Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[kenny]

RR just trying to lighten the mood.
It gets pretty serious around here.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I appreciate every one's right to post. There was no need for me to reply to any comments made- but since they are quoted together, I need to say that I specifically disagree with any implications that any one person is controlling PS- or I could not participate in this discussion- it's an open forum.
I have nothing but respect for you Jon. I agree that chunky cushions are awesome- I love Heart and Arrows, and a lot of the stones on your site. Very unique and beautiful. Hearts and Arrows are not my very favorites generally- but I love to look at them. The AVC's look beautiful

Without question your representation of many different diamonds is informative, well organized and presented. Of course I, if anyone, know how hard it is, as I feel like we kind of are a yin and yang in some ways.
We're both dedicated to education, and we present it differently because we have different preferences.
In terms of and bias referred to here, it would by no means include any posts by the well meaning tradespeople allowed to post here- of course including you.
I very much enjoy your posts, and your site.

When CCL quoted the prior discussion, I had a different take regarding one statement you made. Now that you're in this thread, and it's been brought up:

Regarding "crushed ice" look of diamond there are currently two ideas that come to mind when people say this in the realm of diamonds.

It can refer to

a. A really bright diamond whose optical characteristics emphasize many small flashes of of white light in diffuse/ambient lighting and a ton of scintillation in spot lighting (as seen in some rare fancy cuts and in rounds like Star129).

I'm quoting from this thread- you had made a great post about crushed ice - containing the above. That's the part we may feel differently about.
Many well cut Cushion Modified Brilliant- and Cut Cornered Rectangular Modified Brilliant- are very bright, and exhibit a ton of scintillation in the lighting conditions you describe. My point is that such well cut "crushed ice" stones are probably more commonly found than an H&A 8 Main Cushion.
Really well cut Cushion Modified Brilliant cut stones are not exactly "common" but they are out there.

I haven't been back to Winston for years- but I would say it's likely that the high end stores referred to in this thread can efficiently buy really nice crushed ice stones on the market- be they Cushion or Radiant.

Just because I'm saying the "big Fifth Avenue Boys" can buy well cut stones- my advice to shoppers would be exercise the same level of selectivity and inspection they would anywhere else. Just because it comes in the 'Blue Box" does not mean you will love it- or be well cut for the specific purchaser.

 

[Rhino]

 

[Rhino]

Thanks for your reply Dave.

It appears when you refer to "crushed ice" you are thinking along the terms of only one of the examples I have given. Very easy to misunderstand when a whole explanation is not looked at in context. Glad we are clear.

In an industry full of huckster's and solicitors who simply want us to trust them, I still and will always encourage substantive evidence to back the claim. With me and those who sympathize with my view it's a peace of mind thing. When I'm spending this kind of cash I don't want pot luck and there are effective tools that can help the consumer differentiate between "bright crushed ice" and "watery crushed ice". I say let's use them for what they're worth.

This would actually make for a good video topic

 

[FuturePsyD]

Rhino,

I'm really new to PS, so I don't even know if this is appropriate to ask on here, but are you able to make any recommendations for those of us who would like to go with a big designer house?

I've been trying to educate myself as much as I can on the various types of cushions, and I can see that I've only touched the tip of the iceberg. Since I am a big fan of HW Micropave, i felt the modified cushion alway looked lovely in that setting. Do you feel its possible to get the "watery crushed ice" look even from them?

Also, are modified brilliants the only cut that is seen as having the crushed ice appearance (whether in a good way or not)?

Thanks!

 

[decodelighted]

I think newbies just don't understand that there was a HEALTHY, overwhelming even, demand for "chunky cushions" LONG before any PS vendor was cutting them. The DEMAND for that type of stone, and the difficulty of finding those stones vs. the crushed iced cushions that every stand on 47th was showing created a niche market. Which someone decided (wisely) to try to fill.

In the "old days" people would be scouring the market for VINTAGE stones -- because those were easier to find than freshly cut chunky monkey cushions.

Thank goodness people think outside of the box (blue or otherwise) and decide what they want for themselves & not just what the industry tries to shove down our throats. (Pointy fragile Princesses? Really? Really?)

 

[Rhino]

Hi FuturePsyD,

Rhino,

I'm really new to PS, so I don't even know if this is appropriate to ask on here, but are you able to make any recommendations for those of us who would like to go with a big designer house?

