Crushed Ice Cushions...BAD???

[FuturePsyD]

CCL: thank you for the explanation, it does clarify for me what the SA was referring to in terms of rainbow vs. white/bright.

Your wife's ER is absolutely beautiful and so very elegant. I'm sure she is over the moon with her ring! (btw, the link worked perfectly for me). Thank you so much for posting.

Several of you have mentioned that I should go based on what I prefer visually. While I do tend to appreciate both the crushed ice look and also the chunkier modern cushions, I would never be able to tell if the Modified Cushion is of a leaky/slushy variety or of the 'bright" variety. I was hoping going with a big designer house I would be able to avoid this altogether, however some have posted that it's highly possible to get a leaky/slushy Modified even from HW!

For someone with an untrained eye, is the only way to get around this to have someone with more knowledge come in and take a look at the stone/specs of the stone?

 

[decodelighted]

FuturePsyD, I'm probably the only non-expert here (except yourself .)

I certainly wouldn't call myself an expert! I've just been around here for five years and witnessed the growing demand for and endless analysis of CUSHIONS along the way. Also, I was almost won over by cushions in my hunt for an Asscher. Its been my 2nd fave cut -- though now I think I might prefer the super rainbowy OECs by a slight margin. These preferences have grown over time, from *in person* shopping ... yet *informed* by discussions and photos and videos posted here on this forum.

 

[slg47]

FuturePsyD-what I would do in your case

1) decide if you want the HW ring or a replica. If you love all aspects of the HW ring then by all means get it. Some posters on here wanted to tweak the design and have stunning pave halo rings.

2) If you want the HW ring (which I think you do), go to HW and ask to see a variety of cushions. Not all cushions brilliants will look the same, not all cushion modifieds will look the same. I would examine them closely and try to look at them in different lighting environments to see what appeals most to you. See if you can take them out of the bright jewelry store spotlighting, since you probably won't be staring at your ring in spotlighting all the time and will want to see it in diffuse lighting.

3) If you do not want the HW ring, then I would contact ERD and/or Leon/Perry to find you a cushion that you like. CCL has a great set of guidelines for finding cushions since there are so many different types of cushion cuts out there. You can post some contenders on the boards and other more experienced posters can give you their opinion (I can give you my opinion too but I am not an expert by any means). Then, you can send your cushion to designer of choice and get it set in a ring

 

[FuturePsyD]

Kikidoe:

I was told the same thing by HW this afternoon, that the Cushion Brilliant is the same as a Round Brilliant, except for the shape. Perhaps they meant similar? Few posters have said that the 2 do not have the same characteristics, so I'm not sure??

That's really interesting that Cushion Brilliants tend to look larger than Modifieds due to the cut. Do they purposely cut Modifieds to be bottom heavy or is it just the nature of that cut?

Also, I never knew that Modifieds can or can not have the crushed ice appearance. I just thought it was the nature of that particular cut to have all those tiny, bright facets that lend themselves to looking like crushed ice.

Wow, too many things to consider.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

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".

Based on the photos of your ring I would rule it out as having the same facet structure as a standard 8 main Cushion Brilliant.
If you have a carat weight and report number GIA might have a PDF report of your stone in its database I could take a look.

What is the date on your report? Prior to Nov 2009 the GIA was a little more inconsistant, I suspect the plots are incorrect(they only use as close as they can find in their database) on your report but the outline and modified description seem correct.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Also, I never knew that Modifieds can or can not have the crushed ice appearance. I just thought it was the nature of that particular cut to have all those tiny, bright facets that lend themselves to looking like crushed ice.

Theoretically it is possible to have a Modified Cushion that looks very similar to a Cushion Brilliant, GIA calls something modified if facets are symetrically added or deleted altering the Brilliant style. Adding or removing facets from the crown may not have a significant change to the size of flashes.

In the real world though 99%+ of cushions called modified (ignoring a mistake) are given this description because extra facets are added to the pavilion.

More pavilion facets > Smaller sized physical facets > smaller sized virtual facets > smaller flashes of light (crushed ice)

 

[kikidoe]

Kikidoe:

I was told the same thing by HW this afternoon, that the Cushion Brilliant is the same as a Round Brilliant, except for the shape. Perhaps they meant similar? Few posters have said that the 2 do not have the same characteristics, so I'm not sure??
Yeah, HW told me that. It's called cushion "Brilliant" b/c it has the same # of facets as round "Brilliant" cut. There's no other shape called whatever "Brilliant". With any modification that changes the # of facets, it'll be called "modified".

