How about this cushion?

[Orange]

Hello everyone. I''ve been an active lurker for the past 5 months and I''m so grateful for all that you''ve taught me. After looking at dozens of cushions, I am about to purchase this stone, and wanted some last-minute approval (or warning). Thanks!

Here are the specs:

Cushion
2.10 ct
H VS2
8.31x7.34x4.91
L/W:1.13
Depth: 66.9%
Table Size: 56%
Girdle: Thick to Thin, faceted
Culet: Very Small
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
No Flourescence
Crown Angle: 37.2 (34.5-40.0)
Crown Height: 16.9% (15.9-17.
Pavil Angle: 40.4 (38.6-42.2)
Pavil Depth: 44.7 (43.1-46.6)
Girdle Thickness: 4.9% (4.1-5.6)

 

[Orange]

Sorry Beautifuldisaster, I didn''t mean to steal your thread heading. I must have done it subconsciously.

 

[lillguy]

Hello Orange,

If you don''t mind me asking, are you shopping via Internet or B&M? We''re both in similar market it looks like and just wanted to do a price check?

 

[Orange]

anyone? help? please?

 

[valeria101]

Perhaps someone using the Cut Adviser could help you make sense of those numbers... but not totally - there are many cut models all called "cushion" and those Sarin numbers might mean great for one and awful for another.

Ideal Scope pictures of fancies can be takled about... I am not sure how meanigful numbers are.

From the little I understand, there are no red flags there.

Have you seen this ?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Say you had to walk thru a mine field.
And say you had a set of glasses that could tell you where 50% of the mines were.
How comfortable would your stroll be?

That''s what it''s like trying to buy a diamond using only numbers. Some pitfalls can be seen- yet the ones you can''t see can KILL YOU ( not literally, but you know what I mean.....)


Take the same stroll with a set of glasses that shows plenty of mines- yet some are real and some are not- that''s your ideal scope. It will tell you that there''s problems, where none exist, yet not alert you to other potential problems.

THAT SAID: I agree with Ana- there''s no "red flags" in the GIA or sarin numbers.
What''s the price?

 

[Stephan]

Why so much hate, David?

It's a very nice tool and it protect first time buyers to buy something like this:

I have to agree with you that you don't need it anymore if you already saw a lot of diamonds,
but it's always funny to look at the optical symmetry of a diamond with it.
A little amount of leakage here and there (not all the leakage at the same place in a diamond) can also increase our perception of fire.

I think of lightening where diamonds already show the most fire.
With this kind of lightening, some diamonds with a little amount of leakage could show more fire than ideal cut diamonds.
But of course, if we look with a softer lightening, ideal cut diamonds will always look better.
I use to avoid a diamond with a lot of leakage all around the table and a diamond with leakage all along the perimeter.
But this last kind can be bezel set, especially if it's crown is high.

It always depends.
The question is:
What do you like in a diamond?
I like fire and scintillation.
I love the scintillation of diamonds with a shallow pavilion, the scintillation seems to "jump faster".
Everybody here say that a high crown = high fire.
I agree and I disagree.
Where do I prefer diamonds?
Under halogene lightening.
I never was impressed by the fire of a diamond under soft lightening, even if I notice it.
It's not something that catches your eye.
Under halogene lightening, a lot of diamonds with a shallower crown have as much fire as an ideal cut.

Of course, all the superideal cut diamonds will look better than 99% of the diamonds outside, but keep your eyes open.

Sometimes, you will see a shallower diamond.
It's symmetry won't perhaps be perfect.
The Idealscope will show you a pink and red pattern with little white zones.
It's price will be nice, it's spread will be great.

If you look at it next to an ideal cut without loupe, you might choose the first one.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Hi Stephan,
What hate?
I really do not hate anyone- I dislike some with a great degree of intensity, but hate? No. Plus, I don''t even dislike anyone here on PS.


Stephan wrote:
It''s a very nice tool and it protect first time buyers to buy something like this:

No Stephan, the point is the IdealScope protects NO ONE.
Is it nice?- well, it''s pink.

Stephan wrote
Of course, all the superideal cut diamonds will look better than 99% of the diamonds outside, but keep your eyes open.
This is also incorrect. I love 60table/60depth- these proportions are not considered Ideal- yet still many people prefer them.

BTW- a nicely cut 60/60 can spread 6.5 while an "Ideal" might spread 6.3- so the 60/60 looks bigger, and (in my opinion) better.

And the Idealscope is still a pretty plastic toy- nothing more

 

[Orange]

Thanks everyone! My vendor couldn''t take an idealscope picture, and the appraiser I went to did not provide one either. I did look at the stone through my own little idealscope, and it seemed to return a lot of red...