I've been trying to educate myself as much as I can on the various types of cushions, and I can see that I've only touched the tip of the iceberg. Since I am a big fan of HW Micropave, i felt the modified cushion alway looked lovely in that setting. Do you feel its possible to get the "watery crushed ice" look even from them?

Also, are modified brilliants the only cut that is seen as having the crushed ice appearance (whether in a good way or not)?

Thanks!

In answer to your questions...

"Do you feel its possible to get the "watery crushed ice" look even from them?" Absolutely. I see these optics frequently in the world of cushions and a grand majority of times in "cushion modified" although I would not make any kind of blanket statement saying "all modified cushions have watery crushed ice optical performance". Each cushion (modified or not) must be examined on a case for case basis. I have a clip showing visual/optical differences between cushion modified's I've had in my possession. I've seen some real beauties and i've seen many dogs.

Also, are modified brilliants the only cut that is seen as having the crushed ice appearance (whether in a good way or not)?

Nope. Cushion brilliants with modern facet structures as well as those with vintage facet structures can both have bright crushed ice as well as watery crushed ice. A number of elements enter the equation to whether they will be bright or watery/slushy including but not limited to virtual facets, symmetry and proportion factors. What many people aren't aware of is that you can have a vintage facet structure yet give a bright crushed ice appearance due to virtual facets off the pavilion. Virtual facets give the appearance of more facets when in fact there are not. If the proportions however lend themselves to extraneous light leakage it will cause those virtual facets to go dead/dull and give the watery crushed ice appearance.

When you learn the differences and the tools to demonstrate these (including but not limited to your own eyes) they are not hard to distinguish.

Hope that helps.

 

[sillyberry]

FuturePsyD, I watched a ton of videos on GOG, looked at lots of cushion pictures here on PS, and yet I never really could tell what anyone meant by "crushed ice." It just didn't register in my brain.

When I was sitting down with a jeweler, though, and had a bunch of cushions in front of me, the "crushed ice" phenomenon became really apparent. Actually looking at one stone compared to another, only with my eyes (and then a loupe) demonstrated what any number of pictures on the internet couldn't. This isn't a value judgment about that style of cushion, but the difference was readily apparent. Even boyfriend, who went to the meeting not knowing a darn thing about diamonds, could see the difference.

To some degree, I think the size issue makes it hard for me. When I see these huge close-up images of diamonds online, I really struggle to get a sense of what the diamond looks like normally. They just look huge and alien! Real life was much better.

I'm in NO WAY anything remotely resembling an expert, nor do I play one on PS. Most of the time I have no idea what people are talking about when it comes to the technicalities of diamonds and cutting. But see if you can look at a variety of cushions in real life and you'll probably know pretty quickly which style you prefer. Good luck!

 

[Dreamer_D]

It seems like there is a variety of cushions in the HW rings, as people have mentioned. If you want HW, then simply ask to see a few and pick the one that looks best to your eye! Problem solved

 

[CharmyPoo]

It seems like there is a variety of cushions in the HW rings, as people have mentioned. If you want HW, then simply ask to see a few and pick the one that looks best to your eye! Problem solved

Big Ditto! There aren't any magic rules we can provide although I still personally have yet to see a nice cushion modified brilliant despite Jon saying there are

 

[Rockdiamond]

I agree 100% with Rhino's post from here https://www.pricescope.com/forum/rockytalky/what-causes-the-crushed-ice-look-t147859-60.html

Regarding "crushed ice" look of diamond there are currently two ideas that come to mind when people say this in the realm of diamonds.

It can refer to

a. A really bright diamond whose optical characteristics emphasize many small flashes of of white light in diffuse/ambient lighting and a ton of scintillation in spot lighting (as seen in some rare fancy cuts and in rounds like Star129).
b. A diamond that exhibits very little light return and at best reflects back some pinpoints of light. The "crushed ice" effect here could be more accurately described as "watery, slushy crushed ice".

Most folks I talk to and in real world conditions, the latter is the one most referred to and I particularly do not care for it as it is the general result of excessive light leakage under the table and causes a diamond to look virtually dead in those areas.

In scenario a. above the facet design is highly responsible for the small bright reflections and high scintillation.

In scenario b. above facet design has little to do with the watery crushed ice effect as you can get it in many facet designs.
What contributes to it primarily is proportion factors and you can have it in both chunky/vintage faceted diamonds as well as modern or modified brilliant facet designs. Most radiants and many cushions are cut in this fashion as well and is generally the result of pavilion angles that are cut too shallow coupled with crown angles that contribute to the excessive leakage existing under the table.

