2 ct cushion vs 3 ct cushion video - which would you choose?

[jerichosmom]

I saw this on GOGs website and couldn''t decide which one I like better. Thought I''d post this to see what people''s opinions were. Would you go larger but sacrifice colour (and a little performance) or would you go whiter but also smaller?

http://www.goodoldgold.com/videos/CUSHIONS302211.wmv

3.02 I SI2 - love the size, not sure about the warmth
2.11 H VS2 - love the dancing fire but wish it was bigger.

 

[bgray]

i dont see much difference in color and when its mounted and on your hand you wont either i would bet. its not like its and E vs an I...............I think the larger stone is stunning and the size is wonderful. I would go with the 3carat

 

[Lorelei]

Either would be gorgeous, I was most drawn to the optics of the larger stone, but it depends on you - what a nice dilemma! An I colour in that size would be fine for me, but it is up to you, the I colour will still be white and an eyeclean SI2 in that size is a great find, but you must go with your heart!

 

[Ellen]

I like the smaller stone better. The larger seems to have a dead spot in it (under the table, top part), to me. I noticed it in both lighting, but it''s more noticeable in the spot lighting.

Love that smaller one, though I''d hardly call it small.

 

[MissGotRocks]

Date: 9/27/2008 3:19:47 AM
Author:jerichosmom
I saw this on GOGs website and couldn''t decide which one I like better. Thought I''d post this to see what people''s opinions were. Would you go larger but sacrifice colour (and a little performance) or would you go whiter but also smaller?

http://www.goodoldgold.com/videos/CUSHIONS302211.wmv

3.02 I SI2 - love the size, not sure about the warmth
2.11 H VS2 - love the dancing fire but wish it was bigger.

This is a tough choice because you are comparing two stones with an entire carat size difference - hardly an apples to apples comparison. It is very difficult to choose color or performance or anything else because of the difference in size - especially because they face up very similar. I would rather have the quality over size but once that larger stone is dangled in front of your nose, it''s hard to pass on that much size difference - if in fact size is very important to you.

I think I''d choose the size I was interested in and then ask for that stone to be compared to others. I''m sure they don''t have alot of three carat stones lying around to compare to, but given those two stones to choose between, I don''t think I could make a decision that I''d be comfortable with for the long haul.

 

[canuk-gal]

Date: 9/27/2008 8:11:28 AM
Author: Ellen
I like the smaller stone better. The larger seems to have a dead spot in it (under the table, top part), to me. I noticed it in both lighting, but it''s more noticeable in the spot lighting.

Love that smaller one, though I''d hardly call it small.

HI:

I hate agreeing with Ellen.....

; I noticed the same thing. Maybe not IRL--but it came thru on video. Honestly, too, I didn''t think the 3 carat looked (geometrically) SO much larger. That siad, either are stunners that I would be happy to be gifted with.

cheers--Sharon

 

[JoeNewbie11]

Go for the 3 carat. These were both great stones. They were both similarly white in diffuse lighting. In spot lighting, the 2 carat did perform better; however, you will rarely view the stone in spot lighting. If they''re both eye-clean, you''re paying the premium for the VS1 clarity.

Bottom line. If you go with the 2 carat you''ll be happy, but months later you''ll be saying, darn I wish I had the 3 carat! Size, size, size.

Good luck.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 9/27/2008 10:56:01 AM
Author: JoeNewbie11
Go for the 3 carat. These were both great stones. They were both similarly white in diffuse lighting. In spot lighting, the 2 carat did perform better; however, you will rarely view the stone in spot lighting. If they're both eye-clean, you're paying the premium for the VS1 clarity.

Bottom line. If you go with the 2 carat you'll be happy, but months later you'll be saying, darn I wish I had the 3 carat! Size, size, size.

Good luck.

Really, rarely? I would have to politely disagree. Resturants, bars, and grocery stores are just a few with similar lighting. Any place with multiple lighting sources will show off a diamond to one of its greatest potentials.

And I have found many!

 

[Sharon101]

I am soooo interested in what others here have to say!!! And my, what a delemer.

First, my very own opinion was that the difference in size and color was not very noticible to me. Maybe that was because the 3 c. was on a bigger finger which made it look relatively the same as the 2 on the smaller finger???? Color difference to me was not noticible at all. However I did notice that the 2 sparked more....but the 3 still had plenty of sparkle to hold its own imo. Price differences may sway me...but for the purposes of choosing I am going to assume they are the same. ie. 2 carat is whiter and cut better v. 3 carat which is larger but lower color and cut.

If it was me personally, I would probably choose the 3 carat because it is more diamond coverage which sort of gives me pleasure in that way (its how Im wired!!!!).

