Cushion halo setting... now to find the cushion!

[emeraldlover1]

Date: 10/21/2009 1:38:25 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 10/21/2009 7:47:06 AM
Author: supercheeks
rhino
i am saying that there's stones out there plain and simple- some are dogs and some are beautiful- and that other vendors have acccess to OMB's etc- what u are cutting is lovely but if someone does not want to wait, there's stones out there to be bought that could potentially just as nice ......

why are vendors allowed to comment on forums ? shouldn't there be a little 'church and state here' since it seems that you had a possible biz transaction with 2nd time? don't get that....

Supercheeks,

The stones referred to here are not Old Mine Brilliants. This is a mistake GIA makes on the certificates and plots and is misleading, they simply assign these terms based on the table % which is incorrect. For an explanation with pictures look at the bottom of my first thread on pricescope here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/old-mine-brilliant-versus-cushion-brilliant-gotta-have-the-maltese-cross.118358/.

There are 8 main Cushion Brilliant stones with Antique Chunky Facets and a large culet and there are Old Mine Cuts, but most modern cut stones and new inventory fall into one of these two categories despite the GIA label and plot which says Old Mine Brilliant and is arbitrarily assiged based on the Table %.

I refrained from commenting on your posts before in this thread because it does appear the OP cannot wait and his spec range is not available in a GOG signature cushion and there may be a long waiting time for one to be available.

I do suggest though to avoid further misleading posts that you read my thread this was my first one on Pricescope https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/old-mine-brilliant-versus-cushion-brilliant-gotta-have-the-maltese-cross.118358/. There are many posts from experience Pricescopers contained within and I have provided a side by side ASET comparison of a stone sourced by Mark and a GOG signature cushion.

There is no comparison between the best that Mark at ERD can offer in 8 main cushion brilliants and the GOG signature OMC line. If a customer is looking for the best and brightest maltese cross under the table with no obstruction than GOG is the only place to find these stones. Even the top choice in this thread although a beautiful bright antique cushion brilliant it is clear from the pictures that there is some obstruction and darkness in the 4 mains (3,6,9,12).

I am very impressed with Mark at ERD he is a wonderful vendor, and he has taught me a great deal about what I know about cushions(we also bought all of our rings from him) see this thread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-shocking-final-diamond-choice-i-gave-to-my-fiance-which-one-would-you-pick.121154/ on my side by side lineup,
however as of yet he has not spent the time and resources to optimize the light return in these OMC stones. ERD has a wider range of stones (more variety in the 4Cs especially higher colors) available as he works regularly with a vendor that cuts them but they have not taken the sames risks as GOG to develop the line and use stringent light performance measures to reject stones that don't meet Rhino's stringent cut criteria.

I spoke to a dozen or so vendors and cutters and none of them wanted to offer the same assurance that I would get a stone with the same cut consistency, that and the price and risk just made it impractical to go anywherelse but GOG if you 'Gotta have that bold maltese cross!'

In addition Rhino is allowed to comment in threads when posts are made with inaccurate information. I feel that comparing any other non branded OMC to his signature line is quite inaccurate and misleading and warrants his comments. I only wish I had made this post earlier and he did not even have to respond here as it sounds much better coming from an unbiased consumer.
Mark at ERD and Jon(Rhino) at GOG were my greatest source of information on Cushion Cuts and I am eternally greatful to both for their long discussions with me even though neither made a great profit(if any) from my purchases.

Sincerely,
CCL

CCL: I wasn't going to respond however, I'm confused. Are you saying that you are unbiased? I've read quite a few of your threads and I'm surprised that you think your suggestions are unbiased. Personally I think they are opinions based on your personal experience. While that is valid information and helpful in my opinion is biased.

While it is great that you had an amazing experience, as did I with Mark, its frustrating to read the posts with questions from forum members about cushions and halo settings (more so about the settings) where you consistently think that what ERD can produce is what the consumer wants and needs. Maybe you don't intend it this way but its the way it has come across to me. The only reason that I am typing this is because I think that one of the purposes of this forum is to help consumers understand diamonds and settings and help them get what they want, not what CCL thinks is the best and wants them to get. Unfortunatley that is the way it comes across sometimes.

Did you post your finished ring anywhere? I was looking for it as I saw your post in BWW but I didn't see your ring posted anywhere. Congrats on getting engaged.

