Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[clgwli]

David I am curious about something that you said. You said that a well cut crushed ice is not as bright as a stone made for "optimal light return" I fully admit I never put a colorless radiant next to an "ideal cut" stone. I have only made my statement based on photos, videos and my memory of colorless stones I have seen in person.

I do totally understand about your point though. I do agree that it is bad to make generalizations because different lightings and perceptions. I really probably should not comment since as I said I never did see anything side by side in identical lighting to get a real good idea. The store I used to look at different types of RBs (AGS0, 60/60, a just labeled "H&A" stones) didn't have a selection of radiants to look at. I never thought to ask to see them side by side in stores that carried a selection of radiants.

I do have my tiny "ideal cut" studs but it wouldn't be good to do a side by side comparison via photo due to the size & color difference. Since I do believe that an Original Radiant Cut diamond will be a great example of a colorless crushed ice, do you have access to a really well cut RB that is colorless? I'd love to see side by side shots. I wouldn't be surprised if it is darn close.

ETA: I do want to add that my perception of brightness may be different than others too so it will be purely subjective but I am just curious to see.

Your post reminded me that I went to disagree with CCL on a radiant being about as bright as a poor cut RB. I know my radiant is just as bright as my shallow cut (no fish eye) yet decently cut RBs. I only have vintage stones of any decent size, but one was checked out to be very well cut and I don't think it is any brighter than my radiant either.

Maybe I've seen some really crappy RBs out there, but one I saw not too long ago was a very deep 3ct RB that was being sold for $14K. If you are trying to say that my stone is as dim and not so pretty 3ct stone, then I will fight. Maybe the store still has it so I could do side by side shots... but I am not sure I am willing to step foot back into that store after some crap they tried to feed me.

 

[stone-cold11]

David, you mis-labeled what is the lower half in the explanation for this stone.

http://rockdiamond.com/index.php/je...1-round-diamond--almost-an-old-mine-cut-r3512

 

[Rockdiamond]

Sorry stone- i did not understand yoiur question- if there's an error, I'd like to fix it. And thank you for pointing it out.

 

[stone-cold11]

Lower girdle/lower half facet is blue in the diagram below, you labeled it as the red facets, which is the pavilion main facets, in your explanation of that above stone.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

That is why I said a guess. I never said I would be certain, but I definitely can guess from photos where leakage is. Much like many here can see leakage under the table in a regular photo as well as the IS or ASET on RBs out there. Obviously no where near perfect, but simply a decent guess. Obviously all you stated about camera set up matters too.

We are in agreement then.

But then again I have stated I don't have a draw to these stones cut for "optimal light return" They just don't do it for me personally. Much like my stone really doesn't do it for others. Whether it is the cut itself or the color.

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 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 as I know how difficult it is to get repeatable lighting.

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 have noticed the effect of very bright light shinging towards the pavilion. I can easily see the X that I don't care to see when I do so. The patterning I am mentioning is in regular difussed lighting more than bright lighting though. However my comment on the <> pattern is just that I like it and not a X, so purely just an observation of not being able to understand why some patterns are fine to me and others I cannot tolerate personally.

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.

So I am not just an uneducated person who was sucked into an emotional decision. I researched the heck out of it. And as a techno geek who usually has to buy the best of the best it started to surprise me that I wasn't liking what the majority here see as the "best of the best"

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.

ETA: And thank you for the link. I will be re-reading that article later as it has been a while since I did read it. But I do remember looking at those pictures so I know it is the one I did read.

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

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Sorry stone- i did not understand yoiur question- if there's an error, I'd like to fix it. And thank you for pointing it out.

Well lets see where I should start:

i) Its nothing like an Old Mine Brilliant that is a GIA term describing a cushion outline.

ii) Then you said Old Mine Cut.
Round shaped and Old Mine Cut don't go well together. Old Mine Cuts came before the girdle could be rounded so nicely and were generally square, off round or another shape that fit the shape of the rough.

More accurately it has shorter lower halves than a modern round brilliant somewhat like a Transitional cut

iii) Then you labelled the pavilion mains( 1- 8 ) and called them lower girdle facets.

 

[slg47]

ROck Diamond - a cheaper setup to take ASET picture is to get the ideal light and the ASET scope. I am sure the pros have a much more sophisticated setup.

I took this ASET photo with my $25 ASET and my point-and-shoot camera, no ideal-light. It took approx. 2 minutes. It is obviously not the best quality ASET pic out there but demonstrates that ASET pics can be taken fairly easily

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If you hd a very large head and you were looking from 6 inches away, the center would go black.

You can see my ASET on the pictures on my ideal-scope site David.
Patrick stout at AGS knows which scope. They use mine in the desk top demo unit.

