IMO. I've seen ones probably really close to that in person but only at stores that sell poor cuts. I used to think I wanted a princess cut at one point until I realized that I cannot tolerate the patterning mostly in the center of average to well cut princess stones. But I spent quite a lot of time looking at them. I had more issues finding good vs bad cut radiants in person as they are not as easy to find in my neck of the woods. But I will say that while the better cut radiants had light leakage they never looked near as bad as the priness you found.

My thought is that there is somewhere between that princess and the square cut radiant in the video you showed. A less organized splintery pattern look yet more brightness than the very "slushy" looking stone. I know you cannot comment on stones that are not sold so even if I did find some examples of what I thought would be good and show an ASET of them, we couldn't discuss this further. But I am sure if you looked through your inventory you could find some stones in between that maybe had more leakage under the table than the square radiant but not near as bad as the princess.

So I will ask, do you think there can be somewhere between personally? Yes there are some stones that are "slushy" and not very bright looking. But I still know I have seen with my own eyes brighter crushed ice (what I consider crushed with what I said at first)

For example I was at a local store looking at radiants in general. I saw quite a few that day. The last one that stuck out in my mind was a beautiful 59 point E VVS2 rectangular radiant. I looked at it next to some okay radiants in two different lighting environments. It was very bright, but still didn't have a definite pattern to it. Very much a "full of glitter" kind of look. And I guess that is how I would describe a good crushed ice stone. Take a bunch of glitter and put it on the paper. You'll see brightness and contrast but no real pattern to it.

I personally think my stone is relatively bright in almost every lighting out there. Even in very low light I see lots of sparkle to it, though it obviously doesn't have near the same effect. I took pictures and posted them here of different lighting to show how it looks. Some obviously do not look near as bright as I took them in lighting inside with a shadow to show how soft the yellow can look and others in between to very bright lighting to show how it can shoot off some larger flashes of fire that I expected of a radiant. I do not see it as splintery nor so I see it as slushy. It does have some leakage as expected from a radiant, but no where near to the extent of the princess you showed. It would never be classified as optimal, but it still isn't dull.

I think that is why I replied to this thread at first. I do think a good crushed ice exists that isn't splintery looking. And honestly a lot of my friends go crazy for it. It's not quite as bright as their well cut rounds, but it stands up to the average ones and definitely stands up next to my few friends who have other cuts (modern cushion as well as princess). Not always exact to compare since none have a colored diamond, but I try to do it just the same since I love learning about gems in general. My friends are really cool about it knowing my passion to try to learn fortunately.

This might just be a ramble, but I feel there are better crushed ice out there that are relatively bright compare to the one in the video.

And I do appreciate seeing the stones in all types of lighting I will say. It really helps *me* to see a stone even better. I don't know if others who talk to you ask for it, but for some reason I like viewing it "out in the world" so to speak.

I realize that after the way this thread went today this might be a dumb post, but I said I would look at the video and I finally did.

 

[Dancing Fire]

ETA: If pancake diamonds are so beautiful, I am surprised why everyone isn't jumping on the band wagon. Cutters can get their rough cheaper and cut diamonds that face up more ... and then consumers can buy diamonds that look bigger. Gee.. sounds like a win win .. something must be missing here.

i'm looking for a nice 8.80mm 1.90ct RB stone. i want to pay 1.90ct price that face up like a 2.5ct..

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Clgwli,

This was a reply I started yesterday but didn't have a chance to finish:

I am not trying to say the Daussi should be pushed, just saying I like the majority of the ones I see. This isn't about right or wrong for me but just a preference and stating that one preference isn't better than another. It is just that. A preference and definitely not trying to champion it since I know it is a niche type of cut (much like the CrissCut that I also adore).

I don't have any problem with you liking and expressing a desire for a niche cut design and romancing the stone and the shop that sells it to you. Sharing ones personal preference helps many enhance their buying and wearing experience and validate their purchase decisions.

Because I really do not want to point a negative finger at the GIA DD as I know how useful it is!

Once you have considered the GIA dock critically from a scientific standpoint and read what GIA and some well informed critics of it have to say about it than you can draw your own conclusions. Several years ago Garry H wrote a critique and GIA posted a lengthy response, check the PS archives if you are interested.

