shape
carat
color
clarity

Comparing Antique Cushions

dmndjoe

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
8
Looking for some opinions on the following stones. I feel like #1 is the overall winner. The setting will likely be a halo.

#1 - https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/77c06f-1.302-f-vvs2-ideal-antique-cushion
  • 1.302 ct - F - VVS2
  • Depth - 68.2%
  • Table - 49.1%
  • 6.42 x 6.41 x 4.37
#2 - https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/hpyx32-1.435-h-vvs2-ideal-antique-cushion
  • 1.435 ct - H - VVS2
  • Depth - 69.7%
  • Table - 47.8%
  • 6.61 x 6.45 x 4.49
#3 - https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/vwjzv8-1.502-h-vvs2-ideal-antique-cushion
  • 1.502 ct - H - VVS2
  • Depth - 70.0%
  • Table - 50.1%
  • 6.64 x 6.55 x 4.58
#4 - https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/x4cm9m-1.536-g-vvs2-ideal-antique-cushion
  • 1.536 ct - G - VVS2
  • Depth - 69.5%
  • Table - 48.3%
  • 6.88 x 6.59 x 4.58
 
  • Like
Reactions: AV_

Lovesparklesparle

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Jun 9, 2017
Messages
495
If colour and price isn’t a factor I like 3.

Although 1 is colourless and 33% less $ which is good!

Have you looked into genuine antique stones?
 

dmndjoe

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
8
If colour and price isn’t a factor I like 3.
Although 1 is colourless and 33% less $ which is good!
Have you looked into genuine antique stones?

What about #3 makes you choose it? I initially like #1 because the depth and table numbers kept the dimensions in line with other bigger stones but at a pretty significant cost savings.

Really just starting out, very new to all of this, not sure where to look for genuine antiques yet.
 

LLJsmom

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Oct 24, 2012
Messages
12,633
What is your color tolerance? If you want icy white go for the F. If you are ok with more warmth, the H. I think they are all going to be beautiful.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
I really do like the icy white of the F stone. Also, it seems like it has a little more contrast to me, which I appreciate.

Some factors not yet discussed is length-width ratios. Stone 1 is nearly perfect. Stone 4 has the most variance and slightly rectangular. Stones 2 & 3 are also slightly rectangular but to an even smaller margin. I am not certain you will see this with the naked eye, and it's really a preference. I like more square cushions personally. Others prefer rectangular. None of these are drastic differences.

Also if I take the average of the length & width, you will see there is max size difference of about 0.18mm between stone 1 & stone 3. You jump up to 0.32mm difference with stone 1 & stone 4. In rounds, it takes about 0.20mm difference before someone with "normal" vision can detect a true size difference. FYI, 0.20mm is about 1/128th of an inch.

My point is simple, I think visually looking at stones 1-3, you will not see an appreciable size difference, despite having (and paying for) more carat weight. Stone 4 would likely provide a more noticeable difference. It may also appear slightly rectangular depending on your visual acuity.

Capture.PNG

For me, when I compare the ASET & IS images, the L/W ratio seems apparent. Also, I like the fact the 1.302 has less smaller white spots (leakage) than the 1.536. Although the 1.536 seems to have more red, which is generally more preferable. I think the green is more uniformly spread in the 1.302 which I also like.

compCapture_LI.jpg

I don't know proportions of cushions as well as I do with rounds, so I will leave those specific comments for others. However, looking at the ASET and IS images, it's easy to see these are all performers. I think variances you will see are much like in a round diamond where one might favor a little more white light return and another may favor a little more fire, but overall they are still ideal cut stones. So small personality differences exist, but no major issues.

FYI, the round stone I bought my fiance is 0.867ct and has a shallower crown and larger table, which effectively makes it size out around 6.20mm. Normally you have to be in the 0.90-0.93ct range (depending on exact crown, table, etc) to hit the same size. So effectively I got a little more size because of the proportions of my stone. While it is a BGD ideal cut stone and still has good fire, the proportions favor a little more white light personality whereas a smaller crown & smaller table would favored a little more fire and less white light.
 

dmndjoe

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
8
What is your color tolerance? If you want icy white go for the F. If you are ok with more warmth, the H. I think they are all going to be beautiful.

I wish I had a strong preference in one direction, might make this easier. I really wonder how much the color difference will be noticeable on the face when in the setting between the F and H.
 

dmndjoe

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
8
Some factors not yet discussed is length-width ratios. Stone 1 is nearly perfect. Stone 4 has the most variance and slightly rectangular.

Also if I take the average of the length & width, you will see there is max size difference of about 0.18mm between stone 1 & stone 3. You jump up to 0.32mm difference with stone 1 & stone 4. In rounds, it takes about 0.20mm difference before someone with "normal" vision can detect a true size difference. FYI, 0.20mm is about 1/128th of an inch.