Garry H,

Could you please measure the viewing area diameter of the eye piece in your scope in mm? If its significantly bigger than the AGS one I posted above, I'll buy one as well.[/quote]

The big problem with all ASEt photographs (most pros too - so ask for my solution) is having the blue hole too big = you get black from the lens.
The AGS ASET does not seem to let you get a point and click camera close enough to the lens for a sharp pic.
And the reflector is not bright enough (IMHO).

RD you do not seem to have ordered my unit.

 

[Rockdiamond]

On February 13 2009, GIA called the stone above "Old Mine Brilliant"
The stone below is the one that reminded an old mine brilliant- you're right CCL- it's not really round, but it did remind me of the stone GIA called Old Mine Brilliant. I stand by my statement- however I will also add something to indicate your comment about transitional cut- which could also be said of the stone.

I do thank you both very much for correcting my error in the text about the Pavilion mains- it's fixed now.
If one is going to give detailed descriptions, there's more room for error.
But I still prefer to do so.

Although I'm super grateful for the correction, I have no idea what this has to do with Crushed Ice.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Garry,
I'll call Patrick tomorrow and see about getting your model.
I didn't order the light yet, but I will.
slg47- cool pic!!
I don't know if it's good enough to use in a commercial environment, but it does show the pattern clearly.
The stone looked really nice to me- I'd love to see a "regular" photo of it.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

oops - i combined those photo's the other way around - the AGS ASET photo is top left, and their scope is bottom right.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Garry- if I order the ASET/Light kit from Dave Atlas, will it be your scope?
I can really see a difference.

 

[arjunajane]

On February 13 2009, GIA called the stone above "Old Mine Brilliant"
The stone below is the one that reminded an old mine brilliant- you're right CCL- it's not really round, but it did remind me of the stone GIA called Old Mine Brilliant. I stand by my statement- however I will also add something to indicate your comment about transitional cut- which could also be said of the stone.

I do thank you both very much for correcting my error in the text about the Pavilion mains- it's fixed now.
If one is going to give detailed descriptions, there's more room for error.
But I still prefer to do so.

Although I'm super grateful for the correction, I have no idea what this has to do with Crushed Ice.

I don't see the similarity...?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I don't see the similarity...?

In RDland,

Leakage doesn't exist because it can't be photographed easily
All diamonds have some light that escapes out the pavilion so they are all the same cut quality
A cushion looks like a round and should be described by GIA as one
Obstruction doesn't exist even if the viewer has a big head
All photographs are telling the same story
Pancake round diamonds are just as beautiful as Ideal Tolk rounds
GIA grades colorless diamonds face up by hanging them in the air with tweezers and letting light pass through the pavilion
Pavilion lighting and crown lighting are the same
We can judge fancy shapes by the numbers printed out from the New York Diamond Dealers Club Sarin Report
I'm not wasting my time as a consumer studying diamonds for one year, correcting a self proclaimed expert of 30 years on a $250,000 diamond listing.

In the real world:
Not so much.

 

[arjunajane]

I don't see the similarity...?

In RDland,

Leakage doesn't exist because it can't be photographed easily
All diamonds have some light that escapes out the pavilion so they are all the same cut quality
A cushion looks like a round and should be described by GIA as one
Obstruction doesn't exist even if the viewer has a big head
All photographs are telling the same story
Pancake round diamonds are just as beautiful as Ideal Tolk rounds
GIA grades colorless diamonds face up by hanging them in the air with tweezers and letting light pass through the pavilion
Pavilion lighting and crown lighting are the same
We can judge fancy shapes by the numbers printed out from the New York Diamond Dealers Club Sarin Report
I'm not wasting my time as a consumer studying diamonds for one year, correcting a self proclaimed expert of 30 years on a $250,000 diamond listing.

In the real world:
Not so much.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Garry- if I order the ASET/Light kit from Dave Atlas, will it be your scope?
I can really see a difference.

I said that, about 1 day ago. Yes, as you well know Dave is the USA Ideal-scope distributor. All orders from my website or his go directly to him.
The same as you know about .srn files because you learned about that 6 months ago and had two stones done. Yet you posted the sarin data which you know well is useless for any real judgement regarding fancy shapes.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

oops - i combined those photo's the other way around - the AGS ASET photo is top left, and their scope is bottom right.

So you are saying because of the metal eyepiece and casing (which you removed in your photograph) the camera can't get close enough to focus well in the AGS ASET?

 

[risingsun]

RD~ Could you please identify the diamonds that you post in your photographs. Not being very familiar with the radiants [crushed ice v. slushy ice] and Daussi cushions, it would help me to follow this discussion more easily. Thank you.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I don't see the similarity...?