After looking at many cushions, I know about the infinite variations of cushion cuts, but I wanted to make sure that there were no red flags here. Thanks for the reassurance that the numbers don''t look bad.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/13/2005 5:37:53 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

... the point is the IdealScope protects NO ONE.

There are other toys like that around based on colored reflectors (H&A viewer, Gilbertonscope and what not). Somehow the idea sounds appealing: a relatively low-tech, user-friendly thing based on an intuitive, parcimonious model. Is it any good at least in principle ?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Hey Ana!
Well, a H&A veiwer is different- because the buyer of an H&A usually wants to see the hearts and arrows.
But there is absolutely no value in these reflective type of tools in determing a diamond''s desirability- it''s life and sparkle.

The idealscope would be more effective if one was looking at H&A rounds- but it still would not answer the correct questions. As I''ve said, a tool which is right only part of the time can be worse than useless- it can be dangerous.

I don''t like this because it is encouraging buyers to look at the wrong thing.
My advice: USE A LOUPE- USE YOUR EYES TO GET AS UNOBSTRUCTED A VIEW AS YOU CAN

 

[valeria101]

Date: 4/13/2005 60:35 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

The idealscope would be more effective if one was looking at H&A rounds.

Funny thing that. Even here (as much as a ''Scope ground as PriceScope is), the vast majority of Iscope images are of H&A rounds.

Got your point, I think.

However, the minefield analogy makes the ''Scope look good... as if it showd all the "bads" (mines) and just missed some of the good stuff (free ground). From the buyer''s (mine-field trotter) point of view, that''s not too bad. Unless there is no more space to step on.

And that might just be the case with the ''Scope outside the realm of H&A rounds.

As of now, there''s not much evidence of the contrary. I am not sitting on a pile of fancy cut diamonds to make up the required stats.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Well, I guess there''s also the question as to whether someone wants the symmetry of H&A or the disorganized sparkle, the so called "bucket of crushed ice" look.

Still, I think that if you compare anyone''s ability to judge a diamond- ANY diamond- between using an IdealScope, or a loupe- hands down, loupe is the superior method of judging a diamond- loupe, then look at the diamond from 12-18 inches with your eye.
The IdealScope does not fit into this equation, as a matter of fact, it interferes.

The images too- I find a good photo the best method of looking at diamonds on the internet as well.
If a site has all the bells ideal/bscope whistles etc- I still go for the images.


It is an interesting debate.

 

[Stephan]

I wrote:
Of course, all the superideal cut diamonds will look better than 99% of the diamonds outside, but keep your eyes open.
Sometimes, you will see a shallower diamond.
If you look at it next to an ideal cut without loupe, you might choose the first one.

David wrote:
This is also incorrect. I love 60table/60depth- these proportions are not considered Ideal- yet still many people prefer them.

Isn''t it what I was saying?
I even prefer table 58/depth 59.5

David wrote:
No Stephan, the point is the IdealScope protects NO ONE.
Is it nice?- well, it''s pink.

I understand that you are not happy if we come with our IdealScope to look at this "puppy".

Kind regards,

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Date: 4/14/2005 2:20:13 AM
Author: Stephan
I wrote:
Of course, all the superideal cut diamonds will look better than 99% of the diamonds outside, but keep your eyes open.
Sometimes, you will see a shallower diamond.
If you look at it next to an ideal cut without loupe, you might choose the first one.

David wrote:
This is also incorrect. I love 60table/60depth- these proportions are not considered Ideal- yet still many people prefer them.

Isn''t it what I was saying?
I even prefer table 58/depth 59.5

David wrote:
No Stephan, the point is the IdealScope protects NO ONE.
Is it nice?- well, it''s pink.

I understand that you are not happy if we come with our IdealScope to look at this ''puppy''.

Kind regards,

Hi Stephan,
You say "our" ideal scope- are you involved in tselling those things?


I thank you for looking at our 1.72 L/SI2.
It''s a perfect stone to use for an example.
The diamond is $6299 for a 1.72carat stone.
It''s got 62.2% depth, and 62% table- both numbers are a little large for my usual taste.
Yet, when I first saw the diamond two things appealed to me.
1) the way it looks- even though numerically, it might not be attractive, in person, the stone is nice to the eye. VERY nice.

2) How many 1.72''s ( with GIA) (eye clean) do you thnk are around for $6299.
Answer- not many.
That still does not mean someone should buy it if they don''t like it- no matter the price. How can one tell if they don''t like it? NOT with a little pink plastic veiwer.
The IdealScope has no place in looking at diamonds

 

[Stephan]

Better spread, better clarity... and better price.
This diamond is listed as "Round Ideal Cut" by Whiteflash.
If you want to compare, I could ask for some pics?

 

[Matata]

Date: 4/14/2005 12:31:22 PM
Author: diamondsbylauren

Hi Stephan,
You say ''our'' ideal scope- are you involved in tselling those things?

