Cushion Cut advice needed....

[t2320]

Anyone have any advice on the best specs for a 1.75 - 2 carat Cushion? What would the "ideal" Depth, Table or Girdle be? I absolutely love the shape (especially when it''s more round than rectangular) and I really want us to get the best stone for the money. Is there any certain % that will reflect the light the best?

Any help would be much appreciated!

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 5/7/2007 4:33:09 PM
Author:t2320
Anyone have any advice on the best specs for a 1.75 - 2 carat Cushion? What would the 'ideal' Depth, Table or Girdle be? I absolutely love the shape (especially when it's more round than rectangular) and I really want us to get the best stone for the money. Is there any certain % that will reflect the light the best?


Any help would be much appreciated!

Nope. There are a few things to avoid, but no magic numbers...

If you are serious about a cushion search, I recommend you look at the following two threads to get a sense of what is going on, and then after you know the basics of what you are looking for (particularly the type of cushion you are interested in, to call Mark Turnowski at engagement rings direct and give him your minimum specs and your budget, and let him pull 2 or 3 stones for you to choose from. Best of luck.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/a-cushion-by-any-other-name.36001/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cushion-question-for-cehrabehra-and-others.58597/

 

[neatfreak]

Totally agree with Jeff. Cushions really really need to be seen before they're bought.

In general, I like tables in the mid 50's and depths in the mid 60's, excellent symmetry and polish. Most cushions will have a medium or thick girdle, which is fine. I would stay away from a thin girdle if you find one, but most cushions are likely to be on the thicker side just by nature. Also try to avoid a girdle that is wide ranging (i.e., thin to very thick). But that does not mean that a cushion that falls outside that range will be a dog, it could be incredible. Those are just some preferences for cushions, but again, you need to see it and love it with your own eyes.

I second the recommendation of calling Mark at ERD. My cushion is from him and he was fantastic to deal with.

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 5/7/2007 5:13:34 PM
Author: neatfreak
Totally agree with Jeff. Cushions really really need to be seen before they're bought.


In general, I like tables in the mid 50's and depths in the mid 60's, excellent symmetry and polish. Most cushions will have a medium or thick girdle, which is fine. I would stay away from a thin girdle if you find one, but most cushions are likely to be on the thicker side just by nature. Also try to avoid a girdle that is wide ranging (i.e., thin to very thick). But that does not mean that a cushion that falls outside that range will be a dog, it could be incredible. Those are just some preferences for cushions, but again, you need to see it and love it with your own eyes.


I second the recommendation of calling Mark at ERD. My cushion is from him and he was fantastic to deal with.

Good guidelines here. The only addition I would make is that unless you know that you want a modern cushion (like Neatfreak's), you will not be able to limit your search to excellent polish and symmretry because these are the only cushions that typically are EX/EX. In other types of cushions, you probably should look at stones with VG symmetry and polish. If you are looking for a harder to find cushion (like an antique style), you may need to go down to G in polish (I did, with no problem)

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 5/7/2007 5:28:35 PM
Author: boston_jeff

Date: 5/7/2007 5:13:34 PM

Author: neatfreak

Totally agree with Jeff. Cushions really really need to be seen before they''re bought.



In general, I like tables in the mid 50''s and depths in the mid 60''s, excellent symmetry and polish. Most cushions will have a medium or thick girdle, which is fine. I would stay away from a thin girdle if you find one, but most cushions are likely to be on the thicker side just by nature. Also try to avoid a girdle that is wide ranging (i.e., thin to very thick). But that does not mean that a cushion that falls outside that range will be a dog, it could be incredible. Those are just some preferences for cushions, but again, you need to see it and love it with your own eyes.



I second the recommendation of calling Mark at ERD. My cushion is from him and he was fantastic to deal with.

Good guidelines here. The only addition I would make is that unless you know that you want a modern cushion (like Neatfreak''s), you will not be able to limit your search to excellent polish and symmretry because these are the only cushions that typically are EX/EX. In other types of cushions, you probably should look at stones with VG symmetry and polish. If you are looking for a harder to find cushion (like an antique style), you may need to go down to G in polish (I did, with no problem)

Jeff makes good points as always. Can you tell that we''ve both spent wayyyyy to much time looking for our respective stones???