My point is simple, I think visually looking at stones 1-3, you will not see an appreciable size difference, despite having (and paying for) more carat weight. Stone 4 would likely provide a more noticeable difference. It may also appear slightly rectangular depending on your visual acuity.

You nailed the reasons why #1 has been my preference so far. While the L/W ratios aren't drastic on 2-4, #1 is about as perfect as you can get.

With 2 & 3 being a couple of steps down in color, and the dimensions not netting much of a noticeable difference, especially when set in a halo, the cost increase for the extra weight didn't seem like a necessity.

For me, I think the harder choice comes down to 1 & 4, because while there really isn't much of a color difference, there may be a visible size difference. #4 prices at 40% more than #1. I'm not sure there's that much of a visible size difference.

For me, when I compare the ASET & IS images, the L/W ratio seems apparent. Also, I like the fact the 1.302 has less smaller white spots (leakage) than the 1.536. Although the 1.536 seems to have more red, which is generally more preferable. I think the green is more uniformly spread in the 1.302 which I also like.

I don't know proportions of cushions as well as I do with rounds, so I will leave those specific comments for others. However, looking at the ASET and IS images, it's easy to see these are all performers. I think variances you will see are much like in a round diamond where one might favor a little more white light return and another may favor a little more fire, but overall they are still ideal cut stones. So small personality differences exist, but no major issues.

This is where I'm still a little green on the details, but it wasn't apparent to me that any of these were obviously better than the others.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
We all have different color acuity. The BGD stone I bought my fiancee is super ideal and an H VS2. Additionally as already noted, it has proportions that slightly favor white light/brightness. The majority of the time the stone looks very white. However, I occasionally see a little tint. It's not a drastic "OMG, this is yellow" but rather a faint tint.

After purchasing I learned my fiancee is more color sensitive than I am and sees the tint variance more easily. Also, she indicates she is not bothered by it. So seeing it and being bothered by it are two different things. Based on your username, I assume you are the giver. It would be wise to know your own color sensitivity along with hers PRIOR to purchasing. Some people can't see tint in colors much lower than H. Others swear only D or E work.

Based on my individual experience, if I were re-buying I'd choose F+ because I better know both our preferences than when I first started my journey. Nothing wrong with the H. In fact, I debated trading the stone for a higher color and we opted to not do so as it's not a big deal to either of us at this point and not worth the price increase that would be involved.

As far as the performance of each of these stones. These are all ideal cut stones, so I think you will be very happy with any of them as they are all winners. You seem drawn to the smaller stone for it's spread, better color and price value. I can't answer for you but I know I'd have a hard time ponying up the extra cash for what seems like a small impact (to me).

I do wonder if @rockysalamander and/or @farrahlyn could toss in their 2 cents. They know fancy shapes much better than me and I'd value what either has to say regarding cut quality.

FWIW....
  • F VVS2 = $10,603 / 1.302 carats = $8,143 per carat
  • G VVS2 = $14,929 / 1.536 carats = $9,719 per carat
Clarity is the same and color is actually better on the F stone. So look at the premium you are paying per carat to hit (actually exceed) that magical 1.5ct barrier. Granted that stone has the most size difference but when we talk about stones costing more when they hit magic weights this is what is meant.
 

farrahlyn

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,170
Ok, can i first have a minor freak out over those *tiny tables and puffy crowns* squeeee!!!! :love::love::love:

thanks for the tag @sledge i have been MIA due to some work stuff.

Now that we are past that freak out, both stones are incredibly gorgeous, precisely cut.... you cannot go wrong. I won't nit pick on the light return because i really don't think it's necessary. But for me, this is a no brainer for a few reasons. If you were putting this in a solitaire, size would more than likely win for me because that size difference will be visible. *cough*size ho*cough* :P2 However, putting this in a halo, i would absolutely go with the 1.302 due to color and difference in cost. i mean, i'd say that if it was the same color even but an F stone for THAT MUCH less! :shock: The halo is going to add size, so i wouldnt be concerned there. If you want to focus more on the personality of the two, call and ask if they can send a video of the two together (in different lighting) without labeling which is which. choose which one you prefer the look of.
 

farrahlyn

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,170
i will add though.... why are you going wih an ideal antique? Has your intended expressed an interested in an antique cut? What about setting, do you have an idea of her preferences? I'm asking because this is a VERY SPECIFIC LOOK and i would hate for you to present this gorgeous stone and her heart sink a little because she really wanted that classic round brilliant in a tiffany inspired setting. in short, just making sure you've done your due diligence. :whistle:
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
Excellent points @farrahlyn! Glad you could break away and offer some comments! Agree, these cushions made my knees go weak when I saw them.