Sorry to the OP for the threadjack. I'm glad that you found a stone.

 

[supercheeks]

i never commented on mark''s settings EVER- that wasn''t me- i dont have experience with that

i am going on experience in my comments that i SAW IN PERSON 2ndtime''s stone- so i can be biased as i want to be- it is beautiful- if i didn''t see it person, it dosent warranat a comment....

let''s drop this - it''s getting ridiculous

and my ring isnt made yet and i have been married for three years

 

[emeraldlover1]

Date: 10/21/2009 2:56:16 PM
Author: supercheeks
i never commented on mark's settings EVER- that wasn't me- i dont have experience with that

i am going on experience in my comments that i SAW IN PERSON 2ndtime's stone- so i can be biased as i want to be- it is beautiful- if i didn't see it person, it dosent warranat a comment....

let's drop this - it's getting ridiculous

and my ring isnt made yet and i have been married for three years

Sorry for the confusion. I wasn't responding to your post, I was responding to CCL's.

 

[supercheeks]

thanks emerald- i was wondering what i did ?!?! ... sorry for the confusion

 

[CharmyPoo]

Date: 10/15/2009 4:51:58 PM
Author: supercheeks
mark's stones are just as nice as GOG's- mark has been sourcing these stones for YEARS and is an expert on them - so dont feel like you are missing out on something at GOG- truth is, it's hard to find nice ones- i went to all the vendors here to find an omc or chunky cushion and found like 2 stones that were not so hot- mark had the best selection and it was immediate gratification

Supercheeks - I started writing this post several times but decided to delete it. However, I just feel the need to reply with the continuation of this thread. I have no doubt that you are trying to help the OP but your posts are very suspect - it seems like you are either a vendor or trying to convince yourself that you made the best choice with your chosen vendor.

I have a stone from Mark and a stone from Jon - both are cushions. I have no question that both are excellent vendors and will go to either of them again. However, they are two different vendors who offers different products and have different business practices and policies. Both have their own strengths as well as their own weaknesses. I spent a year shopping for my current cushion and I have been to many of the vendors mentioned here (and all the ones in this thread) on top of many others non-PS vendors. I have not seen a single OMC that compares to what GOG has to offer and trust me I saw a lot and I am really darn picky. Now, this doesn't mean that the others aren't beautiful - I have seen gorgeous stones from Mark too including the one I have from him.

My problem is that you seem to be pushing the OP in believing that he has no other options beyond ERD. I have helped another member here take photos of his diamond at ERD and give him my feedback - he ultimately made the purchase but never once did I push him to that decision. It isn't our job to push people to specific vendors but simply help them make educated decisions. If you have never dealt with Jon and GOG, you really aren't in the position to judge his services or his stones. GOG isn't a long wait and ERD is not always immediate gratification. In fact, my wait with GOG was significantly shorter than waiting for the right stone to turn up through the online inventory and this is after turning down a stone that wasn't a perfect 1.0 ratio and waiting for a second stone to be recut.

Net of it all - both are great vendors but please reserve pressuring consumers when you don't have the full story.

 

[supercheeks]

charmy poo
i am far from a vendor and really don"t spend the "suspect" amount of time on this site that you and CCL do....

it seems you work for GOG when you say he has the best product in the market, something i never said about ERD....so it seems you are "suspect", not me- i said both vendors offer lovely stones

I don''t have to convince 2ndtime what to buy-he is a grown man and i don"t have his checkbook- he makes his own decisions-and i love the stone i bought and quite frankly, I am capable of knowing what i like and don''t like and don''t need verification from a faceless forum....start attacking Emerald now since she had issues with CCL''s post- hit everyone on the thread that gave the thumbs up to the ERD stone while you have the rest the night to patrol the forums...


I think everyone here needs to move on and get a life other than 8 pavillion cushions, cushion modified brilliants and OMBs- there''s a heck of alot to be concerned about than this minutia, quite frankly....

This is silly and like junior high school....you would think we are curing cancer here....in the scheme of life we are talking about DIAMONDS...hello?!?!?