Now keep in mind this is a preference of mine. I actually like it when Jon places a stone in a temporary holder and takes it next to his window, or outside in the sunshine or on a cloudy day.

That is my preferred lighting environment as well for showing a diamond in the most beautiful way possible. However this is not as standardized or controlled for comparison purposes as the DD. This view also makes all types of diamonds look better than they will when set as almost no part of the diamond is covered in the holder.

Jon, you brought up a valid point about what I read as a put down. When I see someone say (and this is not specific to anyone just making up a mix of something I might have read) "that stone is a dog! I wouldn't be seen with such a fugly thing" Again made that up. I read that as an insult.

I hope you realize there are only three people who have made subjective comments about the brand here, you, Charmypoo and RD and you are each entitled to your opinion without feeling the need to challenge the opinion of others.

I am not wired to romance any stone, I see Daussi cushions for the commerical opportunity upon which they were created. They are a clever niche product. A smart cutter involved with the brand realized that much lower production costs per carat of finished diamond or a lower cost for the same faceup size could be achieved by a particular cutting style. They achieve this in one of two major ways:

i) using cheaper assymetric shaped rough
ii) using the more standard octahedron rough but cutting to shallow proportions that save more weight than the average cushion

Nothing wrong with that.

Where the problem lies is in diamond dealers who say these cut for weight or spread diamonds are equally beautiful or return light to the viewer as well as any other diamonds and subsequently sell them at the same price(or at only a disproportionately smaller discount) as compared to other diamonds that cost much more to produce. Lack of education in diamonds is diminishing but the average consumer is only educated on Color, Clarity and Carat Weight.

Despite this, Daussi cushions are still a niche product, the average buyer prefers diamonds that are more expensive to produce, otherwise, as I joked about before, every vendor here could and would sell freeform faceted flats or macles or simply just sell the rough unpolished, in both cases they are much much cheaper per carat.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Doc-
I agree that ASET gives valuable information, and was designed as a "scientific instrument"
That, in itself does a lot of shoppers no good at all.
To put this in context, let me give you my reasoning.
There is no standardized method of photographing diamonds using an ASET.
Even if a vendor's ASET photos are consistent from one stone to the nest( not all are) there is no consistency from vendor to vendor.
We can say the same thing about photos and video- and we are saying that here. But everyone reading this has a lot of experience interpreting photos and video of things.
Part of this discussion has been about different methods of photography.
Any photo is a compromise. When looking at normal photos of diamonds, it's fairly easy for consumers to look at photos, and have some context.
I hold the diamond in tweezer, Jon uses a GIA DD, or other methods- the viewer can look at both and make valid judgments.
Not so easy with ASET. And we're only talking about photos.
A lot of people that buy them can never get the hang of using them.
None of this diminishes your ability to use it. Surely there are others that will find value in their use- all the power to you. Lack of their use does not imply one does not care about cut.
I also agree that some sellers produce consistent enough ASET photos to make it very useful in those circumstances- if one is looking for a chunkier type diamond.
I applaud your use of it, and your interest in the business.

How this relates to "crushed ice" is that the type of facet design, and leakage pattern that you want to see , if you're used to looking at "chunky" asets, is that it's a different look that what you'll look for in a crushed ice stone.
Each type of cut uses the light differently.
All well cut crushed ice stones are "cut for optics"
Cutters adjust facet by facet to make a nicer, sparklier stone. In a very scientific, yet practical manner. Computers help the cutter plot the cut- but it's the hand that actually performs this operation. The eye will be guide.

The contention that exists in this conversation is due to passion: I love this business. I've spent my life in it.
I have no doubt many other also love the business- both tradespeople, and "civilians"
I HATE when sellers engage in deceptive practices- I'm sure that others here feel the same. To me, when consumers give other, innocent, unsuspecting consumers info that is highly subjective, framed as scientific fact, I believe that is along the same lines.
When I first was motivated to speak out- I guess it was back in 2004 or so- it was about how larger tables in diamonds ( 60/60) were equally well cut to so called "Ideal Cut" diamonds, which the reflectors "prove" are better.
But they are not better, just different. Having spent my life grading judging selling buying diamonds, I know exactly what both these types of cut looks like- I prefer stones that don't show a H&A pattern.
I'm not alone.

