Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Cushion cut questions

M

Melvis

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
66
Looking at cushions... I've seen some information about ideal cuts, color, and clarity, ect... If you had to sacrifice a "c", which would it be?

Looking for .7ish size.
What would be ideal for each C?

what I've found so far as guidelines are the following:
table 61-67%
Depth 61-67%

LW should be right at 1.0-1.03

D-F possibly G

VS1 or higher

Do you agree, disagree, what would be ok to sacrifice and still get a bright stone?
 
Go lower with clarity. 0.7 carats isn't really large and going to VS2 or SI1 would usually still result in an eye clean diamond. Most people here will tell you to go down to G-H color but I don't agree as people do see color differences. If you want a D-F colored diamond, by all means stick with that.
 
Just making sure you aren't looking for cushions that don't have pictures, because numbers alone will do you no good at all. Stick with vendors who provide pictures.

I think G is a great color! F is nice if you are willing to pay the extra. I wouldn't personally pay for D-E because I would rather go for greater size esepcially when looking at stones under 1 ct. VS1 is my personal favorite, but I would consider VS2's. I generally would not pay for higher than VS1 since those are extremely clean.
 
Thanks :) I think I've found a few that seem to be fairly decent... What are your thoughts on these three? I couldn't believe I could find a .9 for under $3K.....

My hands are very petite/short so I don't have to have a large stone...but just thought I'd throw the .9 in for good comparrison..

.7
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/0.74-carat-g-color-vs2-clarity-sku-266333

.8
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/0.80-carat-g-color-vs2-clarity-sku-267347


.9
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/0.91-carat-g-color-vs2-clarity-sku-252763
 
I really am not much a fan of any of those. So you wanted a vintage look with the marquise. Do you want a vintage look for your cushion? Or you like the more modern cits? Do you like the more chaotic crushed ice look like those or do you want to be able to see a faceting pattern?
 
Melvis|1384655679|3557829 said:
what I've found so far as guidelines are the following:
table 61-67%
Depth 61-67%
Click to expand...

I disagree. I wouldn't go below 63% for depth. Table in the mid 50s or even high 40s. I wouldn't touch tables in the 60s.
 
Neil!!! Im definitely considering an oval option too.. I thought I had posted another topic about ovals but couldn't find it. I found a setting similar to the BG one that I loved..the marquis one (that was WAY over my budget lol) But instead of marquis the bench used two rounds (as I've typically found to be common practice). I looked at it with a cushion, but think an oval would fit very nicely in there as well.. I'll post a pic in a few.
 
those are extremely beautiful but way above my price point. I should have included that. oops. Right now, I think the wiser investment for me is to spend the majority of the budget on a decent diamond and then with time, consider getting a custom setting as a later anniversary gift... (ie 10 year or ect). The budget would still need to be under $3k for the diamond, more comfortably 2000-2500.

Pay no attention to the stone in the setting now. It would be perfect if the marquis sections were actual marquis like the BG ring I admire.. but I'm ok with two rounds and changing those to Tsavorites. I want the center stone to be as stark white as my budget allows so that it will pop against the tsavs. This is very very close to what I'm looking at, so just finding a stone that will compliment the vintage look.

I think an oval or cushion would complete that vintage look.

maquis_setting.jpg
 
Oh I'm glad you found a setting you like. Did they say they could def swap out the stones for you?

Are you close to buying one? If so and you like that oval I'd get it on hold so you don't loose it. I think that's well priced for a D and the size.

Also I know you didn't want a round but of you want vintage and unique this would be amazing.

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/8840/
 
Niel said:
Oh I'm glad you found a setting you like. Did they say they could def swap out the stones for you?

http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/8840/
Click to expand...

Yeah it's soo similar to the BG I liked.. and yes they are willing to change out the stone for any stone I want to put in, plus put the tsavs in. I think its the closest I can get (yet a little different and simpler but still has the design form I was looking for from what I first wanted). The round that's in there now is .25 and there's a lot of space that I think would make it look fuller with a bigger stone.

With the other settings, I was gonna have to go with a smaller budget for the stone but as it turns out, this setting is quite low and therefore gives me room for a better quality/size stone to play with :D
 
i was going to say if that round was for you g and co has a very similar setting that GOG could put it in. (id replace the three stones at the end of the mq shapes with the green ) ... but i know you didnt like rounds then maybe thats not for you.
 
yeah.. thats something that throughout this whole process that I'm fairly adamant about staying clear of rounds and princess cuts. I'm giving my bf some guidelines as to what stones (cushion or oval) would be best to look for and the four c's along with some links to oval and cushion, I've kinda made the decision on the setting... so I want him to pick the style cut he likes best. Not sure a MQ would look good with the setting.. might be a bit too elongated...
 
Well chubby marquise are cute too. So you could get one that isn't elongated and I think it would look good.