 

[CharmyPoo]

Date: 10/21/2009 8:57:41 PM
Author: supercheeks
charmy poo
i am far from a vendor and really don''t spend the ''suspect'' amount of time on this site that you and CCL do....

it seems you work for GOG when you say he has the best product in the market, something i never said about ERD....so it seems you are ''suspect'', not me- i said both vendors offer lovely stones

I don''t have to convince 2ndtime what to buy-he is a grown man and i don''t have his checkbook- he makes his own decisions-and i love the stone i bought and quite frankly, I am capable of knowing what i like and don''t like and don''t need verification from a faceless forum....start attacking Emerald now since she had issues with CCL''s post- hit everyone on the thread that gave the thumbs up to the ERD stone while you have the rest the night to patrol the forums...


I think everyone here needs to move on and get a life other than 8 pavillion cushions, cushion modified brilliants and OMBs- there''s a heck of alot to be concerned about than this minutia, quite frankly....

This is silly and like junior high school....you would think we are curing cancer here....in the scheme of life we are talking about DIAMONDS...hello?!?!?

I am surprised that you find my posts suspect - I have many posts where I speak highly about ERD and my experiences with them. I adore Mark and think he is a wonderful man. I also believe they have the best prices around. However, I stand by what I said that I have not seen another OMC cut to perform as well as the GOG cushions I have seen.

I deem your posts as suspect since out of your 4 pages of posts - the majority of them compared GOG with ERD and praised ERD over GOG. Now, if you have experience with both vendors to lead you to believe what you do - that is fine. It is one thing to praise one vendor and another to compare with bias between two specific vendors over and over again.

Yes - there sure is a lot more to life than cushion diamonds. Frankly, I am not sure why you are so obsessed with the ERD Cushion threads.

 

[2ndTime]

Nobody is pushing me to do anything. I asked her if she would visually inspect the stone, and she did. She reported back and gave me her honest impression. That was helpful and I appreciated having a pair of eyes in New York.

Both businesses have stones. GOG definitely has a much better online presentation (x-rays, ASETS, videos, etc) than ERD, but there are waiting lists and unknown lead times involved. Both businesses have stones that make women happy. Had GOG showed me a stone that was currently available in the size I wanted at the right price, I probably would have went that direction instead. They couldn't do that so I went with ERD.

Bottom line - I know a woman that is going to be thrilled and very happy and that's what matters.

 

[pixley]

The stone you chose looks magnificent! Can''t wait to see it set!

 

[supercheeks]

Thanks 2ndtime- was only trying to help, as you know
It''s a shame that this thread had to take this turn....enjoy your future engagement and dare i say, gorgeous CUSHION BRILLIANT
I am sure it will be stunning (oops, let me qualify that statement being by saying it''s solely my UNBIASED opinion)

Best of luck to you

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 10/21/2009 2:44:18 PM
Author: supercheeks
yes- it''s the second one i bought from him

here it is...

2.6 ct OMB
and i know the one 1.7 is a cushion brilliant, not an omb. ..and nice ones are hard to find

all i am trying to say is that there''s plenty of BEAUTIFUL stones out there- i live in nyc and travel alot for work on the west coast and through europe and have hit every jewelry store from here to Timbuktu..


go to stephan russell, fred leighton, leviev (they have their own cutters), William goldberg ,neil lane, martin katz, etc etc and they have beautiful OMB and antique cushion diamond rings NOT sourced through GOG- all i am saying is that nice stones exist out there...trust me....have you been to any of the above stores or cutters?

I think you have already corrected yourself in your last post but this is not picture of an OMB.
The crown facets sorrouding the table are large and kite shaped like in a Cushion Brilliant or Old Mine Cut. In addition the pavillion mains have 4 minor (1,5,7,11) and 4 major (3,6,9,12) sizes once again not consistent with an Old Mine Brilliant.

 

[supercheeks]

This is truly getting laughable...

would you like me to scan in the GIA report?!? i mean, really now......

this is getting beyond bizarre....you are telling me my GIA report is incorrect?

sheesh.....

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/22/2009 8:15:48 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 10/21/2009 2:44:18 PM
Author: supercheeks
yes- it''s the second one i bought from him

here it is...

2.6 ct OMB
and i know the one 1.7 is a cushion brilliant, not an omb. ..and nice ones are hard to find

all i am trying to say is that there''s plenty of BEAUTIFUL stones out there- i live in nyc and travel alot for work on the west coast and through europe and have hit every jewelry store from here to Timbuktu..


go to stephan russell, fred leighton, leviev (they have their own cutters), William goldberg ,neil lane, martin katz, etc etc and they have beautiful OMB and antique cushion diamond rings NOT sourced through GOG- all i am saying is that nice stones exist out there...trust me....have you been to any of the above stores or cutters?

