My Cushion Search May Be Over! What do you think?

[fatafelice]

Okay, I''m pretty excited, but I''m trying not to let the possibility of actaully having finally found a stone outweigh my judgement! It isn''t my "perfect" specs, but I have come to realize that when it comes to finding a cushion, there will be a compromise or two.

Report: GIA
Shape: Cushion
Carat: 1.31
Color: D
Clarity: SI2
Depth: 62.5
Table: 60
Girdle: TN-STK F
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Culet: Large
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 6.83-6.50X4.06
Length/Width: 1.05

Pluses :
- Looks like an old-cut cushion -- That is KEY
- Large culet is good for me, though I could wish it was "slightly large" instead
- Nice size, considering BF and I had to "revise" the budget
- Never thought I would get a D, but I kind of like the idea
- Nice shape -- close to square
- GIA cert
- Faceted girdle -- a little thing, I know, but I have a stone with a bruted girdle and it bugs me

Minuses:
- I''m worried about the SI2. Even though the larger inclusions seem to be toward the sides, there are some specks in the table
- Seems shallow for the "look" I want. True old mines and old cushions are usually pretty deep
- No Flouresence. I know that I don''t need it with a D, but I really like it.

So, I''m leaning towards yes, but the clarity could be a deal breaker. What do you think?

Cert, Sarin, and pics to follow!

 

[fatafelice]

certificate

ETA: Sorry that is so small!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/28/2006 5:31:12 PM
Author:fatafelice


Minuses:
- I'm worried about the SI2. Even though the larger inclusions seem to be toward the sides, there are some specks in the table

Gotta see them. Better a few 'specs' than a big blob. Like where these are (towards the edge).



- Seems shallow for the 'look' I want. True old mines and old cushions are usually pretty deep

N'ah. I don't think the extra depth of oldies add anything crucial to the look. IMO, the larger facets and high crown does though. Hope this one works for you.



- No Flouresence. I know that I don't need it with a D, but I really like it.

So, I'm leaning towards yes,

but the clarity could be a deal breaker. What do you think?

Can't wait the pictures! Not much else matters than the looks (including that of inclusions, of course).

Btw... the GIA cert reads 'slightly large' culet anyway. I'd expect a minute dot...

 

[fatafelice]

Sarin

 

[fatafelice]

Okay, Ana, Here's a picture!

I think this IS looks pretty good...except for the inclusions I can see.

 

[fatafelice]

Last one for now. It is a crappy picture. Kind of hard to tell anything. I have requested more an am awaiting them...

 

[fatafelice]

Hmmmm. Didn''t notice that on the cert. WF listing says "large" and it looks pretty big to me...but that isn''t a bad thing

 

[valeria101]

Lovely shape...

The steep crown (close to 40 degrees, as much as I can tell) should make it look even more ''vintage'' in person.


Now... whatever goes on towards the 11 o''clock area of the table shows on my side of the screen too. can''t tell whether those are some of the inclusions or their reflections. Anyway, wouldn''t bet the same shows in person - would rather decide that with the diamond in hand.

 

[fatafelice]

Date: 3/28/2006 5:47:52 PM
Author: valeria101


Lovely shape...

The steep crown (close to 40 degrees, as much as I can tell) should make it look even more ''vintage'' in person.


Now... whatever goes on towards the 11 o''clock area of the table shows on my side of the screen too. can''t tell whether those are some of the inclusions or their reflections. Anyway, wouldn''t bet the same shows in person - would rather decide that with the diamond in hand.

Agreed! Thanks for the input, Ana! I really value your opinion.

 

[fatafelice]

Can anyone explain why the inclusions in the IS look SO much worse than the ones in the 40x photo? Based on that alone, the clarity looks truly disgusting...

Anyone have any other pictures to show a comparison between what inclusions look like in IS or magnification and in reality?

 

[valeria101]

Wait a minute... I don't see much more 'activity' in the IS picture than the other. Actually, less.

And the two images correspond pretty well - there's a cluster of dots (colorless in the normal photo, black in the IS) towards the upper left corner of the table... where there's nothing much on the lab report to boot, so I am not quite sure what the pictures show.

Wouldn't worry that they look black under IS - that means that they reflect light as any other black area on Ideal Scope pictures.

 

[fatafelice]

Date: 3/28/2006 6:48:13 PM
Author: valeria101

Wouldn''t worry that they look black under IS - that means that they reflect light as any other black area on Ideal Scope pictures.

Okay -- I think that is what was bothering me...that the IS looks "dirty" because of the black...makes sense if it is showing light reflection.

I guess I should have known that! I''m not sure I am thinking straight right now.

 

[valeria101]

Quick question...

... speaking of that OMC 'by the book' look:


'DiaGem' keep posting about some mysterious new old mine style diamonds being cut by some even more mysterious folks. While looking for your oldie, was there ever any talk about these new-old cuts?
Just curious mostly. I know nothing more than this about the matter.

Link to old but memorable thread!

 

[fatafelice]

I actually looked into this, but I wasn't really comfortable with the process; there was no way to get a direct connection with the cutter or even know his name until the order was placed. There were just...too many unknowns for me.