I personally like crushed ice a. but do not care for crushed ice b.

To those who design cuts of diamonds or study them, this is not a mystery, the cause of this effect can be ray traced with Diamcalc, Gemcad and designs can be adjusted accordingly.

To others who would rather discuss this look qualitatively, guess at its origin, and debate personal preference we will continue to have these long threads where the same opinions are given over and over because new posters do not do adequate searches of the archives before posting.

Here's Jon's post in entirety, as quoited earlier in this thread- which asks if crushed ice is bad.
Jon identified two types of crushed ice- one good, one he does not like.
In the description of the "good" type, he mentions that the "good" type is only found in "rare fancy cuts and rounds like star 129"
I disagree.
Given that we can see the clear bias against crushed ice right here in this thread, that statement was what I questioned. Jon, all due respect, but you never answered that.
Secondly, I feel that there are a lot more than only two types of "crushed ice" looks found on the market.
It's also clear to me that documenting the crushed ice look- due to it's very nature- is far more difficult than photographing stones that have chunky flashes-or patterns.
I don't feel that any of the tools ( other than the human eye) can be used effectively for this purpose.
Which tools did Jon mean when he said we should use tools to select crushed ice?

:Lastly- to the OP- who asked for specific recommendations regarding Harry Winston, etc.
Please remember that any trade member posting here is forbidden from commenting on the stones of another vendor.
I used broad generalizations- but neither Jon nor I can specifically answer about Winston stones.

 

[TakingthePlunge]

Not sure why youre trying to time machine back just to reiterate that Jon has acknowledged both good (bright) crushed ice and bad (watery) crushed ice. To me it seems the thread has moved past that and I doubt you will get him to say anything different.

My question is that since Jon has now stated that you can have bright crushed ice I would love to see an example. Whenever Ive seen crushed ice is accompanied by a leaky ASET / IS. Is it possible to have crushed ice with a fairly complete light return? Pictures would be great.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Not sure why youre trying to time machine back just to reiterate that Jon has acknowledged both good (bright) crushed ice and bad (watery) crushed ice. To me it seems the thread has moved past that and I doubt you will get him to say anything different.

My question is that since Jon has now stated that you can have bright crushed ice I would love to see an example. Whenever Ive seen crushed ice is accompanied by a leaky ASET / IS. Is it possible to have crushed ice with a fairly complete light return? Pictures would be great.

The concept and appearance of "crushed ice" is a general descriptive term that does not have a precise definition. In more specific language it equates to smaller sparkles or flashes, often in a disordered or chaotic arrangement, which are the result of smaller virtual facets(how light illuminates only part of the the physcial facets so they appear to be cut up into smaller pieces).

Posted below would be what I could call the appearance of a bright crushed ice diamond and the unfortunately the same cutting facility does not produce stones of this level of brightness on a regular basis so it is quite rare. Some may even argue that the size of the flashes is even too large in this stone to label it as crushed ice, but I think the random pattern and modified facet design fit.

It can be seen in this video comparing two stones, the one on the left would be what is commonly referred to as watery crushd ice the one on the right is this one. http://www.vimeo.com/3164922

 

[kikidoe]

What a heated thread!

FuturePsyD, I'm not a diamond expert at all. When I bought mine, I trusted my (uneducated) eyes.

 

[decodelighted]

My take on the "crushed ice" type stones is that they are more visually chaotic internally. Like easter basket fluff squished up & stuffed inside a glass box. Radiants can also have "crushed iced" looks about them. I think its a style used commonly in *colored* diamonds, because that type of cut tends to emphasize the color in a stone. So if you DO decide you like the crushed ice stones, you may need to purchase a more colorless stone.

Some folks just really find the crushed iced look appealing. They like a dizzying cloud of sparkle w/o regard to organization or order. Its hard to find a Pear without crushed ice at the tip of it at least ... or Marquises w/o that type of look at its tips. Its a personal preference thing ... not a "right" or "wrong" thing.