Therefore, every time someone makes a disparaging comment about stones that are surely going to be preferred by a fair percentage of readers, I speak out, if I can.
Crushed ice is constantly put down here. Or "slushy" ice. There are gorgeous varieties of that too.

I know it makes a difference, so I put up with everything thrown at me.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Doc-
I agree that ASET gives valuable information, and was designed as a "scientific instrument"
That, in itself does a lot of shoppers no good at all.
To put this in context, let me give you my reasoning.
There is no standardized method of photographing diamonds using an ASET.
Even if a vendor's ASET photos are consistent from one stone to the nest( not all are) there is no consistency from vendor to vendor.
We can say the same thing about photos and video- and we are saying that here. But everyone reading this has a lot of experience interpreting photos and video of things.
Part of this discussion has been about different methods of photography.
Any photo is a compromise. When looking at normal photos of diamonds, it's fairly easy for consumers to look at photos, and have some context.
I hold the diamond in tweezer, Jon uses a GIA DD, or other methods- the viewer can look at both and make valid judgments.
Not so easy with ASET. And we're only talking about photos.
A lot of people that buy them can never get the hang of using them.
None of this diminishes your ability to use it. Surely there are others that will find value in their use- all the power to you. Lack of their use does not imply one does not care about cut.
I also agree that some sellers produce consistent enough ASET photos to make it very useful in those circumstances- if one is looking for a chunkier type diamond.
I applaud your use of it, and your interest in the business.

How this relates to "crushed ice" is that the type of facet design, and leakage pattern that you want to see , if you're used to looking at "chunky" asets, is that it's a different look that what you'll look for in a crushed ice stone.
Each type of cut uses the light differently.
All well cut crushed ice stones are "cut for optics"
Cutters adjust facet by facet to make a nicer, sparklier stone. In a very scientific, yet practical manner. Computers help the cutter plot the cut- but it's the hand that actually performs this operation. The eye will be guide.

The contention that exists in this conversation is due to passion: I love this business. I've spent my life in it.
I have no doubt many other also love the business- both tradespeople, and "civilians"
I HATE when sellers engage in deceptive practices- I'm sure that others here feel the same. To me, when consumers give other, innocent, unsuspecting consumers info that is highly subjective, framed as scientific fact, I believe that is along the same lines.
When I first was motivated to speak out- I guess it was back in 2004 or so- it was about how larger tables in diamonds ( 60/60) were equally well cut to so called "Ideal Cut" diamonds, which the reflectors "prove" are better.
But they are not better, just different. Having spent my life grading judging selling buying diamonds, I know exactly what both these types of cut looks like- I prefer stones that don't show a H&A pattern.
I'm not alone.

Therefore, every time someone makes a disparaging comment about stones that are surely going to be preferred by a fair percentage of readers, I speak out, if I can.
Crushed ice is constantly put down here. Or "slushy" ice. There are gorgeous varieties of that too.

I know it makes a difference, so I put up with everything thrown at me.

David aka RD - I agree that there should be different tatse and preferences.
And I have just gotten back from a trip and have skimmed this thread - so have few rights to comment.
But....

I disagree that there should be an abscence of standards - because this allows charlatans to sell 'whatever'.

I am reasonably sure that the DeBeers DTC Supplier of Choice push a decade ago to brand diamonds failed because of a lack of appearance and quality standards (substituting adv spend with mony saved by chasing yeild = consumer rip off).

This video is an example of what a branded diamond should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSeJWLKdLVk

CCL may be going too hard for your throat, but you surely would not complain about being labelled a Ludite?

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

David,

Speaking from a consumer perspective here, I've read many many of your posts in various debate threads here on RT. I feel like the gist of your posts is - someone out there will like this diamond, even if it's not accepted as an ideal-cut, so there must be something beautiful about it. The other part of what I get from your posts is that you have experience, based on your training at HW and your years in the business, and therefore we, as consumers, can reliably trust your eye. And finally, and of course you are free to correct me if I'm misstating, I also feel like you are saying that because there are always going to be environmental or logistical variables in photographing stones or utilizing devices like the ASET, we should just discount inconsistent photography results or ASET determinations because there's no consistent benchmark.