That's really interesting that Cushion Brilliants tend to look larger than Modifieds due to the cut. Do they purposely cut Modifieds to be bottom heavy or is it just the nature of that cut?
It's due to the nature of the modified cut. I'm sure you know round brilliant looks the largest among all different cuts. Cushion brilliant is the closest to round brilliant and hence has larger faceup than modified, everything else the same.

Also, I never knew that Modifieds can or can not have the crushed ice appearance. I just thought it was the nature of that particular cut to have all those tiny, bright facets that lend themselves to looking like crushed ice.
You really need to go see the rings by yourself. You'll know which one you like better once you see them, although it could very likely be the case that you like them all.

Wow, too many things to consider.

It also seems to me that GIA is not very consistent when naming the diamonds "modified" or not. (I'm such a wrong person to answer all these technical questions. Why am I still trying?)

 

[CharmyPoo]

The three examples of Harry Winston micropave rings on PS are of 3 different types of cushions. It serves as a good comparison of the various appearance of the different types of cushions carried by Harry Winston. Of course, these photos are taken by their respective owners and are from different lighting conditions and clarity.

Please refrain from commenting on these actual diamonds as they belong to PS members that have not solicited feedback.

I am simply sharing for education and eye candy purposes. Each ring is extremely beautiful in its own way.

 

[FuturePsyD]

CCL: Thank you for explaining. So, although uncommon, it is possible to have a Modified Cushions that does not necessarily have severe crushed ice appearance.

Kikidoe:

Thanks also for your explanation. That makes sense that the Cushion brilliant being so similar to a round brilliant would face up larger than the Modified!

I have actually been into 2 different HW stores multiple times and have tried on many Micropaves in various sizes, from 1.2 to to over 5ct (the larger ones just for fun of course) I must have THE most untrained eye ever, because honestly the stones all looked similar to me, with the exception of size of course. I was only able to compare Modifieds with Radiants, which wasn't much help b/c they both tend to have that crushed ice look to them.

I definitely will call before I go in again and make sure they have various types of Cushions in stock so that I can see the difference between Cushion Brilliant and Modified Brilliant in particular and maybe even other types of cushions they carry.

 

[kikidoe]

FuturePsyD, I'm probably the only non-expert here (except yourself .)

I certainly wouldn't call myself an expert! I've just been around here for five years and witnessed the growing demand for and endless analysis of CUSHIONS along the way. Also, I was almost won over by cushions in my hunt for an Asscher. Its been my 2nd fave cut -- though now I think I might prefer the super rainbowy OECs by a slight margin. These preferences have grown over time, from *in person* shopping ... yet *informed* by discussions and photos and videos posted here on this forum.

I do hope after 5 years I will grow more comfortable picking up a diamond on my own instead of relying on somebody else. Asscher is my second fav. It's probably too early for me to think about upgrade, but I'm actually thinking of getting an Asscher (hopefully 5+ ct) as my upgrade ring in 5 years.

 

[decodelighted]

Love the EYE CANDY!!!

 

[FuturePsyD]

Charmypoo:

WOW thank you SO much for posting those side by side comparisons. This was BEYOND helpful to see ALL 3 of these lovely rings next to each other. Prior to seeing them side by side, I had felt that each lucky owner had the exact same stone! How enlightening!

I really had not done my homework well, thanks again!

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI All,
There are many Cushion Modified Brilliant stones that face up larger than Cushion Brilliant Stones- I'd say a "Modified" ( Nice crushed ice variety) is just as likely to be a "spreadier" stone- that is to say, looking large for it's weight.

There are some varieties of modified that are HUGE for their weight- because they are cut very shallow.
This is an area where many stones could conceivably be called "badly cut"- yet might still be desirable based on visual characteristics ( a 3.00 that looks like a five carat, for example)

 

[CharmyPoo]

There is a reason why many of us will not recommend a shallow diamond cut for spread (regardless if it is a cushion brilliant or modified brilliant). I understand some people want to maximize size but in my right mind .. I simply cannot recommend a diamond cut like a pancake and looks like a chunk of glass. Anyways, my opinions are a bit strong in this arena specifically referring to the Daussi Cushion which is cut for spread.

Judge for yourself: http://www.vimeo.com/13234387

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI Charmy, Interesting- was there someplace I missed that any of the stones in the video were identified as being cut by Daussi?

Do you know why Daussi cuts stones in the style they do?
A lot of it has to do with the type of rough diamonds they buy. Not all rough diamonds have the depth for a high crown- yet this rough can still be used to make really nice diamonds.
The more shallow diamonds are used to make heart shapes, trilliants, pear shape, oval marquise, horse head. It's called "Makel"
One stone, cut from more desirable "octahedron" rough with better "optics" that looks 30 smaller than another stone with lesser optics.
However I suggest a more accurate statement would be "different" optics.