In RDland,

Leakage doesn't exist because it can't be photographed easily

Leakage exists in all diamonds, my point is that it's not always bad

All diamonds have some light that escapes out the pavilion so they are all the same cut quality

In this thread I posted some photos of some badly cut round diamonds. I also have some photos of badly cut cushions. I can compile a file of badly cut diamonds. It takes a lot of work sorting through stones to pick the ones I like- along the way I get to see a lot of dogs.

A cushion looks like a round and should be described by GIA as one
Obstruction doesn't exist even if the viewer has a big head
All photographs are telling the same story
Pancake round diamonds are just as beautiful as Ideal Tolk rounds

I don't know what kind of pancake rounds you're talking about, I love well cut 60/60 diamonds as well as Near Tolks
GIA grades colorless diamonds face up by hanging them in the air with tweezers and letting light pass through the pavilion
Pavilion lighting and crown lighting are the same

In practical circumstances, when light hits the pavilion, it's also going to hit the crown

We can judge fancy shapes by the numbers printed out from the New York Diamond Dealers Club Sarin Report
I don't feel that anythign other that physical examination of the diamond is neccesary for judging cut grading- I did send a few stones to David Atlas for him to run these reports on but I was not there.
Now that Garry brought it up, I recall that in a prior conversation, I needed to send the stones to David Atlas to run scans. The difficulty in that situation was that no one accesable to us has the equipment to generate the .srn file. It's just not common stuff. If anyone reading this is interested, and knows some way to get this scan in NYC, please let me know

I'm not wasting my time as a consumer studying diamonds for one year, correcting a self proclaimed expert of 30 years on a $250,000 diamond listing.

I thanked you for pointing out my error in facet names.
I feel the stone reminds me of an old mine stone- such as the one I posted. It's not a waste of time for me- I listen to this stuff. Maybe I should remove that reference- but the listing, no matter my impression of what the stone reminds me of, is very complete, and makes it possible for shoppers to get a very good look at the stone.
How many blue diamonds in a one carat size do you think there are? Much less one cut like this one.
I think the cut, with it's unique leakage patterns- is quite charming.

In the real world:
Not so much.

 

[Rockdiamond]

RD~ Could you please identify the diamonds that you post in your photographs. Not being very familiar with the radiants [crushed ice v. slushy ice] and Daussi cushions, it would help me to follow this discussion more easily. Thank you.

Sure Marion,
In the photos below the Daussi Cushion is on the left, the Original Radiant is on the right

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

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

oops - i combined those photo's the other way around - the AGS ASET photo is top left, and their scope is bottom right.

So you are saying because of the metal eyepiece and casing (which you removed in your photograph) the camera can't get close enough to focus well in the AGS ASET?

I had not removed any metal caps - if you do you loose the blue in mine, and in the AGS scope you make the hole even bigger (and more black).

 

[stone-cold11]

Although I'm super grateful for the correction, I have no idea what this has to do with Crushed Ice.

So you prefer me to start a new topic on how you mis-labeled your stone?

I am looking through your stones to see if you have any well cut rounds that you can use as a comparison shot in your video. Do not see any.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Although I'm super grateful for the correction, I have no idea what this has to do with Crushed Ice.

So you prefer me to start a new topic on how you mis-labeled your stone?

I am looking through your stones to see if you have any well cut rounds that you can use as a comparison shot in your video. Do not see any.

Stone Cold that is unfair.
Contribution deleted by author under the affluence of ichohol

 

[stone-cold11]

Huh?

Why and what is unfair?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

like...soften the grade a bit?
like....grades from a few decades ago

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Stone
I'm grateful for the correction- a new thread or this one
I was curious to the relevance and you answered that
Although we don't carry a lot of rounds I do have a gorgeous 60/60 (about) on the site which we can use for comparison purposes
Once Garry sobers up maybe be can remember someone in NYC who can run the scan so you guys can make the simulated aset

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Hi Stone
I'm grateful for the correction- a new thread or this one
I was curious to the relevance and you answered that
Although we don't carry a lot of rounds I do have a gorgeous 60/60 (about) on the site which we can use for comparison purposes
Once Garry sobers up maybe be can remember someone in NYC who can run the scan so you guys can make the simulated aset

Perhaps Rhino would be willing to do it if you ask him nicely.
Otherwise take real ASETs once you get your ideal light and handheld from David Atlas or AGS.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I have no doubt Jon would do us that favor- but he's not in New York City

 

[risingsun]

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

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Marian ( sorry about the mis-spell before)

The terminology is a bit of a sticking point in this conversation.
Jon coined term "slushy ice" in reference to a stone very much like the Daussi I posted- and I re-used that moniker.

"Crushed ice" is a term more widely used- but in this conversation it's become apparewnt that Jon's idea of what crushed ice is is different from what I have heard ( and called myself) crushed ice.