Now there are several things that bother me about your positions (if, in fact, I've stated them correctly based on my impression of your previous posts).

First, I'm sure there are many diamonds that aren't what we call ideal-cut, based on measurements and angles, that are very beautiful. Some of the beauty may be in the personality and quirks of the diamond, like antique stones that definitely are not optically ideal but nevertheless beautiful. There are diamonds that are 60/60, or steep deep, or just shy of hitting "ideal" status, that are very beautiful too. But I don't buy that just because a significant chunk of people will find a certain type of cut beautiful that we should equate that to being AS beautiful as an ideal-cut. Yes, everyone has different preferences, but also remember, sometimes there's just no accounting for taste.

Second, I respect your training at a great house like HW and your years in the field. At the same time, the implication that we should trust your eye, your selection, and OUR eye with the help of your experience but without the aid of devices like ASET and Sarin reports ... well don't take this personally, but I've heard the SAME line from several jewelers in NY, Chicago, etc. whom I would trust about as far as I could throw them (and let me tell you, that's not very far). I'm not suggesting that you are that type of jeweler, but in this day and age, I think it's safe to say - don't just talk the talk, walk the walk as well. I respect any professional's advice, but only to a certain extent. And past that extent, well I want some kind of quantifiable proof that the diamond I'm buying is a good performer. Maybe I don't care if it's H&A or whatever, but I don't want to just take your word (or anyone else's) for it. Maybe there needs to be a standardization on how ASETs and other devices are used, but I don't discount them as unhelpful because there is no set benchmark right now.

Third and finally, I don't mean to tell you how to run your business, but in the two years that I've been on PS and followed these threads, one thing really struck me - I found your responses to many posters who have tried to discuss and reason topics with you to be purposely contrary and unprofessional. In this thread alone, a topic came up for discussion. Jon, a fellow professional as yourself, made a video to show many of us following or discussing, what he was saying and why. CCL, a consumer (or maybe a prosumer now?) posted images. You kept TELLING us your views, but showed us no proof. At the same time, I find your argument style to be very much in the form of word-twisting and sophistry, and as a consumer and potential customer, I find that very off-putting. Take it for what you will. I'm not an expert and I only watch and marvel at the knowledge and skills of many of my fellow Pricescopers. But I don't know if you're doing your stance or business any favors by the way you argue and refuse to accept...well anything that anyone else says.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry- in this context, you may luddite away! ( in my search I found the definition:any opponent of technological progress )
Heathen that I am, I did not know the definition.
Seriously- Garry - Over the years, I think you and I have really been able to make our points- and I've learned a lot in the process. And I've enjoyed our dialog.
I respect your work.
BEG- I appreciate your post.
No, you did not correctly sum up my position.
Put the best 60/60 next to the best "patterned" "ideal cut" or branded round diamond, and show them to 100 people who are interested in buying diamonds- and have looked at all the different types in various lighting.
It's going to be no more lopsided than 60/40- I think it might be closer.
When someone dumps 60/60 in with "steep deep: or other stones "just missing ideal" it highlights how "wrong" the term "ideal cut" is- it's a sales descrition created by Lazaare Kaplan, abused by countless websites.

You should, by no means, "trust" my, or anyone else's eye- unless they've proven themselves to you. Choosing the right dealer can really make all the difference.
My writings have proven to be valuable to certain readers because my perspective is different.
Garry has worked on tools to make it easy for beginners to pick diamonds.
If I was teaching a diamond grading class, it would involve looking at many thousands of diamonds- before I asked the students to grade them. Which is how I learned.

I respect Jon- although I have not yet had time to watch his video, I'm sure I'll find it to be informative.
To respond to your point, I've posted number photos in this thread.
I am preparing a video as well. If you notice, Jon does not post links to his videos- nor can I - it's not allowed.
But suffice it to say, visitors to our website also see a lot of video.
I appreciate your concern for the effects this might have on our business.
I have no doubt that some people are put off by my direct style.
Others may prefer it.