We tend to have more "order" lovers around Pricescope. More people own exquisitely "ordered" super ideal H&A rounds than opt for quirky, harder to quantify Pears or Radiants etc. So, if anything, I think folks are trying to say AWESOME if you decide you love the crushed ice style cushion. But make an INFORMED decision. Don't just pick from what's offered at HW before really looking at the OTHER type of cushions. So you can make an educated decision that you have MUCH less of a chance of regretting later on down the line. Even women who choose exactly what they think they want at the time of their engagement sometimes (quickly even) come to regret getting caught up in the sparkle and the dazzle of the moment & not

* thinking long term ... what will pair with a wedding ring for example, or what will work with my lifestyle? (super pave encrusted & medical gloves do not work --- super sharp points do not pair well with newborns -- etc)

* doing enough homework. What do *my* eyes like? What looks good on my HAND and not just in my HEAD?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

This is an example of what is often referred to as a watery crushed ice type of cushion.
Notice leakage will show as greyish in the photograph, black in black background ASET and white in DiamXray it just depends on what you put underneath the diamond. Leakage means the diamond acts as a window and you can see what is underneath it in those areas.

To see how this diamond performs when moved or when the light source moves it can be found with other examples in this video http://www.vimeo.com/7579666

 

[Rockdiamond]

This is a very interesting conversation.
Takingtheplundge- nice of you to answer for Jon- but I do believe it's up to him to either answer or not.
His statement was clear that he feels it's "rare" that fancy cuts ( other than the star129) exhibit his idea of what could be considered "positive" or good crushed ice. Maybe I'm not reading his intention clearly, but we still have not cleared up that statement.
The video linked to above in CCL's post does make the "slushy" stone look bad- however a lot of that has to do with how the video was shot.
In different lighting conditions, the stone would look different

In fact, it's the very nature of "crushed ice" that ASET and other tools ( including a camera) can't really quantify, or capture.
ASET is great for identifying patterned types of stone- but one of my main objections to it is the inability to be used effectively in "crushed ice" stones.
IS is totally useless in this regard.

The whole debate about 60/60 versus near tolk is also related to this.
The larger table of well cut 60/60's give more scintillation, and less pattern.

The conversation is illuminating as it so clearly highlights the bias by the non trade participants.
Pejorative statements about what "newbies" do and do not understand....or how you can find crushed ice at every stand on 47th street are insulting to the intelligence of readers.
Other vocal posters could care less about insulting others' taste.

There are many different types of "bright" crushed ice stones...and many other photos and videos other than the ones linked to here showing the phenomenon

 

[Rhino]

Here's Jon's post in entirety, as quoited earlier in this thread- which asks if crushed ice is bad.
Jon identified two types of crushed ice- one good, one he does not like.
In the description of the "good" type, he mentions that the "good" type is only found in "rare fancy cuts and rounds like star 129"
I disagree.

And you have every right to. My experience over the years of calling in radiants and cushions has been the negative crushed ice. Still is till this day.

Given that we can see the clear bias against crushed ice right here in this thread, that statement was what I questioned. Jon, all due respect, but you never answered that.

I have. The bias you are reading about Dave does not originate with me. It originates with consumers who have seen this and don't like it. I'm not the one who invented the term. I use that term to describe what consumers on here have been describing for a long time which most do not like. I happen to not only agree with that opinion but can also demonstrate the science of why. You are free to disagree with majority opinion and as a veteran would (and have) fight for your right to have it. I just know from a personal & business standpoint I'm not going to invest thousands of my capital into a diamond that most people do not prefer. If you like it though knock yourself out.

Secondly, I feel that there are a lot more than only two types of "crushed ice" looks found on the market.
It's also clear to me that documenting the crushed ice look- due to it's very nature- is far more difficult than photographing stones that have chunky flashes-or patterns.
I don't feel that any of the tools ( other than the human eye) can be used effectively for this purpose.
Which tools did Jon mean when he said we should use tools to select crushed ice?

If you're experience with optical technologies is limited or you don't use them at all I can understand your above statement. Dave, I make it my business to study various diamonds optics in a variety of lighting and see how that corellates to various optical technologies. I can look at an effectively taken ASET and IS and pretty much tell how that will look in real life. It's about learning what I would call a diamonds "optical signature". Every diamond has one. Some optical signatures are common and some are unique. If you don't study these things and make these corellations for yourself though you'll find yourself in a position of trying to defend even the poorest cut diamond because you can't explain why most people don't really like it. In the end the defense becomes ... someone will prefer it over others, which is true. There is someone for everything but that doesn't rule out the fact that it is poorly cut and leaks like a siev.