I think you have already corrected yourself in your last post but this is not picture of an OMB.
The crown facets sorrouding the table are large and kite shaped like in a Cushion Brilliant or Old Mine Cut. In addition the pavillion mains have 4 minor (1,5,7,11) and 4 major (3,6,9,12) sizes once again not consistent with an Old Mine Brilliant.

Old-Mine Cut...., what is this creature....?
CCL..., I keep noticing you are stuck on a specific facet design which according to you should fit (and earn) the OMB name...

Can you please clarify your statements on the issue?

What is (in your opinion) a true OMC or OMB?

 

[supercheeks]

Thanks DIagem- i would love to know too

would love your expert opinion - i love the stone no matter what the cert says even though it does say OMB-

 

[Rhino]

I believe what CCL is saying, is he is using terminology often used on this very forum and relating it to cuts he is seeing/has seen.

On this forum OMC is often associated with "old mine cushion" while OMB with "old mine brilliant" (round). Folks on the forum may use these abbreviations to easily designate the difference between the 2 shapes, in the old style facet design.

The fact of the matter is cushions can be labeled "old mine brilliants" when they are not in fact round and do take on the facet structure of the vintage design. I think that''s what he means but he will clarify.

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/23/2009 9:05:46 AM
Author: Rhino
I believe what CCL is saying, is he is using terminology often used on this very forum and relating it to cuts he is seeing/has seen.

On this forum OMC is often associated with 'old mine cushion' while OMB with 'old mine brilliant' (round). Folks on the forum may use these abbreviations to easily designate the difference between the 2 shapes, in the old style facet design.

The fact of the matter is cushions can be labeled 'old mine brilliants' when they are not in fact round and do take on the facet structure of the vintage design. I think that's what he means but he will clarify.

I am confused..., why would OMB's be associated with rounds? They never were....

Please dont tell me its because of the word "brilliant"

*OMC's are NOT Old-Mine Cushions..., its the abbreviation for Old-Mine "Cuts".

*OEC's are older style cuts that were cut to a true round outline... (when the bruting machine was invented between 1860 & 1871) I believe Al Gilbertson covered this point in his book and you can read more at: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/american-cut-the-first-100-years-by-al-gilbertson-g-g.71573/

*Old-Mine Cushions are called when the outline is Cushion.

*Old-Mine Cuts were originally cut to a huge varieties of shapes that came with the natural rough Diamond outlines...
Naturally due to the 58 facet 'brilliant' cutting style (8 mains, either 4 mains & 4 corners or simply 8 mains) many naturally became cushion shapes..., but there are A LOT of other shapes which are academically identified as Old-Mine Cuts.


ETA: Old-Mine Cuts mean exactly as the words are read..., Old..., Mine...., CUTS

.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 10/23/2009 2:59:38 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/22/2009 8:15:48 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 10/21/2009 2:44:18 PM
Author: supercheeks
yes- it's the second one i bought from him

here it is...

2.6 ct OMB
and i know the one 1.7 is a cushion brilliant, not an omb. ..and nice ones are hard to find

all i am trying to say is that there's plenty of BEAUTIFUL stones out there- i live in nyc and travel alot for work on the west coast and through europe and have hit every jewelry store from here to Timbuktu..


go to stephan russell, fred leighton, leviev (they have their own cutters), William goldberg ,neil lane, martin katz, etc etc and they have beautiful OMB and antique cushion diamond rings NOT sourced through GOG- all i am saying is that nice stones exist out there...trust me....have you been to any of the above stores or cutters?

I think you have already corrected yourself in your last post but this is not picture of an OMB.
The crown facets sorrouding the table are large and kite shaped like in a Cushion Brilliant or Old Mine Cut. In addition the pavillion mains have 4 minor (1,5,7,11) and 4 major (3,6,9,12) sizes once again not consistent with an Old Mine Brilliant.

Old-Mine Cut...., what is this creature....?
CCL..., I keep noticing you are stuck on a specific facet design which according to you should fit (and earn) the OMB name...

Can you please clarify your statements on the issue?

What is (in your opinion) a true OMC or OMB?