We've been selling a lot of diamonds for a lot of years- in a tough environment, me being the butt-head you might see me as, the entire time.
What can you do- be true to thine self.

 

[Kaleigh]

David,

Speaking from a consumer perspective here, I've read many many of your posts in various debate threads here on RT. I feel like the gist of your posts is - someone out there will like this diamond, even if it's not accepted as an ideal-cut, so there must be something beautiful about it. The other part of what I get from your posts is that you have experience, based on your training at HW and your years in the business, and therefore we, as consumers, can reliably trust your eye. And finally, and of course you are free to correct me if I'm misstating, I also feel like you are saying that because there are always going to be environmental or logistical variables in photographing stones or utilizing devices like the ASET, we should just discount inconsistent photography results or ASET determinations because there's no consistent benchmark.

Now there are several things that bother me about your positions (if, in fact, I've stated them correctly based on my impression of your previous posts).

First, I'm sure there are many diamonds that aren't what we call ideal-cut, based on measurements and angles, that are very beautiful. Some of the beauty may be in the personality and quirks of the diamond, like antique stones that definitely are not optically ideal but nevertheless beautiful. There are diamonds that are 60/60, or steep deep, or just shy of hitting "ideal" status, that are very beautiful too. But I don't buy that just because a significant chunk of people will find a certain type of cut beautiful that we should equate that to being AS beautiful as an ideal-cut. Yes, everyone has different preferences, but also remember, sometimes there's just no accounting for taste.

Second, I respect your training at a great house like HW and your years in the field. At the same time, the implication that we should trust your eye, your selection, and OUR eye with the help of your experience but without the aid of devices like ASET and Sarin reports ... well don't take this personally, but I've heard the SAME line from several jewelers in NY, Chicago, etc. whom I would trust about as far as I could throw them (and let me tell you, that's not very far). I'm not suggesting that you are that type of jeweler, but in this day and age, I think it's safe to say - don't just talk the talk, walk the walk as well. I respect any professional's advice, but only to a certain extent. And past that extent, well I want some kind of quantifiable proof that the diamond I'm buying is a good performer. Maybe I don't care if it's H&A or whatever, but I don't want to just take your word (or anyone else's) for it. Maybe there needs to be a standardization on how ASETs and other devices are used, but I don't discount them as unhelpful because there is no set benchmark right now.

Third and finally, I don't mean to tell you how to run your business, but in the two years that I've been on PS and followed these threads, one thing really struck me - I found your responses to many posters who have tried to discuss and reason topics with you to be purposely contrary and unprofessional. In this thread alone, a topic came up for discussion. Jon, a fellow professional as yourself, made a video to show many of us following or discussing, what he was saying and why. CCL, a consumer (or maybe a prosumer now?) posted images. You kept TELLING us your views, but showed us no proof. At the same time, I find your argument style to be very much in the form of word-twisting and sophistry, and as a consumer and potential customer, I find that very off-putting. Take it for what you will. I'm not an expert and I only watch and marvel at the knowledge and skills of many of my fellow Pricescopers. But I don't know if you're doing your stance or business any favors by the way you argue and refuse to accept...well anything that anyone else says.

Great post BEG. Very thoughtful and respectful. Hoping David reads this again tomorrow.. Food for thought so to speak.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

This video is an example of what a branded diamond should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSeJWLKdLVk
CCL may be going too hard for your throat, but you surely would not complain about being labelled a Ludite?

Garry H please stop teasing us with that well cut 4 main cushion unless you will reveal the source of them. Not too many like it in the marketplace today and not offered with any consistancy that I have seen.

Does that lightbox have a built in ASET filter? I've never seen such a wide angle image under ASET lighting before.

Ha I must be watching True Blood too much (love the show), and have developed a vampiric tendency! When it comes to misleading posts about how GIA does things I just can't tolerate it, as it is so easy to read their articles in G&G.