All the best man.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Pejorative statements about what "newbies" do and do not understand....or how you can find crushed ice at every stand on 47th street are insulting to the intelligence of readers.

I am confused - if you say they are not rare than why is it so difficult to say that you can find it easily in the Manhattan diamond district? I know from my personal experience strolling 47th Street - I was always shown a "crushed ice" modified cushion brilliant when I asked to see a cushion. Most of the time when I asked for a Cushion Brilliant or a different facet pattern - they had no idea what I was talking about.

Also, if you take a look at the virtual diamond inventories - shall we make a bet that the large majority will be cushion modified brilliants? I tried to help many posters find diamonds and almost every cushion I click is likely going to be a cushion modified brilliant which generally translates to the "crushed ice" look. It's like winning a prize when I find something different.

Either way .. no idea how this is insulting to any of the readers. All readers are welcome to go do their own research on PS, off PS, in person, in the library, talking to great vendors .. talking to slimy vendors .. it's all up to them.

 

[FuturePsyD]

This has definitely been an interesting thread and I have learned a great deal more than I had anticipated when I first posted the topic.

I certainly agree that it comes down to going with what I like the best, but I wanted to make an educated decision instead of blindly going with whatever HW recommended as being "the best look"

I called HW this afternoon, and spoke with a different SA than the one I have worked with, to ask about the center stone(s) that is typically used in the Micropave, and why? (of course I do intend on going in to compare and not relying on information gathered in a phone call) The SA told me that they use 2 types of centers, Modified Cushion and Brilliant Cushion. He said, which I found interesting, that the Modified has a "white" look whereas the Brilliant Cushion has the "rainbow" look. Also, that the Brilliant Cushion has all the same characteristics of a Round brilliant except for its shape (with 50-60 facets). And that the Modified Cushions (with 65-70 facets) made the ring look whiter and brighter and worked better with the pave halo and that is why HW recommends the Modified Cushion w/ the Micropave ("when asked for their opinion"). He agreed that the Modified did have a "crushed ice" appearance and he said its a matter of preference and that HW would never sell an inferior type of Cushion.

Only comment that surprised me was that the Cushion Brilliant had a rainbow effect vs. the Modified having a white/bright appearance? But, then again, I am a "newbie"

KIKIDOE: I LOVE LOVE your HW Micropave. You went with what looked best to your eyes and you walked away with a beautiful work of art. I believe you mentioned, in another thread, that you did not go with the Modified Cushion??

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thank you Charmy!
I needed a good laugh.
I'm sure all the "slimy vendors" you refer to won't be insulted....and have little doubt you don't understand that insults are insulting.

Anyone keeping up with PS over the past few weeks will have knowledge that the 47th street "downstairs" retail area is perilous, at best. Therefore stones seen there should not be taken as any indication of the broad market.

Virtual inventories are also not a good indication of the broader market- as the selection process, over time, makes the percentage of lesser looking diamonds higher.
As Jon and I have both said- simply being a "Cushion Modified Brilliant" does not mean a stone has a desirable "crushed ice" look.

Jon- let me again say that I respect you - and your preferences make you special.
However, in this conversation you are pretty clear about your dislike of Radiant cut, and Modified Cushions

And you have every right to. My experience over the years of calling in radiants and cushions has been the negative crushed ice. Still is till this day.

This would mean that your clientele won't be nearly as likely to ask for such stones. It's possible ( likely) that your own personal taste affect what people ask you for.
That could be why you don't feel Radiant cuts, and Modified Cushion Brilliant Cuts are popular in the broad based market. My experience it very different.
We have a lot of people looking for the best in "crushed ice" look- so my take is that the look is very popular.

You (Jon) and I discussing what we love- or find to be in demand, is different than the bias we're seeing here from non trade participants. The most vocal ones are "anti" crushed ice- to the extent that they pretty much "shout over" (or insult) anyone with a different opinion.
What is preferred by the most vocal participants here is by no means what is preferred on the broad market.