Diagem,

I would be greatful if you could add any specific details or add anything I may have missed or misunderstood and clarify your opinion on this matter.

For me OMC = Old Mine Cut and OMB = Old Mine Brilliant

An old mine brilliant is basicly like a modern brilliant only in different proportions. Normally it has a culet and smaller table than a modern round brilliant. An example of a stone that could be called one is here http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6452/. (Although many would call this an Old European Cut(OEC) as well)

The outline shape for an OMB could be round, or slightly off so the dominant criteria I was looking for to distinguish the two was that the OMB should have relatively even sizes of the pavillion mains like in a round, Unlike the OMC which has 4 smaller and 4 larger pavillion main facets.

The plots of the pavillion main facet structure for both OMB and OMC that I am basing this on are posted below
Further to this I was also told that GIA labels stones as Old Mine Brilliant based on a Table % and thus the GOG signature cushions are called OMBs by GIA as they have tables of
Regards,
CCL

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/23/2009 10:56:40 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 10/23/2009 2:59:38 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/22/2009 8:15:48 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 10/21/2009 2:44:18 PM
Author: supercheeks
yes- it''s the second one i bought from him

here it is...

2.6 ct OMB
and i know the one 1.7 is a cushion brilliant, not an omb. ..and nice ones are hard to find

all i am trying to say is that there''s plenty of BEAUTIFUL stones out there- i live in nyc and travel alot for work on the west coast and through europe and have hit every jewelry store from here to Timbuktu..


go to stephan russell, fred leighton, leviev (they have their own cutters), William goldberg ,neil lane, martin katz, etc etc and they have beautiful OMB and antique cushion diamond rings NOT sourced through GOG- all i am saying is that nice stones exist out there...trust me....have you been to any of the above stores or cutters?

I think you have already corrected yourself in your last post but this is not picture of an OMB.
The crown facets sorrouding the table are large and kite shaped like in a Cushion Brilliant or Old Mine Cut. In addition the pavillion mains have 4 minor (1,5,7,11) and 4 major (3,6,9,12) sizes once again not consistent with an Old Mine Brilliant.

Old-Mine Cut...., what is this creature....?
CCL..., I keep noticing you are stuck on a specific facet design which according to you should fit (and earn) the OMB name...

Can you please clarify your statements on the issue?

What is (in your opinion) a true OMC or OMB?

Diagem,

I would be greatful if you could add any specific details or add anything I may have missed or misunderstood and clarify your opinion on this matter.

For me OMC = Old Mine Cut and OMB = Old Mine Brilliant

An old mine brilliant is basicly like a modern brilliant only in different proportions. Normally it has a culet and smaller table than a modern round brilliant. An example of a stone that could be called one is here http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6452/. (Although many would call this an Old European Cut(OEC) as well)

The outline shape for an OMB could be round, or slightly off so the dominant criteria I was looking for to distinguish the two was that the OMB should have relatively even sizes of the pavillion mains like in a round, Unlike the OMC which has 4 smaller and 4 larger pavillion main facets.

The plots of the pavillion main facet structure for both OMB and OMC that I am basing this on are posted below
Further to this I was also told that GIA labels stones as Old Mine Brilliant based on a Table % and thus the GOG signature cushions are called OMBs by GIA as they have tables of <55% and thus are not classified as cushion brilliants. The facet plot they assign to the GOG stones is incorrect both in the crown and the pavillion.

Regards,
CCL

CCL..., you cant base this solely on two sketches..., its wrong to even try!
GIA doesnt use scanned sketches to describe their descriptions ..., dont understand and agree with their sketch representations.
Basicaly most of their skeches describing fancy cuts are errored

.

My best & simple answer to you is exactly what I wrote in the post before yours...

"*OMC''s are NOT Old-Mine Cushions..., its the abbreviation for Old-Mine "Cuts".

*OEC''s are older style cuts that were cut to a true round outline... (when the bruting machine was invented between 1860 & 1871) I believe Al Gilbertson covered this point in his book and you can read more at: [/url]

*Old-Mine Cushions are called when the outline is Cushion.

*Old-Mine Cuts were originally cut to a huge varieties of shapes that came with the natural rough Diamond outlines...
Naturally due to the 58 facet ''brilliant'' cutting style (8 mains, either 4 mains & 4 corners or simply 8 mains) many naturally became cushion shapes..., but there are A LOT of other shapes which are academically identified as Old-Mine Cuts.