But as for your boyfriend, I think it would be a better idea just to send him this way. As "buying by the numbers " doesn't work for fancies. So if you just say color and clarity specs and ask him to go based on the report, you could still easily end up with a dud. They have to be evaluated with eyes and light performance tests.
 
good idea. Will let him know about this :)
 
That is a beautiful setting you chose - are you sure you want to change our the diamond for a tsav? I think it is cool but worried you might get bored of it later.

I have a few settings like the one you picked out. One that Steven Kirsch worked on with two marquis petals and a round followed by pave. I also have the Reminiscent by Mark Schneider (http://www.markschneiderdesign.com/engagement-rings/floral-engagement-rings/reminiscent-engagement-ring).

If you don't mind me chiming in, I actually find these designs look best with rounds followed by ovals / rounded cushions. I find they are are especially nice with Old European Cuts which you can find plenty of within your price range on ebay!

If he wants to learn about cushions, I wrote this up a while ago ..
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cushion-101-my-experience-in-making-a-harry-winston-halo.183473/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cushion-101-my-experience-in-making-a-harry-winston-halo.183473/[/URL]
 
Thank you! Yeah..I 'painted' the stones to see how the green would look and it was STUNNING. Just to clarify, the center stone will be diamond and the side stones in the marquise shape (2 melee rounds) will be changed out for the Tsavs. let me see if I can find a pic of it.

Im a may baby and always thought it would be awesome to incorporate emeralds into my wedding ring.. but finding out through here that they are not good for daily wear and most CS people recommended Tsavs as they can still be purchased as the natural stone and are more hardy for daily wear and if they are big enough..give off more sparkle/fire than emeralds. So to incorporate the green, I've decided on Tsavs (besides hardly any designer is using them right now hehehe).green_marquis_sides_.jpg
 
I agree with Charmy, for this setting rounds is the classic choice, and then ovals/cushions.
 
I love Tsav so no complaints there ... I am just not sure I would want it in a forever e-ring.

I am wondering if irradiated blue diamonds will work too .. they look like the color you painted.
 
ooo the blue would be a beautiful accent color too! I had considered the green diamonds that are colored as well but figured I'd stick with Tsavs for now. I definitely want them to be the darker variety of the Tsav and not the mint green.. that would not be worth the $ IMO to spend... I want the color to POP. lol. The marker I used was a green dry erase...so the color may not be true but hopefully will be close enough.
 
Tiny tsav are cheap. You can get a batch from ebay Thailand sellers. There are some great ones like Tan.
 
Ok so.. They've taken the round stone out and let me see it with a .75 oval. and wow.. I really liked it. WAY more than a cushion..being the oval it just has more table space and looked bigger than the square cut (ok some are saying duh lol) but Im a visual person and need to see things like this. I'll post some pictures later, but I think Im definitely going with oval. Id say I could probably get away with a .65 and not be that notably different? Lets find some great ovals!!

.65-.75

and I'll let you guys (since you have a better eye for stones that I do) find some that I can consider.

budget- $2000-$2500.. Im fairly confident there are some great stones in this price point.

I'll post a pic later today of the look with the .75 one they laid up on some prongs for me to see how it would look.
 
I like both of those. What is it that draws you to these? (trying to glean knowledge for reference ;) )

Especially the SI1.. Im surprised to see someone recommend this low. (could be my budget thats caused this?) Is SI still that decent to consider?
 
An eyeclean Si1 graded by GIA or AGS is not 'low' clarity. As long as there are no feathers that break the surface (and all you have to do is ask the gemologist about any feathers on a clarity plot), it's a great clarity. This goes for VS2 as well (eyeclean and no unsafe feathers).

Perfect safe. And to the naked eye indisguishable from an IF. Sparkle, scintillation, all of it will be the same. So why pay for more clarity than you need? No sense in it.

We recommend them all the time. Only time we don't is for step cuts, and that's only because so few of them are eyeclean at SI clarity. But for brilliant cuts like cushions, rounds, pears... no issue at all with the right Si clarity stone.

Even an SI2. Especially if you can find one with only twinning wisps that don't affect the stones performance.
 
Compare those stones to this one.

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/oval-cut/1.00-carat-f-color-vvs1-clarity-sku-246781

On paper it has all the numbers and characteristics. High color and clarity. Table and depth seem fine.

But when you actually look at it, see how there's a large black bar through the middle of the stone. Then, on either side of that bar it gets kind of grey and "mushy"

The facets don't seem to be turning on and off when it turns as much. Only in the center area ?

This isn't an oval I'd recommend because though good on paper, isn't attractive.

The reason I recommended those other ones is because they have nice table and depth, crown isn't too low, high color like you want, should be eye clean, and look to be good performers.
 
awesome, thanks for the knowledge. It does make perfect sense.

Not a very clean picture.. but heres the pic with the oval they showed me. Its a .74 i, si oval.

oval_diamond.jpg

What about florescence.. how big of a concern should that be?
 
It is just my opinion but I seriously think a round looks better in that setting. The oval looks very odd to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top