I absolutely love them and fall into the category that would buy one. But you raise a valid point about the soon-to-be fiancee's preference. When I was gathering data for my fiancee I was really hoping she'd pick a cushion with big chunky facets like these. Nope, she didn't like them. She actually took the time to tell me about how much she disliked them (yet at one point presented a princess as potential like, which I nearly flipped out).

Either way, my point remains. Had she been a fan, I likely would have bought one because they are absolutely charming IMO; however, it is a specific look so you need to be sure.
 

dmndjoe

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
8
However, putting this in a halo, i would absolutely go with the 1.302 due to color and difference in cost. i mean, i'd say that if it was the same color even but an F stone for THAT MUCH less! :shock: The halo is going to add size, so i wouldnt be concerned there.

This was my thought too. One thing that was brought up, is that if going with a split shank, the smaller stone has the potential to get swallowed up. I completely understand the logic here, but assuming that the long edge would run parallel with the finger, the difference between the two stones on the width is 0.18mm. It doesn't seem like that would make a huge difference.

If you want to focus more on the personality of the two, call and ask if they can send a video of the two together (in different lighting) without labeling which is which. choose which one you prefer the look of.

Not a bad idea. Have you ever heard of VC doing that for potential customers?

i will add though.... why are you going wih an ideal antique? Has your intended expressed an interested in an antique cut? What about setting, do you have an idea of her preferences? I'm asking because this is a VERY SPECIFIC LOOK and i would hate for you to present this gorgeous stone and her heart sink a little because she really wanted that classic round brilliant in a tiffany inspired setting. in short, just making sure you've done your due diligence. :whistle:

There have been many conversations over the years. I probably have more opinions about this than she does. I'm sometimes annoyed by the indifference...haha. Some things on which I'm certain: cushion, split shank, halo. Years ago, in looking at modern vs. antique comparison videos on Youtube, we both agreed that we like the larger facets of the antique better. Bigger flashes over sparkles. Last night's "Hey what do you think of this or this?" conversation landed on VC's Anne Marie setting.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
FYI 0.20mm is about 1/128th of an inch, so not a lot IMO.

And yes, VC will do the videos. In fact @Nicholas A did one for another potential client a week or two back. He can't post the video here as it would be sale related and people get their panties in a wad over that sort of thing.

Suggest calling and having them email the video. Then you can post here so we can also see it.

Last buy not least, sorry about the indecisiveness of your girl. I know all about that and it can be frustrating at an entirely different level, lol. @farrahlyn and countless others helped me through my own trials.
 

farrahlyn

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,170
i've heard of other vendors providing videos prior to purchase so it's not an off the wall request if you're struggling between the two.

ooohhhh, Anne Marie is a gorgeousss setting. i love the split shank, it's done SO FLAWLESSLY. But i do understand the struggle with the proportions and i do prefer an elongated stone with a split shank. However, i think the proportion conversation is better directed to VC. if you check out some of his work here, (there is a thread under Show me the Bling just of his work) you'll see his execution is a lovely balance of beautiful settings that while incredible, dont steal the show or swallow up a stone. i'd trust his judgement.

Just for comparison purposes, here are the two stones in question on a size 5 finger with a 2mm band.

1.3 vs 1.5 VC C.PNG

*edited photo because i realized the 1.5 stone wasn't the right measurements after posting
**and it took a third try to get the comparison right!!!
 

dmndjoe

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
8
ooohhhh, Anne Marie is a gorgeousss setting. i love the split shank, it's done SO FLAWLESSLY. But i do understand the struggle with the proportions and i do prefer an elongated stone with a split shank. However, i think the proportion conversation is better directed to VC.

Victor was who cautioned me about a split shank and going with the largest stone my budget would allow. He didn't didn't outright say that the 1.3 wouldn't work, but the smaller the stone, the more chance it has being swallowed up by the band.

One last stone that would be great to get your thoughts on, @sledge and @farrahlyn.
https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/h1e967-1.578-f-vs1-ideal-antique-cushion

1.578 ct - F - VS1
7.19 x 6.68 x 4.55

I can see about 4 small inclusions in the 360 spin (or maybe it's just one reflecting all over the place). The ASET looks to be slightly worse than the others.

The biggest reason for me to consider this over the other two is, it's also F, if the inclusions aren't eye visible I'm not too concerned, it has the larger dimensions to more adequately support a split shank. I hadn't considered the impact of a split shank and an elongated stone, but I could see where the split shank would visually add a little width to the setting, and possibly make an elongated stone look a little more square in dimension. Where with a perfectly square stone, a split shank might make the setting look overly wide.
 

farrahlyn

Brilliant_Rock
Premium
Joined
Sep 22, 2015
Messages
1,170
Victor was who cautioned me about a split shank and going with the largest stone my budget would allow. He didn't didn't outright say that the 1.3 wouldn't work, but the smaller the stone, the more chance it has being swallowed up by the band.