I think this WF stone is a new cut "oldie," but it admitedly is not as amazing as that example of a new old mine.

edited to correct myself

 

[valeria101]

Custom cut! That''s quite an unusual option... for diamonds. On the color forum, maybe less so

Are you going to see he D/SI in person ?

 

[fatafelice]

Sorry! I was remembering incorrectly about the custom cut...went back and checked and was told that there were some available in inventory.

I am waiting to see some more pictures and for my BF to take a look. I am strongly considering going ahead with the purchase. I can certainly return it if I don''t like it. Though that would mean more shipping costs, as I would have to ship it back to WF for a custom setting.

I''m more unsure now that the initial excitement has worn off.

Grrrrr! I am getting tired of looking for cushions!

 

[fatafelice]

More pics ...Thank goodness that Celina at WF puts up with my pestering!

I can definitely see the inclusions....but it''s 40x, right?

 

[fatafelice]

Here it is on a hand. Much better, though I think I can still see that one under the table.

Lesley saw it and said it wasn''t truly eyeclean, but still beautiful. Another person couldn''t see any noticable inclusions.

Have to discus it with my BF, but I think I am going to go for it.

PLEASE tell me what you think about the clarity! I can take it!

 

[icekid]

I think it looks really pretty on your hand! Obviously the inclusions are visible at 40x, but I don''t see them in the hand shot. It sounds like the sort of thing you can probably see if you stare at the stone, but not in passing? Of course, you are going to have to decide if that is ok with you

 

[fatafelice]

Icekid: Well, it isn''t my hand...That''s part of the problem.

I haven''t seen it in person. Thank you for your input! It''s hard to look at that 40x and imagine NOT seeing the inclusions.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/29/2006 6:54:15 PM
Author: fatafelice


PLEASE tell me what you think about the clarity! I can take it!

Whatever shows in the pictures would not bother me. In general, I like to reminded that precious stones are stones after all. Not sure if this is a very mainstream way of looking at things, but it is mine.

Taking a step back - it doesn'' t seem likely that the little speck will either be easily spotted in person and definitely not distracting from everything that this diamond does so very well. It looks totally lovable on hand!

 

[fatafelice]

Date: 3/29/2006 7:07:44 PM
Author: valeria101

Whatever shows in the pictures would not bother me. In general, I like to reminded that precious stones are stones after all. Not sure if this is a very mainstream way of looking at things, but it is mine.

Taking a step back - it doesn'' t seem likely that the little speck will either be easily spotted in person and definitely not distracting from everything that this diamond does so very well. It looks totally lovable on hand!

Thanks, Ana! I kind of thought so too!

And I don''t mind inclusions in general -- I just don''t want them to be obvious to people who are looking at my (eventual) ring. Luckily, none of my friends own a loupe!

 

[indecisive]

I love how it looks in that hand pic

 

[FireGoddess]

I can't see anything but gorgeousness in that hand shot...what did WF tell you about the inclusion under the table - is it eye visible at 3 inches or so from your face? Oopsie - just read your post above. I can't see any inclusions on that handshot....

If you love the stone it would be worth it to see it in person, and that should tell you pretty quickly whether you want the stone or not...

 

[W2W]

fatafelice,

I feel your pain. It sounds like we are looking for something very similar except that I am looking for a lower color and a slightly larger stone. Square cushion brilliants seem to be few and far between. I also like them deep with chunky crowns and smaller tables. I really like this one alot and think that you should see it in person. It''s really hard to buy a cushion from a distance and it may be worth the extra expense of shipping it. My bf and I found one that I think he bought.

I loved it at first sight but would never have thought based on what the description was that it was the one for me. Good luck with it.

 

[belle]

garsh she looks purty on the hand!

me like

 

[roxy7]

It''s gorgeous and so blinding white. The size is perfect and your hand looks beautiful with it. I give it two thumbs up!!

What are you thinking for a setting?

 

[KristyDarling]

It''s stunning! Unless you''re going to be carrying around a loupe, that stone is eye-clean (and very white!) in my book! I love those big fat facets and yes, it does look like an antique. Please tell us about what you''re thinking for a setting!

 

[fatafelice]

Thanks for the responses guys!

Miumi: I, too, was looking for a lower color with a larger weight, but this stone popped up and got me thinking. I have had such a hard time finding the "perfect" stone, but this one seems pretty close. Let''s wait til I see it, though, to know if going down in size will be something I can live with.

Roxy and Kristy: Setting, you ask? Why, a halo, of course!

Something very much like this one, but a comfort fit band without diamonds (maybe with diamonds...still not sure), a slightly narrower proportioned halo, and the top of the halo angled down from the stone a bit. Definitely Legacy inspired, sans milgrain and the underwires.

 

[MissAva]

Okay I don’t know how I missed this thread (only found it after reading your LIW post). But I think that stone is really lovely! If you are concerned why not ask them to send it to a local appraiser or to you?
Your setting idea looks lovely too! I hope you get exactly what you have always dreamed of!