 

[yssie]

Doc-
I agree that ASET gives valuable information, and was designed as a "scientific instrument"
That, in itself does a lot of shoppers no good at all.
To put this in context, let me give you my reasoning.
There is no standardized method of photographing diamonds using an ASET.
Even if a vendor's ASET photos are consistent from one stone to the nest( not all are) there is no consistency from vendor to vendor.
We can say the same thing about photos and video- and we are saying that here. But everyone reading this has a lot of experience interpreting photos and video of things.
Part of this discussion has been about different methods of photography.
Any photo is a compromise. When looking at normal photos of diamonds, it's fairly easy for consumers to look at photos, and have some context.
I hold the diamond in tweezer, Jon uses a GIA DD, or other methods- the viewer can look at both and make valid judgments.
Not so easy with ASET. And we're only talking about photos.
A lot of people that buy them can never get the hang of using them.
None of this diminishes your ability to use it. Surely there are others that will find value in their use- all the power to you. Lack of their use does not imply one does not care about cut.
I also agree that some sellers produce consistent enough ASET photos to make it very useful in those circumstances- if one is looking for a chunkier type diamond.
I applaud your use of it, and your interest in the business.

How this relates to "crushed ice" is that the type of facet design, and leakage pattern that you want to see , if you're used to looking at "chunky" asets, is that it's a different look that what you'll look for in a crushed ice stone.
Each type of cut uses the light differently.
All well cut crushed ice stones are "cut for optics"
Cutters adjust facet by facet to make a nicer, sparklier stone. In a very scientific, yet practical manner. Computers help the cutter plot the cut- but it's the hand that actually performs this operation. The eye will be guide.

The contention that exists in this conversation is due to passion: I love this business. I've spent my life in it.
I have no doubt many other also love the business- both tradespeople, and "civilians"
I HATE when sellers engage in deceptive practices- I'm sure that others here feel the same. To me, when consumers give other, innocent, unsuspecting consumers info that is highly subjective, framed as scientific fact, I believe that is along the same lines.
When I first was motivated to speak out- I guess it was back in 2004 or so- it was about how larger tables in diamonds ( 60/60) were equally well cut to so called "Ideal Cut" diamonds, which the reflectors "prove" are better.
But they are not better, just different. Having spent my life grading judging selling buying diamonds, I know exactly what both these types of cut looks like- I prefer stones that don't show a H&A pattern.
I'm not alone.

Therefore, every time someone makes a disparaging comment about stones that are surely going to be preferred by a fair percentage of readers, I speak out, if I can.
Crushed ice is constantly put down here. Or "slushy" ice. There are gorgeous varieties of that too.

I know it makes a difference, so I put up with everything thrown at me.

ASET gives exactly the information that its uses and limitations allow, and a consumer who understands how the ASET functions will understand that the reliability/usefulness of its output is bound by the same uses and limitations.

Likewise, it is up to the consumer to undestand the motivations and drawbacks of his or her preferences, once he or she knows those preferences.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

This video is an example of what a branded diamond should be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSeJWLKdLVk
CCL may be going too hard for your throat, but you surely would not complain about being labelled a Ludite?

Garry H please stop teasing us with that well cut 4 main cushion unless you will reveal the source of them. Not too many like it in the marketplace today and not offered with any consistancy that I have seen.

Does that lightbox have a built in ASET filter? I've never seen such a wide angle image under ASET lighting before.

Ha I must be watching True Blood too much (love the show), and have developed a vampiric tendency! When it comes to misleading posts about how GIA does things I just can't tolerate it, as it is so easy to read their articles in G&G.

The ASET in the youtube video was huge.
The cushions will come, perhaps within a year.
But no thread jacking

 

[kenny]

Dang!
That would come in handy for those diamonds that are 12 inches in diameter.

 

[Doc_1]

I find it amazing insisting on denying the usefulness of ASET in making informed decision to most diamond buyers when at the same time you say it is a valuable informative tool, that is contradiction in the same paragraph, and the reasoning you furnished here is not convincing at least to me.

I agree that ASET gives valuable information, and was designed as a "scientific instrument"
That, in itself does a lot of shoppers no good at all.

The reasoning you furnished is not convincing and shows contradiction.

Again when combining all those tools the out come is better.

Please allow me to share my personal experience, so when am posting comments or advice to other customers am not shooting from the hip. It is from a purchase experience i made.

I hope Jonathan from GOG won't mind uploading some pics from his web site that are related to my purchase, if he feels otherwise i will be glad to remove them right away.