One last stone that would be great to get your thoughts on, @sledge and @farrahlyn.
https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/h1e967-1.578-f-vs1-ideal-antique-cushion

1.578 ct - F - VS1
7.19 x 6.68 x 4.55

I can see about 4 small inclusions in the 360 spin (or maybe it's just one reflecting all over the place). The ASET looks to be slightly worse than the others.

The biggest reason for me to consider this over the other two is, it's also F, if the inclusions aren't eye visible I'm not too concerned, it has the larger dimensions to more adequately support a split shank. I hadn't considered the impact of a split shank and an elongated stone, but I could see where the split shank would visually add a little width to the setting, and possibly make an elongated stone look a little more square in dimension. Where with a perfectly square stone, a split shank might make the setting look overly wide.

This one gets my vote, hands down. Do not concern yourself about the inclusions, a VS1 will be eye clean. I like the proportions of the 1.512 listed on the site as well but i think you would be worried over the table inclusion and really, the minor tick up in pricing would justify (in my mind) going with the larger 1.578 with better clarity. i do wish it had a slightly larger cutlet but i LOVE the facets on this one :love:
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
Agree the inclusions are a non factor at VS1 clarity. This is were magnified views get in the way of a good decision. You won't see that with the naked eye.

I wasn't aware you were doing a split shank but with that in mind I do think a slightly elongated cushion is better. This new stone measures 7.19 x 6.68 and has a 1.08 L/W ratio, which I think will compliment the split shank very well. I think VC himself would agree.

I would be interested to see a video of the original two stones we were discussing and this new one all side by side. See which one grabs your attention.

I do like this new one. As already noted, all are ideal so these will be great performers. At the risk of potentially being too nit picky I noticed the ASET on this new stone has something going on in the upper left corner I'm not crazy about. However, it may not be a substantial and noticeable thing when you view in a side by side video, which is why I'm encouraging that. Again, all these are ideal so I feel I'm being somewhat critical here.

Capture.PNG
 

dmndjoe

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
8
I am really liking working with Victor. Super responsive and helpful.

Here's a vid of all three.

I wasn't expecting the size difference to be as noticeable. The right most stone, the 1.578 - F - VS1 does appear to have a dead spot in the upper left corner, but hard to know if that's just a camera angle thing.

All look great to me, nothing jumps out as bad. What do you see?
 

SimoneDi

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Dec 19, 2014
Messages
3,811
All look great to me, nothing jumps out as bad. What do you see?

Size, the size difference is evident. If all are in budget, I would go for for the largest one and it is also an elongated stone so it will look stunning with a split shank.
 

dmndjoe

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jun 30, 2014
Messages
8
Throwing this on into the mix. It is also elongate and is bigger than your choices. I really like it in this video and like all the rest, it has a great ASET.

I know this may be blasphemy around here, but that might start to get too big. She has some concerns about it being too flashy, so I want to be somewhat reserved.

@rockysalamander what did you think of the three in the video?
 

rockysalamander

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
May 20, 2016
Messages
5,105
)
I know this may be blasphemy around here, but that might start to get too big. She has some concerns about it being too flashy, so I want to be somewhat reserved.

@rockysalamander what did you think of the three in the video?

Before you discount it, I really think the proportions work with with a split shank. This shows this and the VS1 @farrahlyn voted for (https://www.victorcanera.com/diamonds/h1e967-1.578-f-vs1-ideal-antique-cushion). The stone I posted is on the left, the 1.578 F VS1 is on the right (size 6 finger). The shank at the top is 4 mm. See how much nicer the longer stone looks?



upload_2019-1-19_13-10-33.png
 

Matilda

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
467
I do think the longer one is more flattering to the hand. I know you said you don't want it to be too blingy. What kind of setting does she want? There is also diamond shrinkage syndrome; it will appear big to her at first and very quickly seem smaller....:lol: It happened to me and many others haha
 

Matilda

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Oct 30, 2018
Messages
467
I am sorry just saw you specified the Ann Marie setting it is stunning. Split shanks do work best with slightly larger and longer stones though in order to not overpower the centre diamond. At least that is just my opinion, of course I could be very wrong!
 

ringo865

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
2,897
Of the three in the video, I like the elongated one on the far right. I also like the one rocky posted (and it’s less $). Whatever you put in the Anne Marie setting is going to be blingy. Might as well keep the theme going ang get a big stone :kiss2:
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top