It''s me the newbie re: the cushion again

[suzannemarie24]

Hi everyone - thanks for all your previous info! I decided against the 2.7 - G ring. I actually read through lots of posts and decided to give Mark T call. He''s great. He showed me a FAB ring and I didnt want to take it off! I told him diamonds are like kryptonite for women Anyway ... let me know what you think of this one ...

GIA - Cushion Brilliant
2.47
D
VS2
Depth 66.1%
Table 60%
culet - medium
polish v.good
symm good
no flor.
8.41x7.57x5
very thin -very thick

Let me know what you think! It''s a bit deeper than I wanted - does anyone see a problem with a 66% deep cushion? You all have been so helpful ... without even knowing :+)

Thanks!
sm

 

[windowshopper]

dont like the girdle, the D and the VS2 are cause for a discount due to the spread-------the extreme mark up for a D and the discount for VS2. I also dont like the proportions (ratio)

 

[diagem]

It sounds like a great stone, NO problem with the TD%..., But remember only you can know, since you saw it.
A fancy shape cannot be described from numbers.

 

[mamchris]

suzannemarie24, I don''t know much about the stone asside from what my eyes tell me. I just bought a cushion a few months ago, and I looked high and low for a spready stone (ratio) I didn''t want people to say is that a round, ...no it''s a cushion, I liked the elongated feel of my cushion, that is why I chose it. But as you can tell with fancy shapes it is really a matter of personal preference.

 

[Kaleigh]

You have to trust your eyes. Numbers are not worn on the hand

Numbers are a guideline for us especially with the fancy cuts. Good luck!!

 

[MiniMouse]

Ooh, I don''t know much about cushions except that I love them. I have a D VS2 RB and absolutely love the color (or should I say lack of) and the clarity, so yours sounds fab. If you loved it and didn''t want to take it off, I suspect it''s gorgeous and the right one for you.

 

[Lorelei]

style="WIDTH: 92.03%; HEIGHT: 76px">Date: 2/12/2006 2:00:34 AM
Author: MiniMouse
. If you loved it and didn''t want to take it off, I suspect it''s gorgeous and the right one for you.

Ditto Min - I agree completely - thats the one for you by the sound of it

 

[windowshopper]

i would be careful.............they look great when set . it might be nice to several shapes etc

 

[valeria101]

Date: 2/10/2006 11:47:28 PM
Author:suzannemarie24

He showed me a FAB ring and I didn''t want to take it off!

''Guess I would have rather had a slightly different situation : "he showed me a few rings and one in particular I didn''t want to take off''. ''Guess a large D/VS diamond would be always impressive by itself - (be it by price tag alone!) unless there was a better looking D/VS diamond nearby

That being said, I wish there was a way for me to see what you did, for the sheer fun of it

There may be some uglies out there, but I have no reason to believe this is one. Quite on the contrary... However, it is the track record of diamonds coming picture s& All from the same source on this forum that makes me say this - not the description of this stone. Not because there seems to be anything wrong with it, but because those specs are not nearly enough to make up an image of the stone.

By those numbers:
- it isn''t particularly deep or shallow,
- not particularly flat (high versus low crown - has something to do with table size... so I am guessing)
- neither particularly square or rectangular
- and of average size for weight

Now, what does the ''average'' 2.2cts D/VS cushion looks like !!?

Ok... silly joke.

You do know allot more about this stone than we do by having seen it. It may be that this forum put together knows more about cushions in general than you do. But insofar, the two don''t seem to match very well, because there is no proper description of this stone online. Sad that

Even if just had numbers they''d help - as long as there is enough of them (thinking of a 3D scan). And ASET picture would be fab. IS... almost fabulous source of online-worthy diamond info.

IMO, it isn''t that numbers don''t help with fancies - only too few numbers do not. Same as it happens for rounds really, when those angles are not given. And for fancy shapes, more than that would be needed (as far as I know, which isn''t much).

My 2c