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 5/7/2007 5:37:00 PM
Author: neatfreak

Jeff makes good points as always. Can you tell that we''ve both spent wayyyyy to much time looking for our respective stones???

At least you have yours!!!

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 5/7/2007 6:30:25 PM
Author: boston_jeff

Date: 5/7/2007 5:37:00 PM

Author: neatfreak


Jeff makes good points as always. Can you tell that we''ve both spent wayyyyy to much time looking for our respective stones???

At least you have yours!!!

Yeah but your GF is getting a Leon!!!!

 

[t2320]

Thanks for your input - every little bit helps!

Jeff - is the pic with your profile the stone you ended up getting?? It''s beautiful - do you mind me asking the specs on it?

 

[t2320]

Also, here is the plot from the certificate -- any thoughts about the placement of the feather inclusions or about feathers in general?

We''re really struggling with this - the stone looks good in person but I''m a little hung up on it being SI2. I also like that it''s more square than rectangular.

Thanks!!

 

[neatfreak]

Looks like a modified, right?

It depends on how serious the inclusions are. Are you working with a trusted vendor? And can you return the stone if it doesn't appraise well? It's probably fine, but for ME I would have it double checked with an independent appraiser. Due to a few horror stories about inclusions on the edge, I would have it appraised.

 

[t2320]

We''re actually going through "a friend of a friend", so I''d say I trust them. We will defnitley have it appraised as well. She seems to think this is a great stone, but again, I''m a little hung up on where SI2 falls in the clarity range.

It is a modified (quite honestly, I had no idea there were so many different aspects to diamonds and certainly not within one particular cut!!).

Are feathers any better than spots?

I guess I''m just hoping someone else will say, "This looks like a fantastic stone!".

BTW - I love your setting - it''s very similiar to what I''ve been looking at.

 

[boston_jeff]

Yes, my avatar pic is my stone... although I just changed my avatar to show the finished ring...

Specs:

2.26 H/VS2 (8.23 x 7.47 x 5.01) [L/W=1.10]
Old Mine Brilliant (old-style 8-main pavillion)
Pol/Sym: G/VG
67.1% depth
53% table
slightly large culet
SB flour(!!!)
girdle: medium to thick, faceted

Here''s the cert:

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 5/8/2007 7:40:14 PM
Author: t2320
We''re actually going through ''a friend of a friend'', so I''d say I trust them. We will defnitley have it appraised as well. She seems to think this is a great stone, but again, I''m a little hung up on where SI2 falls in the clarity range.


It is a modified (quite honestly, I had no idea there were so many different aspects to diamonds and certainly not within one particular cut!!).


Are feathers any better than spots?


I guess I''m just hoping someone else will say, ''This looks like a fantastic stone!''.


BTW - I love your setting - it''s very similiar to what I''ve been looking at.

Without pictures, no one will be able to give you that assurance, especially with a stone that has not been verified as eye-clean. Cushions are just too finicky to make any conclusion based on the numbers and the cert. It is my understanding that white feathers are typically an OK type of inclusion to have if they are off the table and do not break the surface, but I could be wrong about that.

If you could get pictures of the stone (an independent appraiser can likely do this for you), I would be happy to give my non-expert opinion.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 5/8/2007 7:48:13 PM
Author: boston_jeff

Date: 5/8/2007 7:40:14 PM

Author: t2320

We''re actually going through ''a friend of a friend'', so I''d say I trust them. We will defnitley have it appraised as well. She seems to think this is a great stone, but again, I''m a little hung up on where SI2 falls in the clarity range.



It is a modified (quite honestly, I had no idea there were so many different aspects to diamonds and certainly not within one particular cut!!).



Are feathers any better than spots?



I guess I''m just hoping someone else will say, ''This looks like a fantastic stone!''.



BTW - I love your setting - it''s very similiar to what I''ve been looking at.

Without pictures, no one will be able to give you that assurance, especially with a stone that has not been verified as eye-clean. Cushions are just too finicky to make any conclusion based on the numbers and the cert. It is my understanding that white feathers are typically an OK type of inclusion to have if they are off the table and do not break the surface, but I could be wrong about that.


If you could get pictures of the stone (an independent appraiser can likely do this for you), I would be happy to give my non-expert opinion.

Jeff hit it the nail on the head. I concur!