IN terms of the optical technologies. I can see your point- and you do indeed seem to use them well. But there are other aspects at play.
Although you may have developed a good understanding of how ASET relates to physical appearance, consumers may not be able to use the tools as you do- plus differences in photo setups etc means consistency is lacking from one vendor to another.
Then there are the differences in how ASET is used for different shapes. Round diamonds use light very differently than fancy shapes.
This can be seen in AGS guidelines for using ASET, which are quite different for rounds, versus princess cuts. Why is green good in one shape, but needs to be avoided in the other?
It's also noteworthy to mention AGS has NO standards for Radiant.
The use of ASET, to me, will always be secondary to visual inspection.
Our proximity to the cutters means we don;t need to "call stones in" - they are already here. So for me, visual inspection is the way to go.
Which is what we recommend to consumers.
Leakage is another hot button topic here- glad you brought it up.
It's an integral part of Fancy Shapes.
Also important to note that leakage is not always a "one way street".
As a fancy shape diamond moves in relation to lighting sources, areas of leakage may become areas of brightness.

I don't see this as "defense" of a cut Jon. There is "something for everyone"- yet well cut crushed ice stones do indeed exist in Cushion, and Radiant.
Someone used pejorative term calling Pear Shapes "quirky"
Many gorgeous pear shapes display a combination of crushed ice and patterning.
Do you feel the same about Pears Marquise and Oval as you do about Radiant Jon?

All the best!

 

[decodelighted]

T
Only comment that surprised me was that the Cushion Brilliant had a rainbow effect vs. the Modified having a white/bright appearance? But, then again, I am a "newbie"

Sounds like you got a great sales rep on the phone. I like their descriptions of things & think its an interesting & believable answer for why they choose they types of cushions they do for that particular setting. Re: the "rainbow" effect. Its not so crazy if you think about it. Diamonds are like prisms to some extent. Bigger, chunkier facets reflect all colors of light. You see the same "rainbow" effect in vintage (and some newly cut) Old European Cut stones. It is COVETED by lovers of antique stones. I think of it as a sort of pastel watercolor impressionist painting look. Dappled in soft multiple colors -- kaliedescopic vs truly *brilliant*. I'm sure you'll observe these things yourself in person if you're exposed to the different styles of cushions. Then its truly a matter of personal preference. Good luck!

ps -- and when you're deciding which Pros to listen to -- why not check out their websites & see what kind of wares they choose to sell. That'll speak VOLUMES about their tastes & selection, no?

ETA: Ha! I must be missing the FLOOD of consumers rushing in to "defend" their preference for crushed ice-style stones. Will be sure to shout them down if I can *find one*.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

This has definitely been an interesting thread and I have learned a great deal more than I had anticipated when I first posted the topic.

I certainly agree that it comes down to going with what I like the best, but I wanted to make an educated decision instead of blindly going with whatever HW recommended as being "the best look"

I called HW this afternoon, and spoke with a different SA than the one I have worked with, to ask about the center stone(s) that is typically used in the Micropave, and why? (of course I do intend on going in to compare and not relying on information gathered in a phone call) The SA told me that they use 2 types of centers, Modified Cushion and Brilliant Cushion. He said, which I found interesting, that the Modified has a "white" look whereas the Brilliant Cushion has the "rainbow" look.

The SA was probably talking about a diamond's fire(or its ability to separate and return colored light to the viewer). Vintage style or "chunky faceted" stones with steep crown angles and large virtual facets(flashes of light) have a greater ability to return colored light called dispersion (white light separated into several colors) in some lighting than the modified cushions do.

Also, that the Brilliant Cushion has all the same characteristics of a Round brilliant except for its shape (with 50-60 facets).
I have not heard of HW carrying a cushion shaped hearts and arrows stone like the Square Cushion Hearts and Arrows(SCHA) so I think that comment was probably an oversimplification of sorts.

And that the Modified Cushions (with 65-70 facets) made the ring look whiter and brighter and worked better with the pave halo and that is why HW recommends the Modified Cushion w/ the Micropave ("when asked for their opinion").

It is often the case that well cut stones with smaller and more numerous virtual facets and faster scintillation( more frequent sparkles) can appear whiter and hide body color better in some lighting. No matter what type of cushion you choose the body color of the cushion will contrast the color of the round brilliant melee(smaller diamonds) in the halo to some degree. Smaller round brilliants appear brighter and whiter than most larger diamonds even if they are graded the same body color.

The contrast between the center and the melee will be even greater when an antique "chunky" style of cut is mixed with modern round brilliants. Some people notice this and like the contrast, others don't notice the difference that much, and others still prefer to minimize contrast and choose a modern cushion which is closer to the cut of the melee diamonds(the closest would be SCHA.

I think you had a pretty good salesperson that helped to describe to you some of the nuances between different cuts, now you can take a look in person to see what your preference is.