) the way it looks- even though numerically, it might not be attractive, in person, the stone is nice to the eye. VERY nice.

David....I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder but, the photos of this stone are not attractive. So if it''s "VERY nice to the eye", I suggest you retake photos to try to capture it. I''m not trying to be snotty, it doesn''t look like a nice diamond to me. First pic of the 2 x 2 reminds me of a fish eye.

 

[Stephan]

A propos, David, if you have a GIA cert, why don''t post it on Ebay?
Are there some comments on the cert?

Can you take a picture of your diamond with less light entering from the pavilion?
On your hand, for example?

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Matata,
Yes, it''s true, beauty in the eye of the beholder.
I happen to like to photos- yet I''m sure that no one who does not like them will try to buy the diamond- and that''s a GOOD thing, yes?


I would gladly take a few more photos on my hand, but this morning we sent the diamond to our factory to be set into a tulip solitaire.
I''ll put up the shots once it''s done.


Thank you for taking the time to look at the stone Matata!


Stephan- Since you did not say different, I guess we can assume that you are somehow invloved in the sale and promotion of the IdealScope.


So the PS database has ONE stone which is less than this one. If someone is looking for stones in this price range, they certainly will not have a lot to look at.
Sure, if we could see photos of that one, why not???
If it''s a better deal than mine, I''d never try to say it wasn''t.


Stephan , I mean no disrespect to you. Since I have nothing to hide, your manner of suggesting that I either don''t have a GIA report, or are simply trying to hide something is quite insulting.
I respect those people who post and sell here- can''t we all extend that courtesy?

If/when someone buys this diamond we will send it with the original GIA report. As it happens we are actually waiting on the cutter to send the original over.
This is not uncommon- the parcel papers have all the GIA stats- so I can see them when selecting. Many times we purchase the diamonds, and the GIA reports are sent a few days later.
In this case, we actually forgot to have the original sent over.

I''ll get it, photograph it, and post it on this thread for you Stephan, would than satisfy you??

 

[movie zombie]

if i were still in the market for a diamond [got an 8.18 spessartite from richard wise instead], i''d be getting that IdealScope...why? because david''s ''landmine'' description made total sense to me as a consumer. i don''t think a small one is that expensive, so why woudln''t i add it to my list of tricks? its just another tool for me to use when i want to get up close and personal with my rock.

and you''d better believe that when i get ready to get some small diamonds to go in a mokume gane wedding band, i''m going to get that small IdealScope....if david hadn''t explained it so well, i might have passed on it!

thanks, david!

peace, movie zombie

 

[diamondsbylauren]

As I''ve said so many times- people are smart enough to make up their own mind.
I am stating in no uncertain terms that the IdealScope is no help when selecting diamonds.
As a matter of fact, IT IS A HINDRANCE. Amazingly beautiful stones will show up badly on this little pink piece of plastic.


Zombie- if you somehow see this as an endorsement.....well...Ok.
For those who choose to spend the $20 ( or however much it is) then hamper thier own efforts, I respectfully wish them best of luck!

 

[Stephan]

Sorry if you feel insulted, but I can''t help it.
I saw a lot of people talking like you in Antwerp, I probably became allergic.

I don''t like the way you try to discredit the IdealScope when you know that this tool is right for first time buyers.
Same for the HCA.
I think you are at the wrong place, you won''t convince a lot of people here.

It''s my last post in this thread, the others wouldn''t waste the time I do.

Post your pics if you want, the diamond we are talking about is a DOG.
And if you really don''t know it, you should rather sell tractors.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

Thanks for the input Stephan- I am not insluted, but why the hate??? What have I done to you?
I''m sure your advice and wealth of knowledge is helping a lot of people buy diamonds.


OK, I apologize, that was sarcastic- Seriously are you a diamond dealer Stephan? On what are you basing your comments?

Maybe it was it Antwerp?- sounds like you saw knowledgable dealers looking at the IdealScope as useless, which it is.
That''s not suprising, there are a lot of knowledgable dealers in Antwerp.

Tractors, huh? Do they have idealscopes for them too?

OH Wait I forgot- you''re not going to post here any more- just make rediculous accusations then run away.

That''s good.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

With respect for folks that use the IdealScope to see something they are sure helps them to see what they are looking for.

I apologize that the thread took a nasty turn.

I get attacked personally, and professionally simply because I disagree with this tool- making polite conversation extremely difficult. There''s no need to insult someone for using the Idealscope, nor is there any reason to treat someone who disagrees with it''s use badly either

I mean no disrespect. It''s a tool. One which I disagree with, but a tool nonetheless.


As has been said before.
Peace.

 

[diamondsbylauren]

The GIA report in question

Detail shot- Comment section shown below