2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PICS) !

[CharmyPoo]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

Here is my diamond: http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6267/

It is shallow but wonderfully cut with awesome performance. Reason ... Jon knows what he is doing. There are other dimensions (ie. girdle) that allows the diamond to perform well even with it being shallow. I like it because it faces up big and performs just as well as his other AVCs.

Please do share who quoted you on the setting. Awesome price.

very nice stone! I dont think that is too shallow at all, I think that is ideal.... wow... let me guess, at least $15,000 for the stone?

does the large culet make it an "old mine" style stone?

I think it's mostly the 4 mains style of cutting in addition to the open culet that make it antique cut. I could be wrong though!
Similar stones on GOG are about $25k
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8211/
I don't know what Charmy paid and I don't think it matters bcuz prices are what they are today (plus I think it's rude to ask, kind of like asking how much money do you make)

I purchased the stone upwards of $15,000 and this was a few years ago. Last year, the closet compareable (it was smaller and lower clarity) was around $25,000. I am glad I grabbed my stone before all the price increases.

 

[onedrop]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

I agree with Gypsy, there should be a separate thread (if feasible) on the differences between the AGS and EGL reports. One of the biggest discrepancies to me is the fact that AGS notes a pointed culet and EGL-INT says "none" re: the culet. That seems really odd to me. Either there is a culet or there isn't. Seems like that would be easy to determine. And wouldn't that be important to know for a cushion? Or maybe this discrepancy is common?

Pointed and none mean the same thing (as opposed to an OEC which has a facet cut at the culet).

Thanks for the clarification DS. I had no idea!!

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

So now that I have the real paper on this thing.... If we want to trade up in like 5-7 years.... what is the best way about going about this? I probably won't be in the los angeles area anymore so I won't be going back to the person I bought it from to trade up.... Is there a preferred online source that buys AGS diamonds? just good to know for future reference what the best market for this certificate is and what would be the best way to upgrade

The best way to upgrade is to pick a stone that qualifies for an upgrade from a vendor that has an upgrade policy.

If you want to upgrade, this it not the stone for you.

Here's how upgrading works :

You buy from a vendor that allows upgrades.

You buy a stone that is attractive to MANY people. So you stay away from anything with inclusions that may not be eye visible, for example. Because most people don't want stones with visible inclusions. So even if they sold it to YOU in the first place, the vendor isn't going to want it BACK in their stable of horses because he might not ever sell it to anyone else.

You buy a stone with excellent performance. This means the vendor will want it back because it will be easier for him to sell again.

And you understand that you might have to spend double (James Allen or Tiffany) at that vendor in order to qualify for an upgrade.

With many vendors you don't have to spend double: GOG, WF, BGD... but those vendors have MUCH stricter criteria for which stones are going to qualify for an upgrade.

The best person to get an upgrade from is your original vendor. Get it in writing. Make sure there is no end date. Make sure you understand how much more you have to spend to qualify. And make sure they don't put in stupid rules: like saying you have to get it inspected BY THEM every 6 months to qualify.

Trade ups are upgrades. Again, same rules.

Buy backs are different and usually buy back policies are around 70% of your original purchase.

Reselling your diamond, you can expect 50%-70% of the original price. Again the better the stone performs, the prettier and more desirable it is, the better the chance of an upgrade.

I don't know of any vendor that would buy this stone from you, or who would give you back your purchase price as credit toward a future purchase. So, again, your best bet is your original vendor.

Thanks for your comments... the independent AGS appraiser in Burbank thought it was a nice stone and that since the inclusions are clear instead of black that you have to look close from only a foot away to notice... so Iam not too worried since gf didnt think it was too bad either... and the appraiser told me that it would cost about $14,000-15,000 after sales tax to replace it with something similar in downtown Los Angeles and put that on the insurance appraisal so I won't have to pay inflated premiums like you do when somebody gives you "mall replacement" value...

So I figure if I am ballin way harder when I am in my 30's, I can still easily get $10,000 out of it at a minimum after selling costs (ignoring diamond increases) ... That would be fine for me... and just good to know I have the AGS so people really know what it is for the future....

on to the setting...

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

On to the setting....

Setting question....

Look at the prongs below... is it a bad idea to have 2 on each corner? Shouldn't there only be 1 on each corner?

Also- When they do the rhodium plating... do they normally do it before they set all the side stones and main diamond? or do they do it after?

my jewler said after, but it seems like it is going to be impossible to get all the rhodium over the metal inbetween all the stones after they are set, right?

