$35k budget...what would you do?

[iota15]

Just to be clear a 2 ct cushion is visually and definitively smaller than a 2ct round brilliant and thus is less expensive.

I would disagree with that. A 2 ct cushion is not necessarily smaller looking. Depending on the stone, cushions can look larger or smaller. Especially at the 2 ct size, there's a lot more weight for a size differential - and certainly, there are some 2 ct cushions that look MUCH larger than a typical 2 ct round.

I apologize for being misinformed... I would love to see an optically excellent cushion that has a larger physical parameter than an ideal cut round brilliant, of the same carat weight? I would imagine the cushion would have to have a shallower crown and a shallower depth to achieve the same circumference as a round brilliant, and thus wouldn't have excellent optics in the first place ?

It's a common misconception. Cushions can be bigger, and they can be smaller... Let me show you some examples:

*************
2ct Ideal Round Brilliant
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8078/
51.88 sq. mm's of surface area (coverage)

2 ct Cushion
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8192/
54.01 sq. mm's of surface area coverage
This cushion is 2.13 square mm's bigger than the RB.

2 ct AVC
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8214/
53.2 sq mm's
This AVC is 1.32 sq. mm's bigger.
***********
3 carat Ideal Round Brilliant
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-2205261.htm
69.07 sq. mm

3 ct Cushion
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8221/
74.05 sq. mm's
This cushion is 4.98 sq. mm's larger than a RB of the same weight.
**********
I have also noticed that elongated cushions seem to face-up larger as well.

The general perception is that RB's are larger because their outer measurements are greater than the cushion's outer measurements. However, if you look at how much surface area (true coverage) each stone provides, cushions can certainly be larger.

If you go even further and calculate the circumference of each stone (the distance around the edge of each stone), you'll find the cushions above are actually significantly larger than the RB's above.

 

[mrssalvo]

In general cushions are cut deeper which is why they face up smaller than a round of the equal weight.

Iota, I see your point (although math isn't my strong suit and I start to get a little confused..ha) but the 2 carats rounds still have larger diameters in the first 2 links you posted and will look larger than a cushion.

the first round link the stone is 8.17x8.13
the cushion is only 7.26x7.44

I agree there are some cushions that do indeed face up equal to rounds but I don't think it's common or the norm.

 

[iota15]

With a 2 ct marquise, sometimes the point reaches 10 or 11 mm's, but it's super skinny. If you looked at it, yes, the stone goes further, but you wouldn't necessarily say it's larger than a 2 ct round just because it reaches further.

The larger diameter of a RB is what confuses most people. But with a 2ct round, there's only a tiny tip of diamond at that 8.1/8.2 length, whereas for a cushion, the entire edge at 7.4-7.7 is diamond. Plus, cushion's have corners where rounds don't reach. And again, elongated cushions seem to carry better face-up weight. (They didn't really have any good examples at GOG when I looked yesterday).

For me, it comes down to how much finger does the stone cover. A RB doesn't always cover more area. Sometimes, cushions cover more area -and that's not confined to poorly cut cushions, as shown by the high light performers above.

 

[mrssalvo]

I see what you are saying. Years ago someone put a diagram on here with what the eye perceives when looking at a round, so although the surface area may be smaller it will still appear larger to the person viewing it. It really comes down to the individual stones, i guess