You can see the choice between a modern and vintage faceted cushion I gave my wife here https://www.pricescope.com/communit...to-my-fiance-which-one-would-you-pick.121154/

The finished HW inspired micropave ring is posted here https://www.pricescope.com/communit...lly-let-me-post-pictures-of-her-rings.137909/

 

[decodelighted]

The finished HW inspired micropave ring is posted here https://www.pricescope.com/forum/sh...let-me-post-pictures-of-her-rings-t137909.htm

Your 2nd link doesn't work CCL. I wanted to go back & oogle again.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

The finished HW inspired micropave ring is posted here https://www.pricescope.com/forum/sh...let-me-post-pictures-of-her-rings-t137909.htm

Your 2nd link doesn't work CCL. I wanted to go back & oogle again.

I fixed it (I hope) and tested in two different browsers, IE8 and Firefox and it worked, perhaps refresh your browser?

 

[slg47]

CCL...for some reason the link to the pictures of your wife's ring is not working for me-it redirects me to the knowledge page. I would love to see the finished product!

 

[CharmyPoo]

Thank you Charmy!
I needed a good laugh.
I'm sure all the "slimy vendors" you refer to won't be insulted....and have little doubt you don't understand that insults are insulting.

Anyone keeping up with PS over the past few weeks will have knowledge that the 47th street "downstairs" retail area is perilous, at best. Therefore stones seen there should not be taken as any indication of the broad market.

Virtual inventories are also not a good indication of the broader market- as the selection process, over time, makes the percentage of lesser looking diamonds higher.

SNIP

We have a lot of people looking for the best in "crushed ice" look- so my take is that the look is very popular.

I am glad you had a good laugh - my purpose was to lighten up the mood. To be clear, I am not calling anyone here a slimy vendor but we do know that they exist in any industry. I certaintly can understand that insults are insulting - isn't that the purpose of a good insult? With that said, I think a slimy vendor will know that they are a slimy vendor - they don't trick buyers by accident and do it on purpose so I am not really sure if they will be insulted by it. Perhaps they would rather call themselves a good sales person. On the same note, I think you just about insulted all the downstairs vendors on the 47th street.

You may be correct that my limited experience is not a good indication of the availability on the broader market. I would love to hear other Trade Members chime in - would you say that there are more cushion modified brilliants out there than cushion brilliants? I still believe this is the case based on my limited experience with jewelry stores and online vendors.

Jon certainly did not make any assumptions about Cushion Modified Brilliants being desired or not desired. In fact, I tend to disagree with him in some videos where he showed examples of "beautiful" Cushion Modified Brilliants. To me, his good examples were still not my cup of tea (then again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder).

I think your diamonds are a bit different from what we are talking about here. You sell mostly colored diamonds which takes us to a completely different ball game in terms of cut - colored stones is more about retaining color of the stones. I just don't see colorless diamonds in the same way.

 

[kikidoe]

FuturePsyD, I'm probably the only non-expert here (except yourself .) I'm just telling you how I got rid of the frustrations from trying to understand all these cushion complications. A few things that seem straight forward to my limited brain capacity.
- cushion brilliant is the same cut as round brilliant (i.e., same # of facets); the only difference is the the shape (i.e., cushion vs. round)
- there are many different types of "cushion modified", some have the "crushed ice" looking and some don't
- a cushion brilliant normally looks bigger than a cushion modified given the same carat weight b/c the latter is more bottom heavy

I probably asked for "non crushed ice" looking instead of "cushion brilliant" in particular. I just checked the GIA report again, it says "Cushion Modified", but it does not have the "crushed ice" looking.

Am I confusing you?

 

[slg47]

cushion brilliant is not the same cut as round brilliant. there are cushions that exhibit optics similar to H&A round brilliants, this is the square cushion H&A sold by GOG.

in fact, cushion brilliant can refer to a number of different faceting patterns, which are outlined in this article by CCL

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/new_g ... t_diamonds

 

[kikidoe]

cushion brilliant is not the same cut as round brilliant. there are cushions that exhibit optics similar to H&A round brilliants, this is the square cushion H&A sold by GOG.

in fact, cushion brilliant can refer to a number of different faceting patterns, which are outlined in this article by CCL

https://www.pricescope.com/journal/new_g ... t_diamonds

My GIA report shows the last 2 diagrams in the top row and it's "Cushion Modified".