 

[CharmyPoo]

David - I think it is a good idea to make best use of the rough by cutting it into a shallow diamond or fancy figurines. I actually would love a star shaped diamond for my desk as a paper weight but I won't be able to afford that for a while. It might sound like I am joking here but I am actually serious.

It is not mentioned in the video that they are Daussi diamond but I am 100% sure they are based on what I have seen to date.
ETA: I am fairly certain that you are also able to recognize this branded cut.

 

[Rockdiamond]

The thing about Daussi is that they don't exactly follow a mold all the time. I'm not saying they are not Daussi- but by no means would I say for sure they are.
Daussi also get some deeper rough- as I've seen stones of widely varying depth in their inventory. Deep, moderate, as well as shallow. I would agree that a higher percentage of Daussi cushions are shallow.
There are also other cutters producing similar enough cushions that it really is not possible to say with surety that they are Daussi.
If Jon says they are, then they are.


I like the video- but Jon and I have different video styles- and I think each of us adapted the camera to illuminate the aspects we find important.
I like the light going through the diamond- as opposed to in a tray.

 

[sillyberry]

Also, I never knew that Modifieds can or can not have the crushed ice appearance. I just thought it was the nature of that particular cut to have all those tiny, bright facets that lend themselves to looking like crushed ice.

Theoretically it is possible to have a Modified Cushion that looks very similar to a Cushion Brilliant, GIA calls something modified if facets are symetrically added or deleted altering the Brilliant style. Adding or removing facets from the crown may not have a significant change to the size of flashes.

In the real world though 99%+ of cushions called modified (ignoring a mistake) are given this description because extra facets are added to the pavilion.

More pavilion facets > Smaller sized physical facets > smaller sized virtual facets > smaller flashes of light (crushed ice)

Oh, always so informative! Is the first diamond plot under cushion modified brilliants on the NEW GIA AND AGSL NAMING CONVENTIONS FOR CUSHION CUT DIAMONDS the one that is similar to a cushion brilliant? Or is that specific faceting structure just another crapshoot?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

..

 

[Rockdiamond]

CCL- curious as to why you removed your post...
CCL had written another of his scathing posts criticizing my method of lighting for photos and video.
I mentioned before that I like the light going through the diamond in photos, and video.
The reason is that is the manner in which you would grade a diamond. As a grader for over 30 years, I love how a diamond looks when it's held up under a light.
Both methods- placing in a tray, or holding in a tweezer to allow the light to pass through are compromises.
Once the diamond is set into a ring, it might look closer to either method, depending on how it's set.

Just to reiterate a point made yesterday- there is no truth whatsoever in the statement that Cushion Brilliant faces up larger than Cushion Modified Brilliant.

Charmy- I'll consider that an order and start looking for that special Mackel to cut into a star for your paperweight

 

[kikidoe]

RockDiamond, how big is the diamond in your avatar? Where can I find one like that?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Oh, always so informative! Is the first diamond plot under cushion modified brilliants on the NEW GIA AND AGSL NAMING CONVENTIONS FOR CUSHION CUT DIAMONDS the one that is similar to a cushion brilliant? Or is that specific faceting structure just another crapshoot?

No thats not what I meant. Here is the plots of what I was talking about, I went over in red where the split star facets are are to indicate where this diamond is modified from the brilliant style crown.



A real world example would be this, between the original square cushion hearts and arrows and a newer variant.
Other than the different lighting and colors I see only small differences between them.



That is why trade members are careful not to dismiss all cushion modified brilliants as there are some great present and future designs that are modified to achieve a particularly unique optical signature.

Both of these are proprietary branded designs, not the generic stones sold at most retail stores like what is found at HW.
Not all generics are the same, the cut quality varies dramatically even from those cut at the same factory. That is the reason why brands such as these with very precise optical standards and signatures command a premium.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, when dealing with generic stones and some less consistent brands, Rhino's more extensive experience matches my own. 99%+ majority of stones with a grading report Cushion Modified Brilliant(CMB) have a "crushed ice" appearance and most of these have the undesirable watery appearance like a poorly cut radiant. The most common CMBs have one of these two general facet designs.



These are usually cut to save weight not with light performance in mind. Not cutting the pavilion mains from the culet(centre) all the way to the girdle(edge) allows significant retention of weight. An example of this is the facet design which resembles a radiant style pavilion on the right of the image above.

From my own experience HW has a good number of better than average generics in fancy shapes. In larger sizes they may have an excellent selection as compared to elsewhere. However their stones they are still not cut with a precise optical signature in mind not to the the standard of the brands posted above.