But, due to the size not being that great a difference, I could fully understand someone choosing the 2. and being very happy with that choice due to the other 2 c`s being better.

Damn it, its really a toss of the coin situation isnt it????

 

[CharmyPoo]

I would take the 2ct over the 3ct. I am not a fan of the crushed ice look in the 3 ct (personal preference) which I was surprised I even noticed in a video. The 2ct may be smaller but holds a lot of charm for me. Something about it draws me to it.

 

[elle_chris]

wow, very tough.

Here''s my 2 cents for what it''s worth.

The 2ct definitely had a little more sparkle, and is a higher color and clarity. The 3ct is more of a wow factor due to it''s size and I did notice the difference is size. It''s also a beautifull stone and would not disappoint in any type of lighting.
I think you need to prioritize what means more to you. a little extra sparkle, or a bigger rock. Last year I would have said the smaller one. Today, I''m not so sure.
you can''t go wrong with whatever you choose since both stones are winners.

 

[Eva17]

i was in looking at cushions there the other day and the 2 ct was to die for!!!!!!!

it was exploding with flashes.

i would have loved to take it home with me.

i looked at an i 3ct but i think it was the 3.17. it was very white.

 

[CharmyPoo]

I just went on GOG site to take a peak at the specs. The 3ct is indeed a modified cushion but it is very nice. It is pretty deep at 71% which may make it face up smaller than other 3ct although still very large.

Did you notice that the 2ct doesn''t come with GIA? It is backed by their lifetime policy so I am not sure if it matters.

 

[Eva17]

Date: 9/27/2008 12:31:10 PM
Author: CharmyPoo
I just went on GOG site to take a peak at the specs. The 3ct is indeed a modified cushion but it is very nice. It is pretty deep at 71% which may make it face up smaller than other 3ct although still very large.

Did you notice that the 2ct doesn''t come with GIA? It is backed by their lifetime policy so I am not sure if it matters.

yes.

the stone has the older chunky facet look with the open culet,

i really like the ratio on the stone too.

 

[jerichosmom]

thank you everyone for your input. there is just a $500 difference between the 2 stones that is why I''m considering them. the larger cushion (3.02) actually comes with a platinum band w/ 3/4 ct diamonds...like the Michael B princess setting except there are also stones on the basket and is not as dainty. Because it''s in my size already, I can wear it until I the stone tells me what setting it really wants. I would need to get a temporary setting for the 2 ct which is an added expense.

yes, i''ve noticed the "dead spot" between the 12-2pm position on the 3 ct cushion and have discussed it with Jon.it''s not a total dead spot but more of a contrast/shadow spot. according to Jon at GOG, there is little to no "crushed ice" look with the 3 ct and I''m not sure if I can readily identify it in the 3 videos that feature it. charmypoo must have eagle eyes! Jon says it''s got the old world chunky flashes. here is a video of 3 x 3ct cushions and you can see the one I"m interested in compared to a brilliant & H&A squared. it is the first stone.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/videos/CUSHION302317321.wmv
i''m still undecided for now. I wasn''t looking for a 3 ct, more like 2.2 - 2.5 but because of the price, i threw it in. i''m hesitant on the 2 ct because i think it may be a little overpriced for a non-certed stone. Jon says that he wanted to post it right away as it would need to be sent away for 4 weeks to GIA. however, if i get it and I just upgrade to a larger stone when he gets one in.

i''m going to have to make a decision this weekend as I want the stone sent to me for comparison with some local stones.

one interesting thing that Jon noted in his videos is that we see with stereo-vision and the camera sees with mono-vision. I think that''s supposed to mean that in real life, we''d see double the sparkles. with this in mind i''d like to see the larger stone IRL as the "dead spot" may not be as noticeable.

 

[CharmyPoo]

I would trust the experts and go with your heart. You can''t go wrong with either of the beautiful stones. I sure would be happy with either. I got an idea - take both and send me the one you don''t want I promise it an excellent home.

 

[Rhino]

Just a clarification. You can make out a little of the crushed ice look around the rim of the table on the 3.02ct but it is not the predominant view as the angles towards the bottom of the pavilion reflect back broad white or colored light depending on whether you''re in diffuse or spot lighting. I have seen (and also have recorded) cushions that have broad fire/high contrast down the crown angles with distinctive crushed ice appearance under the table showing what I would consider an odd combination of 2 completely different types of appearance in one cushion. This particular 3.02ct would not fit that description however. I think the clip does a great job of showing just how much (and also how little) you get that appearance in this particular diamond. While it is a "cushion modified" it does not embody the typical appearance that 99% of the cushion modified''s on the market have. Most are crushed ice throughout.