By doing this AM NOT PROMOTING CHUNKY OVER CRUSHED ICE. the ASET AS A TOOL APPLIES TO BOTH OF THEM.

SO i look around on the net and i am in MI and the vendor in NY, how the heck i will have time with my busy schedule to go there and see in person the diamond, so the first thing that catches the eye is the photo.

 

[Doc_1]

Then i want to see it in the ASET

 

[Doc_1]

I know it is a large culet and the white window in the center is a leakage, and some white in the stone is leakage but hey it is out there , and he as a vendor showed it to me and i liked the pink/contrasting blue and am sold.

 

[Doc_1]

That is still not enough for me, after seeing the lab report and the the diam x ray i wanted more:

 

[Doc_1]

the closeup.

 

[Doc_1]

The video is going to ease up my mind.

http://www.vimeo.com/11477735

And it is in diffused, spot light, spot light on steroids...lol, and by the window....so every possible lighting exposure.

 

[Doc_1]

So after all that i make an informed purchase and you can bet i will not be surprised when i get the box delivered and i find this:

 

[Doc_1]

So i put in OBJECTIVE way and not SUBJECTIVE how you can COMBINE all tools at disposal to make an intelligent purchase. No surprises because those are SCIENTIFICALLY BASED TOOLS. They did not miss here and i was happier with the outcome and i had the policy to return within certain time if my EYE did not like it, but the odds are In favor since the homework is done well.

When i pass this experience to a member i think am helping and am not by no means misleading or directing that member in the wrong direction.

If a diamond looks white in an ASET chunky was it or crushed ice, the odds are against it.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Doc, that's a beautiful stone, and ring.
As I've mentioned on numerous occasions in this thread, I respect Jon, and his methods.
Can you show us what the ASET for the best crushed ice cushion ( or radiant) looks like?

But this is all really off the topic- far off.
The reason I was glad when CCL offered to bow out was that this is a discussion that would be most informative, and valuable to consumers if Jon and I can have a dialog. I honestly don't think Jon needs "protecting"- or to have CCL run protection for him.
To remind readers what this discussion is about, let's look at the question asked by the OP- who was subsequently warned continually about the "deficiencies of "crushed ice"

Hi All,

I was wondering if someone could kindly tell me why Cushions with the crushed ice appearance seem to be "looked down upon" amongst the various types of cushions out there? (based on many posts i've read on PS).

I'm new to PS, is there someplace I can go to look at the different types and compare? I really appreciate any help.

Thanks!!!

I did not start this thread- but the prejudice against "crushed ice" the OP felt is VERY real- and totally uncalled for IMO
The op was told that crushed ice " does not return as much light", other people are not shy about how much they HATE crushed ice, sarcastic remarks about Harry Winston.
What if someone likes crushed ice- how can we assist them in finding a great stone?

To me, the most valuable parts have been where Jon and I can discuss things for a professional perspective.
I will watch Jon's crushed ice video, and return with my thoughts later this afternoon.

 

[Doc_1]

Doc, that's a beautiful stone, and ring.
Can you show us what the ASET for the best crushed ice cushion ( or radiant) looks like?

That burden is on you as a promoter to crushed ice in showing what the ASET of what you describe as a gorgeous crushed ice cushion looks like, what i mean by that is.......if i was shopping for crushed ice cushion, and you have it posted on your site, with all due respect to your opinion if you do not show me that sequence i just drew in my posts: pics, ASET, closeups, Vid in different lighting environments, lab reports, am not buying from you.

Some may and god bless them they are free to put their money where ever they wish ...NOT ME!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Right from the start, I could easily understand the difference between what Jon and I are talking about. I am familiar with many varieties of crushed ice cushions, radiants, and princess cuts.
Jon, the stones you're calling crushed are totally different from what I would call crushed ice.
We have clients that don't want to see any patterning- ZERO.
We're talking total virtual facet reflection from girdle to girdle in a radiant.
That's what I would call the best crushed ice- or more accurately- my favorite type

Here's a few shots of what you are calling "slushy ice"- and a very good example of what I am talking about when I say "Crushed Ice"

The shots were taken in a slotted white plastic tray used to sort stones. Point and shoot camera.