 

[Amys Bling]

Personally I like the double prongs myself

 

[LibbyLA]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

I like the double prongs, too.

The diamonds on the shank below the head will damage a wedding band if your wife-to-be plans to wear one next to it.

liz

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

Personally I like the double prongs myself

thanks for your reply... any advantages of double over single or is just the look that you prefer?

 

[slg47]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

I like the double prongs, too.

The diamonds on the shank below the head will damage a wedding band if your wife-to-be plans to wear one next to it.

liz

yes, I would remove these. Also, if she plans to wear a wedding band, it will not sit flush with this design.

Additionally the diamond looks rather high-I prefer lower settings.

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

I like the double prongs, too.

The diamonds on the shank below the head will damage a wedding band if your wife-to-be plans to wear one next to it.

liz

yes, I would remove these. Also, if she plans to wear a wedding band, it will not sit flush with this design.

Additionally the diamond looks rather high-I prefer lower settings.

thanks for the advice... I hope that the split shank bottom side part of the "Y" is the point of contact... and not the part below the head with the diamonds... or else I guess then yes, I will need to have a custom designed wedding band then to avoid damage.... cus too late now, it was already cast this morning!

And I also would prefer a little bit lower profile, and noticed this as well a few weeks back.... however the designer couldn't get the profile any lower without compromising the look of the top split shank... and I like the split shank look so I went with it.... I am hoping the deepness of the actual diamond will fill more of the gap then it does in the simulated picture

 

[Gypsy]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

I like the double prongs, too.

The diamonds on the shank below the head will damage a wedding band if your wife-to-be plans to wear one next to it.

liz

yes, I would remove these. Also, if she plans to wear a wedding band, it will not sit flush with this design.

Additionally the diamond looks rather high-I prefer lower settings.

I would change the gallery period. But yes, remove the pave from the wires.

 

[Gypsy]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

CCL, you posted under the name "Gypsy must Die" and threatened me and others repeatedly in posts. You lie, as always. I don't enjoy attacking you, but your lies tick me off.

 

[SweetAsscher]

I like the double prongs but I don't like the gallery. I don't the diamonds on the gallery either. They kind of look random to me.
They rhodium dip it so the plating only sticks to the diamonds I've been told.

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

I like the double prongs, too.

The diamonds on the shank below the head will damage a wedding band if your wife-to-be plans to wear one next to it.

liz

yes, I would remove these. Also, if she plans to wear a wedding band, it will not sit flush with this design.

Additionally the diamond looks rather high-I prefer lower settings.

I would change the gallery period. But yes, remove the pave from the wires.

what is the "gallery" again? excuse my ignorance... thats the support part underneath the head, correct?

so just remove the diamonds or do you mean change the metal design? also, what specific part is the "wires"?

thanks
rb

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

I like the double prongs but I don't like the gallery. I don't the diamonds on the gallery either. They kind of look random to me.
They rhodium dip it so the plating only sticks to the diamonds I've been told.

- any physical advantages of double prong?

- do you mean they rhodium dip the ring before or after they drill holes to set the diamonds? rhodium "sticks" to the diamonds?

 

[SweetAsscher]

I like the double prongs but I don't like the gallery. I don't the diamonds on the gallery either. They kind of look random to me.
They rhodium dip it so the plating only sticks to the diamonds I've been told.

- any physical advantages of double prong?

- do you mean they rhodium dip the ring before or after they drill holes to set the diamonds? rhodium "sticks" to the diamonds?

sorry sorry sorry! I was on my phone and wrote that wrong. I meant the plating ONLY STICKS TO METAL NOT THE DIAMONDS.

And I think plating is the last thing they do after completing and setting the stones.

 

[SweetAsscher]

And I just like the look of two small double prongs vs one larger prong. It's just personal preference.

 

[Clairitek]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

The metal part helps to support the head of the setting (the part where the diamond is placed). The gallery refers to the part that you see when youre looking at the setting from the front or back. So if it were on your finger and you held your hand flat horizontally and looking down your hand towards your finger tips your view you would be looking at the view in the bottom left of that CAD.

So what we are suggesting is that you remove the pave from the wires (those up and down parts that are connecting to the split shank in the gallery) and then the 6 pave stones that are beneath that.

Looking at your design I wonder if those "wires" are erroneous and not needed. Would you prefer a more open look? I wonder if the designer stuck them on to have a place for more pave. But if you remove that pave its not needed and I wonder if the parts of the split shank and then the halo are plenty to hold the ring together nicely. To be clear, I only mean the vertical straight and slightly angles pieces to be removed, not the part that helps complete the circle of the shank. I think that needs to stay.

