2 cushion cut stones...help me choose!!!

[lablover]

Hi! I have narrowed my search of a cushion cut stone down to 2 choices! I would really appreciate any input anyone had about the two stones! Which one do you like better????? Do you see anything wrong with either one? I know we all have our different preferences towards stones...especially cushion cuts, but I have really come to value all of your opinions! I have a preference towards one of the stones but I am curious to see what you all have to say!!!! Thanks!!! BTW, this will be for a ring with a simple/classic white gold setting! Picture 2 isn''t a very good picture! There is some kind of mark reflected in the top of the stone that isn''t there (I saw the stone in person)! Also, stone 2 looks asymmetrical, but I didn''t notice that when I saw the stone in person either...I think it is the angle the camera caught the stone at!!!!

Stone #1:

Shape: Cushion Brilliant Price $12,700
Carat Weight: 1.64ct
Color: E
Clarity: VS1
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: Strong
Girdle: 3.15%
Lab Report: GIA
Width: 6.88mm
Length: 7.05mm
Depth: 4.66mm
Table Percentage: 57.49%
Depth Percentage: 67.70%
Crown Depth: 18.27%
Pavilion Depth: 44.31%
cutlet: medium
ratio: 1:1


Thanks!!!!!!!!!!!! See next post for ring two info!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[lablover]

Here is the info for stone 2:

Stone #2 $13,900
Shape: Cushion Brilliant
Carat Weight: 1.74ct
Color: F
Clarity: VS2
Polish: Very good
Symmetry: Very good
Fluorescence: none
Lab Report: GIA
Width: 7.67mm
Length: 7.60mm
Depth: 4.57mm
Table Percentage: 60%
Depth Percentage: 67.3%
cutlet: none
ratio: 1:1.12

Thanks again!!!!!!!!!!

 

[pixley]

Tough choice! Stone #1 looks YUMMY - I prefer the bolder contrast patterns of stone #1 to stone #2, but it''s somewhat of an unfair comparison because the photo of the second stone is wibbly wobbly. Stone #1 just appears to be a fabulous cut and it looks like it''ll have some good fire going on.

L/W ratio on stone #2 works out to 1:1.01 (instead of 1.12) unless the measurements are off.

 

[dani13]

Hmmmm.....Hard to tell b/c the pics are so small, but I think I prefer stone # 1 which looks like it will project "chunkier" flashes, rather than the second stone which has more of that "crushed ice" look. Which look do you prefer? I think that what it boils down to, since both of these stones look good when looking at their numbers....

 

[Cravin My Emerald cut]

Stone #1 appears to have chunkier facets. I personally prefer #2...I like the slightly rectangular look.

Can''t wait to see the finished product! I myself am actually now "craving my cushion cut" lol

 

[lablover]

Pixley,
Thanks for catching that! It is actually a typo on my part! The measurements of stone two are:
7.67mm x 6.79mm x 4.57mm! Doing the math that is almost 1: 13, right?

Yeah...stone 1 really has an awesome picture...but the pic for stone 2 does not do the stone justice! It really is stunning!!! I wish I had a better picture for you guys!!!!!


Thanks for your input!!!! Keep it coming guys...both good and bad (hopefully not too much bad though LOL)

 

[pixley]

Sooo, have you seen #1 in person? Just think it''s worth the time to see both stones in person and find out which one screams, "TAKE ME HOME!" Definite size advantage in stone 2

 

[lablover]

I am soooo confused!!!! I did see both of them in person! They are both stunning!!!! I just didn''t see them together....so that makes it difficult! I know I would be happy with either stone!!! Too bad I can''t get both

!!!!

Here''s what I am thinking:
Initially I wanted a more "rectangular" vs. "square" shape and I am still leaning that way...But that square cut stone is amazing too! The one hangup I do have about the square one is that fluorescence. It is strong blue. 1/2 of me thinks that is awesome (I am a science teacher!!!) and I would love it to have some qualities of a fluorescent stone...but the other 1/2 of me is worried about it. The vendor who I saw today (stone 2) said he personally doesn''t like fluorescent stones...that they are not worth as much! But to be honest I am not going to be selling it anyway!!! Decisions...Decisions!!!!!! I don''t know what to do!!!!

I know that stone 2 looks like it has crushed ice tendencies in the picture but it really doesn''t in person. If I remember right stone 1 definitely has more chunkier facets...but stone two has chunky facets also!!!! Yeah...it''s official...I''m confused!!!! But this is soooo much fun!!!! LOL!!!!

 

[lablover]

I tried to make the picture bigger! Not sure if I did it right!!!!

Stone 1

 

[CrookedRock]

Have you seen them in person? I can tell the first one is a GOG and the second is from ERD. GOG knows how to take fabulous pics, they really do! ERD, not so much. Personally I prefer more rectangular cushions so I vote #2, but you really need to see them to tell.

ETA~ Sorry, I'm slow tonight. You did see them both. I know that the second will be chunky bc that's what he excels in. Jon though has an incredible eye for the symmetry of these stones, he can pick em too!! I was in a very similar situation exactly a month ago (same vendors)... I wish I could have had them both, bc they both were fabulous! For me it came down to chunkiness and shape.