I believe the photos portray both stone fairly. I can also see the effect Jon noted in his video of how the "slushy" stone does hold more body color.
Both stones in my example were graded G by GIA.

I don't believe that Jon had an example similar to the stone on the right in his video

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

CLGWLI,

I'm glad you recognize what the ASET is showing and how it can be used, without using a standardized light environment it is very difficult to precisely define areas of leakage and compare slight nuances from only plain photographs.

I liked how TTP tried to change the definitions in this thread to make it this less about colored subjective comments and more about describing an appearance accurately by using the terms Virtual Facet and light escaping out the bottom of the pavilion etc.

I know you cannot comment on stones that are not sold so even if I did find some examples of what I thought would be good and show an ASET of them.

My thought is that there is somewhere between that princess and the square cut radiant in the video you showed. A less organized splintery pattern look yet more brightness than the very "slushy" looking stone.

I'm not Rhino but I can give this a shot for you. Two problems with what you are asking for:

1) That square radiant in the video already has a ton of leakage in it, its middle of the road in terms of light return. Good for a radiant, not great for most other outline shapes.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4366/

If this were judged by the same standard of AGSL for Princess cuts it would be an AGSL Light performance of 2+ in the Brightness and Leakage categories.


Would you have been able to point out the white/light green areas in the ASET from the plain photograph?

2) If you are talking about radiants or modified cushions, its just hard to find really bright ones. The design is used to save weight so why would cutting houses sacrifice weight to achieve better light performance in this design? Middle of the road brightness at higher than average prices doesn't make much commercial sense to me.

The Cushette is a cushion which has small virtual facets and good brightness, but it wasn't popular enough, for its price and smaller faceup size per carat, I don't think they are cut anymore. http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4258/

This square radiant is also pretty rare but has close to the appearance you describe http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4859/ and will have very good brightness.

 

[Doc_1]

Right from the start, I could easily understand the difference between what Jon and I are talking about. I am familiar with many varieties of crushed ice cushions, radiants, and princess cuts.
Jon, the stones you're calling crushed are totally different from what I would call crushed ice.
We have clients that don't want to see any patterning- ZERO.
We're talking total virtual facet reflection from girdle to girdle in a radiant.
That's what I would call the best crushed ice- or more accurately- my favorite type

Here's a few shots of what you are calling "slushy ice"- and a very good example of what I am talking about when I say "Crushed Ice"

The shots were taken in a slotted white plastic tray used to sort stones. Point and shoot camera.




I believe the photos portray both stone fairly. I can also see the effect Jon noted in his video of how the "slushy" stone does hold more body color.
Both stones in my example were graded G by GIA.

I don't believe that Jon had an example similar to the stone on the right in his video

Would you kindly post an ASET to both. and if possible a link to a video on them, with by the window video shooting so educational objectives can be achieved.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Right from the start, I could easily understand the difference between what Jon and I are talking about. I am familiar with many varieties of crushed ice cushions, radiants, and princess cuts.
Jon, the stones you're calling crushed are totally different from what I would call crushed ice.
We have clients that don't want to see any patterning- ZERO.
We're talking total virtual facet reflection from girdle to girdle in a radiant.
That's what I would call the best crushed ice- or more accurately- my favorite type

Here's a few shots of what you are calling "slushy ice"- and a very good example of what I am talking about when I say "Crushed Ice"

The shots were taken in a slotted white plastic tray used to sort stones. Point and shoot camera.




I believe the photos portray both stone fairly. I can also see the effect Jon noted in his video of how the "slushy" stone does hold more body color.
Both stones in my example were graded G by GIA.

I don't believe that Jon had an example similar to the stone on the right in his video

Would you kindly post an ASET to both. and if possible a link to a video on them, with by the window video shooting so educational objectives can be achieved.

Doc- ASET photos are actually no simple matter.
As I've mentioned, there's no standardized methind for taking them- you can't by a kit that works well.
Jon's are very good, and consistent.
I would be interested to see how that stone on the right looks in an ASET photo or simulation even.
I will have sarin for both the stones soon as possible.

I'll see about the other things though......