 

[Rhino]

CCL- curious as to why you removed your post...
CCL had written another of his scathing posts criticizing my method of lighting for photos and video.

I'm not here to defend CCL (he can do that himself) and quite honestly I have not studied your photography but I've read you are backlighting. This can alter the appearance of a diamond in such a way that it may not represent how it appears in normal viewing. I've never done or tried this personally so I don't know but I have shot a clip yesterday on this very subject showing both watery and bright crushed ice optics within 2 different shapes and in 3 different lightings with both pavilions covered and pavilions exposed. I'll be interested to hear your input after watching.

I mentioned before that I like the light going through the diamond in photos, and video.
The reason is that is the manner in which you would grade a diamond. As a grader for over 30 years, I love how a diamond looks when it's held up under a light.
Both methods- placing in a tray, or holding in a tweezer to allow the light to pass through are compromises.
Once the diamond is set into a ring, it might look closer to either method, depending on how it's set.

I've been grading for quite some time too. When is backlighting used to grade? Certainly not in color grading and also not in clarity grading. In clarity grading you do have darkfield illumination where you have controlled lighting illuminating the pavilion but the baffle directly underneath the diamond is covered. Even so, looking at a diamond for purposes of grading does not reflect how that diamond appears in real life in practical observation. Would you agree?

Just to reiterate a point made yesterday- there is no truth whatsoever in the statement that Cushion Brilliant faces up larger than Cushion Modified Brilliant.

I'd agree too. There are cushion modifieds that face up larger and cushion brilliants that face up smaller. Whoever told a consumer contrary is not very familiar with cushions. Also, to tell people that cushion brilliants look like or have the optics of rounds is another misnomer. The grand majority of cushions on the market look nothing like a round. There is only 1 cushion that mimics the optics of a round (ideal round) which is the Square Cushion H&A.

All the best,

 

[Imdanny]

Why so judgmental? What did crushed ice cushions ever do to you?

 

[kenny]

Backlighting makes leaky diamonds (crushed-ice or not) look better in pics.
It plugs the leaks.

Buyer beware.

 

[clgwli]

Backlighting makes leaky diamonds (crushed-ice or not) look better in pics.
It plugs the leaks.

Buyer beware.

You realize that light is entering the pavilion in your avatar photo right? Back lighting and allowing light to enter the pavilion are not the same. Unless you cup a diamond light will enter from the pavilion. Not directly but it will. So really buyer beware?

ETA: I realize I do have a non-cupped diamond where when worn, there is pretty much no light entering the pavilion. It is from 1925 and one of those more dome style rings where the diamond is set very low into the setting. There is some filigree work so very very little light can enter the side of the ring, but not a whole lot. Every other setting I personally own allows for light to enter the pavilion while being worn. I just wanted to add that knowing there are some settings that are not cups that do not really allow light to enter the side of the stone. And I know some settings allow more light to enter than others.

 

[clgwli]

I admit I have been reading this thread with interest. There are some types of "crushed ice" that I am not a fan of and other types I am. I don't like the really watery look in the tip of a pear or marquise, but on your nicely cut marquise and pear stones I consider that nice "crushed ice"

Oddly enough I like the nice crushed ice look as well as the very bold flashes. I really don't like much in between. In fact I cannot stand seeing patterns unless they are very large (like emerald cut as well as asschers) I dislike large rounds and most princess cuts where you can see a defined "X" for that very reason.

I think that look is a total preference thing and I would be very wary to put down anyone who does like that look. Maybe I am a bit defensive since I do have a what I find a lovely lemon crushed ice stone. I looked at all types of stones out there before I decided. And yes, I looked at AGS0 rounds as well as some other "ideal" cut stones. They aren't for me. Doesn't mean they are bad. In fact I am shocked that I don't like most stones that have "optimal optics" My eye doesn't find them pleasing. I prefer a nice crushed ice stone, a vintage round or cushion, asschers and some emeralds. Everything else is just kind of "eh" to me. Not that they are bad, I just don't think they fit me and my style.

I would suggest to anyone to look around at all types of videos and see what your eye finds pleasing. If you like "ideal cuts" by all means use numbers. If you don't, like me, the eye is worth a whole lot more.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

CCL- curious as to why you removed your post...
CCL had written another of his scathing posts criticizing my method of lighting for photos and video.

David (Rockdiamond) I just find your posts comical these days and I rarely reply to you anymore, despite your constant attempts at provocation to draw me into arguments. In this thread you are so over the top I had to reply with a "joke" of my own.

I like the light going through the diamond- as opposed to in a tray.