 

[lablover]

Here is stone 2 bigger: And BTW the whole stone looks like the bottom half of the stone...not sure what that fuzzy line is at the top!!!!!!!

 

[lablover]

Thanks for replying everyone!!!!! I really appreciate it!!!!

Crooked rock: yup...I saw them both in person! They both are beautiful, beautiful stones!!!! I too prefer the more rectangular look but there is just something about the square one! And good call with vendors!!! LOL

Anyone have any opinions on the fluorescence thing????

 

[CrookedRock]

I wish I did honestly. I really never talked to anyone about fluorescence, and my stone doesn''t have any... I wish I knew more about it... Sorry

 

[lablover]

Crooked rock: Thank you anyway!!!!!

 

[boston_jeff]

Hey lablover

Ask Jon to take #1 out in the sun to make sure there is no negative impact from the strong blue, and then go with that one!

Best,
Jeff

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 4/9/2008 9:43:32 PM
Author: boston_jeff
Hey lablover

Ask Jon to take #1 out in the sun to make sure there is no negative impact from the strong blue, and then go with that one!

Best,
Jeff

Ditto! I think the florescence is inconsequential if Jon says the stone has no negative effects from it. In fact, I wish mine had it!

I have had my eye on that GOG stone for awhile, but another diamond is not in the picture for me, I''m afraid!

 

[scarlet16]

I think it really comes down to your preference for shape. Both stones look great by their numbers, and if you saw both in person and say they are gorgeous, then I have no doubt Jon and Mark picked you two winners. Go by your gut!

 

[iheartscience]

I prefer number 2 for sure! But it doesn''t matter what I think! Maybe you can visit them each one more time to decide?

 

[lablover]

Thank you all so much for your advice!!!! I am going to be deciding today!!!! I''ll let you know what I decide! Anyone else who wants to throw in their .02 cents...please do so!!!!!
Thanks again!!!!

 

[purrfectpear]

I like the photo of stone #1, but prefer the shape of stone #2 myself.

Why stop there? See if there isn''t a rectangular cushion that looks more like #1?

 

[scarlet16]

Date: 4/10/2008 11:57:49 AM
Author: purrfectpear
I like the photo of stone #1, but prefer the shape of stone #2 myself.


Why stop there? See if there isn''t a rectangular cushion that looks more like #1?

I swear I''m not trying to be snarky...but can you imagine if any of us bought our stones based on ERD''s pictures...they would NEVER sell a stone!!! Please don''t judge a stone by it''s picture (especially an ERD cushion)...

 

[bella_91]

What explanation did they give you for the line running through the top of stone #2?

I personally prefer the shape of stone #2 (a rectangular cushion)...but that pic really bugs me, if I can''t see it in person.

 

[chrono]

Is ERD''s stone a chunky one? It doesn''t seem so from the picture.

I''d pick one because GOG picks awesome cushions (I like the facet pattern) and I''m biased towards square cushions.

 

[pixley]

Date: 4/10/2008 11:57:49 AM
Author: purrfectpear
I like the photo of stone #1, but prefer the shape of stone #2 myself.


Why stop there? See if there isn't a rectangular cushion that looks more like #1?

I have to agree with purrfectpear on this one. You don't have to buy one of these just because they're both beautiful. When I had trouble choosing between two stones, it was because neither one was completely the one. When I did find the one for me, no one could have talked me out of it. It was the exact shape, the exact length to width ratio, cut, color, everything.

If you want a rectangular cushion with 8 pavilion mains, Jon or Mark should be willing and able to help you get that. You deserve it

 

[lablover]

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you for all your advice!!! I am going to sleep on it one more night!!! I will let you guys know what I decide!!!!

 

[lablover]

Hi!!! It''s me again.....

I got another picture of stone #2! As you can see that fuzzy lline is not there!!!! What is there now is that inclusion in the middle of the table!!! I have a pretty good eye (for color and inclusions) and when I saw this stone in person I could not see this inclusion!!!! Even using a loop the stone looked VERY clean!!!!! What do you guys think? Do pictures tend to accentuate inclusions? Also, for those that thought the stone looked like crushed ice...do you still think so?????? I really do love the shape of this cushion!!!!

Thanks so much for being patient with me....it''s just I would rather avoid taking another trip into the city or long island!!!! Especially when I already know both stones are beautiful!!!!

Thanks again!!!!!

 

[lablover]

Yikes thats a big picture...let me try to fix it!!!!!

 

[lablover]

see if this is better

 

[~*kalypso*~]

Hi!

Since you saw them in person, I''d pick whichever one you liked in person better. Whichever one made you go

If you can pick one that is!

My only question would be to what I circled on stone 2. Is that a feather? Would it crack more/chip? I''d just ask. I''m no expert, just saw the line and wanted to know what that was, if it is anything. Probably nothing

Is the black mark in the middle an inclusion or just dirt? I dunno.

The two stones have different looks to me. I guess that''s why I love cushions!

 

[chrono]

Nice picture of stone 2. Not crushed ice at all but it definitely isn''t a chunky style cushion. GOG''s cushion will be chunkier.

I''m guessing the black mark in the middle is an inclusion but it''s so very tiny that it''s hard to spot unless it is super magnified. The line at 1 o''clock appears to be a feather which I think should be all right. It''s a good question to clarify with Mark.