I have attached a really kindergartner-eque labeled picture to point out what I am describing above. Sorry for the chicken scratch!

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

The metal part helps to support the head of the setting (the part where the diamond is placed). The gallery refers to the part that you see when youre looking at the setting from the front or back. So if it were on your finger and you held your hand flat horizontally and looking down your hand towards your finger tips your view you would be looking at the view in the bottom left of that CAD.

So what we are suggesting is that you remove the pave from the wires (those up and down parts that are connecting to the split shank in the gallery) and then the 6 pave stones that are beneath that.

Looking at your design I wonder if those "wires" are erroneous and not needed. Would you prefer a more open look? I wonder if the designer stuck them on to have a place for more pave. But if you remove that pave its not needed and I wonder if the parts of the split shank and then the halo are plenty to hold the ring together nicely. To be clear, I only mean the vertical straight and slightly angles pieces to be removed, not the part that helps complete the circle of the shank. I think that needs to stay.

I have attached a really kindergartner-eque labeled picture to point out what I am describing above. Sorry for the chicken scratch!

thanks! this is very helpful and the picture makes it clear...

only problem is that the ring was already cast... so now I cant remove any wires.... So i figure I might as well stick diamonds on them....

Also- one of the things my GF really pointed out she liked when she tried on similar rings is that she liked how there were diamonds underneath the head of the setting on the support area.... that is why I am trying to make that happen with the pave underneath.... I agree though that with the split shank support, this is probably not necessary for the extra wires for support purposes....

I asked the designer today and they responded they would have to do a custom wedding band to make it fit right against it... not sure how exactly.... but guess i have to cross that bridge when I get there since its too late now...

oh and I know it looks awkward with the diamonds crammed underneath, but this is probably because i did a shoddy MS paint mock up and copied and pasted stones down there to show them I wanted coverage underneath... it will look better in real life...

 

[Clairitek]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

If your girlfriend said she wanted diamonds in the gallery then go for it! Its mostly personal preference. You'll figure out the wb along the way!

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

NICE... finally pickin up the ring tomorrow....

1.3 total carats in the setting.... setting came out to be a little extra from the original 1000-1200 estimate... came out to be $1500 cus i upgraded to better cut GIA G-H SI1 diamonds and they had to use more gold since I went with the split shank at the top....

3.3 cts total...

ill post pics here when i get it

 

[Amys Bling]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

NICE... finally pickin up the ring tomorrow....

1.3 total carats in the setting.... setting came out to be a little extra from the original 1000-1200 estimate... came out to be $1500 cus i upgraded to better cut GIA G-H SI1 diamonds and they had to use more gold since I went with the split shank at the top....

3.3 cts total...

ill post pics here when i get it

can't wait to see it!

 

[Amys Bling]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

CCL, you posted under the name "Gypsy must Die" and threatened me and others repeatedly in posts. You lie, as always. I don't enjoy attacking you, but your lies tick me off.

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

here is initial cell phone pic....

not ready yet cus i requested a few more stones on the gallery cross section.... saw it in person though and it looks amazing!

more pics to come monday or tuesday

 

[Mico]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

i'm happy this all worked out for you, i'm sure she'll love it

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

i'm happy this all worked out for you, i'm sure she'll love it

thanks!

more pics tomorrow when i take it home....

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

please excuse the cell phone pics... and my ugly male pinky finger

this is the only working camera I have at my disposal right now...

here is a side profile pic...

comments/concerns/criticism is welcome.... we all have our opinions... and I can always make tweaks before or even after the proposal in the next month... the jewlers are pretty cool people...

i am extremely happy with it though...

and as the case with most crappy iphone cameras trying to take pictures of fine jewlery.... the pictures do not do it justice for how it really sparkles in real life....

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

here are a few more low res celly pics...

1.3ct total in setting g-h GIA SI1 stones

2.004ct cushion center stone AGS H SI2
----> EYE Clean Center now that it is set and there is way more brilliance from the setting reflections and surrounding stones! Took me 5 minutes trying to find the clear crystal inclusion that I previously could see easily up close before it was set...

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

few more.. please excuse low resolution but its better than posting no pics!

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

any opinions about the double prong on the face? me being the perfectionist I am, noticed that all four corners double prongs are not exactly the same size...

how hard for it is them to reset and shave the prongs down so they all are the smaller size and not the bigger size?

 

[CushionRock2012]

Re: 2.00 ct F/SI1 Cushion - Is this a good stone?!? (SEE PIC

? about prongs