The new 2.11ct embodies completely a combination of the chunky flash we''ve all come to love in the antique styled cushions and we are currently working with some cutters to have these on a more consistent basis as finding cushions with a combination of a. the old world chunk combined with b. the light performance I''ve grown accustomed to are like finding needles in haystacks. I''ve seen antique styled chunky faceted cushions with light performance I woudln''t touch with a 10 foot pole. Just because they''re chunky doesn''t automatically mean they have the optics that comprise the most beautiful. I''ve seen many with too much leakage and conversely those that reflect back too much head body shadow.

Hope that helps.

 

[strmrdr]

That's a tough one, to my eye the 2ct has better optics but the 3ct is kewl too.
The 3ct wins size,,,, hmmmmm cant decide,,, buy both! hehehe

 

[MMT]

I love having a VS2 knowing I can''t see anything but if the SI2 is eyeclean I would go for size.

 

[Mrs W]

wow, i think that 2 ct blinded me! The 3 ct was very nice too.....and that size

 

[jerichosmom]

i hope my count is correct....

3 ct has 5 votes
2 ct has 4 votes
not surprisingly, size is winning!

several undecided or "go with your heart" votes....

 

[stone-cold11]

the 2 ct stone got my vote.

 

[tiffanyornot]

I would get the 3.0 carat one. The difference between the performance of the stones is not substantial. Also, the video is misleading because the 3.0 carat is on the middle finger so it doesn''t look much bigger than the 2.0 carat which is on the ring finger. In reality, the 3.0 carat is much bigger to my eyes.

For me, getting a big diamond is to impress others. Getting a VS1 and higher color would be to give you the mind-cleanliness.

The difference between H and I is nothing. Difference between 3.0 carat and 2.0 carats, to me, is big!

 

[Dee*Jay]

Boy... I''ve watched this over and over and I like the 3 ct not only for the size but the stone itself appeals to me more too.

 

[Harriet]

I was at GOG with Eva. Even though Jon showed us bigger stones, I kept going back to the 2.11. Caveat: I have a soft spot for open culets.

 

[bdanziger]

If you have the credit line just order both.

I was going to get a diamond from my jeweler in houston, but I ordered a 2.22 caret cushion from GOG (#4799) because it had much more surface area than the stone in houston. The GOG stone came and it was SI1 and I (and my jeweler in houston) could not believe it was an SI1. It had a huge carbon deposit and was not eye clean. (search for my thread). GOG does have a great policy. Therefore, I saw, order both and decide for yourself if the SI2 is eye clean enough to get by.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 9/27/2008 9:36:27 PM
Author: Harriet
I was at GOG with Eva. Even though Jon showed us bigger stones, I kept going back to the 2.11. Caveat: I have a soft spot for open culets.

Mmmm, me, too, Harriet! I LOVE old style cushions with chunky facets and open culets! I''d go for the 2.11 or just wait if you want one a little larger.

 

[carabella]

If you''ve seen the 2.11 and think you need larger, go with the 3 carat -- that way you''ll be happy and won''t have any regrets...until DSS comes into play....

 

[jerichosmom]

Bdanzinger, thank you for your suggestion of buying both to compare IRL. I think my husband will have a cow if he saw the charges on the cc! It''s certainly something that I''ll consider since I flip flop between the two every hour. Hopefully, GOG would be okay about it if I really do that.....it''d be cheaper than flying out to NY to see them in person (if both of them are still available even).

the 3.02 was my only choice for over a week and then Jon threw me a wrench the other day when he posted the 2 ct prototype. I didn''t think that it could get any better...Ii can''t get the dancing fire out of my head!

I just read a 4 pg thread on size vs quality and one of the things that I have to think about is whether or not it is wearable everyday/all day. I have an heirloom diamond ring (1.21 ct) but don''t wear it much because the prongs gets caught in clothes and scratches my baby''s face, etc. with this in mind I sway to the smaller diamond so that I can put it in a bezel setting to avoid these occurances. but oh, a 3 ct is a 3 ct and once you''ve dangled that 3 ct in front of me, there''s no looking back at a 2 ct.

contrary to results of this thread, the old 4 pg thread about size vs quality voted mostly for quality. .

 

[Rosa]

Hi jerichosmom,

I just watched the video and vote for the 2.11 carat b/c I do think the quality is more apparent and I value that over size.

However, I wondered, what is your ring size? If you have large fingers, you might ultimately be happier with the 3ct one. You did mention that the 3ct comes with a setting, but I don''t think that should influence your decision too much.

Probably I would get the 2.11 ct and if you do have a large ring size, just set it to make it look bigger - you could do that with lots of different techniques - people here have great ideas for that.

Good luck!