Of course you do RD, just like other jewelers like you on 47th with their strong spot lighting. You can make frozen spit look good in that lighting and its no way to critically evaluate a diamond's beauty.

I have an idea, I'll buy up all the macles and flats and just facet them freeform(imagine the yield ) and then you can sell them as just as beautiful as any other diamond and at the same price per carat. After all you keep saying how diamonds of all proportions can be beautiful to your eyes and to others.

We'll do great business together, we'll make a killing as you are already mainstream and super high volume
Plus you can feel ethically secure in knowing that you are creating and selling the biggest most beautiful stone possible from odd proportioned rough. I know you will do the honorable thing and send every stone to GIA so we can be sure of color and clarity I'll start writing up the business plan right now.

I am sure by now even lurkers and non posters notice the striking contrast between your vague, disorganized and incoherent posts and the well supported arguments Rhino is making backed up by video and images.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Backlighting makes leaky diamonds (crushed-ice or not) look better in pics.
It plugs the leaks.

Buyer beware.

You realize that light is entering the pavilion in your avatar photo right? Back lighting and allowing light to enter the pavilion are not the same. Unless you cup a diamond light will enter from the pavilion. Not directly but it will. So really buyer beware?

ETA: I realize I do have a non-cupped diamond where when worn, there is pretty much no light entering the pavilion. It is from 1925 and one of those more dome style rings where the diamond is set very low into the setting. There is some filigree work so very very little light can enter the side of the ring, but not a whole lot. Every other setting I personally own allows for light to enter the pavilion while being worn. I just wanted to add that knowing there are some settings that are not cups that do not really allow light to enter the side of the stone. And I know some settings allow more light to enter than others.

Excellent point, in a recent thread we were discussing a reset for a a damaged Daussi cushion ring. Cehrahberah suggested that the pavilion remain exposed as possible as it was in the original setting. Shallow cut diamonds often gather light from lower angles, an open basket setting really helps them return more light to the viewer and look brighter. With an exposed girdle and pavilion, light can enter from many different angles and this helps offset their less than optimal ability to return the most intense and common overhead light.

As my wife owns a HW inspired Micropave ring with a modern faceted 8 main cushion brilliant, I can say with confidence that despite a moderately exposed setting, with most viewing angles very little light can enter from the pavilion and the girdle is completely covered. The light entering from these lower angles has a negligible effect on the faceup brightness of her stone.

 

[kenny]

Backlighting makes leaky diamonds (crushed-ice or not) look better in pics.
It plugs the leaks.

Buyer beware.

You realize that light is entering the pavilion in your avatar photo right? Back lighting and allowing light to enter the pavilion are not the same. Unless you cup a diamond light will enter from the pavilion. Not directly but it will. So really buyer beware?

ETA: I realize I do have a non-cupped diamond where when worn, there is pretty much no light entering the pavilion. It is from 1925 and one of those more dome style rings where the diamond is set very low into the setting. There is some filigree work so very very little light can enter the side of the ring, but not a whole lot. Every other setting I personally own allows for light to enter the pavilion while being worn. I just wanted to add that knowing there are some settings that are not cups that do not really allow light to enter the side of the stone. And I know some settings allow more light to enter than others.

Yes of course you are right about that.
But diffuse reflected light is different.
It is insignificant because it is much lower in strength and comes from a much wider angle compared to the direct light source itself.
This makes a huge difference, just like the difference between direct sun and a cloudy sky.

A large diffuse low-level light, such as that reflected by a non-reflective surface behind a diamond, does not cause the unrealistic, dazzling, nuclear explosion of light in the pics at www.diamondsbylauren.com as in the sample below.

These diamonds look so impressive not because they are better than those from other vendors, they look impressive because a light source was intentionally placed below the girdle off to the side, shining directly into the pavilion.
That gives a totally different look than the lighting in my avatar.

Look at the tweezer in the lower right corner.
The front of it is dark black but the side is super bright.
This shows where that particular bright light is originating from.

IMHO, this lighting technique would be fine if it was an artistic decision by a private photographer who was not selling diamonds.
But for a vendor selling online (and let's face it buyers unfortunately DO base their decisions largely on pics) I believe this is deceptive.

Those diamonds look better and more lively than any other diamonds by any other vendor I've seen, at least before you look closely and understand what was going on.

Backlighting makes leaky diamonds look better by plugging the leaks.
Because he uses backlighting it makes me worry whether this vendor has a lot of leaky diamonds.
It is ironic, but I think he is shooting himself in the foot.

This is not personal, an insult or an attack; it is my personal opinion based on what I see and think - and frankly I'd see this consumer feedback as helpful.