ETA: Old-Mine Cuts mean exactly as the words are read..., Old..., Mine...., CUTS."

 

[Rhino]

I can certainly understand how one would get confused by the GIA diagrams because that diamond, while looking like the OMC facet design on the left is in fact called an OMB on the GIA Report!

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/23/2009 12:09:56 PM
Author: Rhino
I can certainly understand how one would get confused by the GIA diagrams because that diamond, while looking like the OMC facet design on the left is in fact called an OMB on the GIA Report!

Rhino..., GIA doesnt have an OMC category in their ''shape & cutting style'' description...

What is more confusing..., is how the open culet on their OMB sketches are oval in shape...

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 10/23/2009 12:05:48 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/23/2009 10:56:40 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 10/23/2009 2:59:38 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/22/2009 8:15:48 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 10/21/2009 2:44:18 PM
Author: supercheeks
yes- it''s the second one i bought from him

here it is...

2.6 ct OMB
and i know the one 1.7 is a cushion brilliant, not an omb. ..and nice ones are hard to find

all i am trying to say is that there''s plenty of BEAUTIFUL stones out there- i live in nyc and travel alot for work on the west coast and through europe and have hit every jewelry store from here to Timbuktu..


go to stephan russell, fred leighton, leviev (they have their own cutters), William goldberg ,neil lane, martin katz, etc etc and they have beautiful OMB and antique cushion diamond rings NOT sourced through GOG- all i am saying is that nice stones exist out there...trust me....have you been to any of the above stores or cutters?

I think you have already corrected yourself in your last post but this is not picture of an OMB.
The crown facets sorrouding the table are large and kite shaped like in a Cushion Brilliant or Old Mine Cut. In addition the pavillion mains have 4 minor (1,5,7,11) and 4 major (3,6,9,12) sizes once again not consistent with an Old Mine Brilliant.

Old-Mine Cut...., what is this creature....?
CCL..., I keep noticing you are stuck on a specific facet design which according to you should fit (and earn) the OMB name...

Can you please clarify your statements on the issue?

What is (in your opinion) a true OMC or OMB?

Diagem,

I would be greatful if you could add any specific details or add anything I may have missed or misunderstood and clarify your opinion on this matter.

For me OMC = Old Mine Cut and OMB = Old Mine Brilliant

An old mine brilliant is basicly like a modern brilliant only in different proportions. Normally it has a culet and smaller table than a modern round brilliant. An example of a stone that could be called one is here http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6452/. (Although many would call this an Old European Cut(OEC) as well)

The outline shape for an OMB could be round, or slightly off so the dominant criteria I was looking for to distinguish the two was that the OMB should have relatively even sizes of the pavillion mains like in a round, Unlike the OMC which has 4 smaller and 4 larger pavillion main facets.

The plots of the pavillion main facet structure for both OMB and OMC that I am basing this on are posted below
Further to this I was also told that GIA labels stones as Old Mine Brilliant based on a Table % and thus the GOG signature cushions are called OMBs by GIA as they have tables of <55% and thus are not classified as cushion brilliants. The facet plot they assign to the GOG stones is incorrect both in the crown and the pavillion.

Regards,
CCL

CCL..., you cant base this solely on two sketches..., its wrong to even try!
GIA doesnt use scanned sketches to describe their descriptions ..., dont understand and agree with their sketch representations.
Basicaly most of their skeches describing fancy cuts are errored

.

My best & simple answer to you is exactly what I wrote in the post before yours...

''*OMC''s are NOT Old-Mine Cushions..., its the abbreviation for Old-Mine ''Cuts''.

*OEC''s are older style cuts that were cut to a true round outline... (when the bruting machine was invented between 1860 & 1871) I believe Al Gilbertson covered this point in his book and you can read more at: [/url]

*Old-Mine Cushions are called when the outline is Cushion.

*Old-Mine Cuts were originally cut to a huge varieties of shapes that came with the natural rough Diamond outlines...
Naturally due to the 58 facet ''brilliant'' cutting style (8 mains, either 4 mains & 4 corners or simply 8 mains) many naturally became cushion shapes..., but there are A LOT of other shapes which are academically identified as Old-Mine Cuts.


ETA: Old-Mine Cuts mean exactly as the words are read..., Old..., Mine...., CUTS.''

That part is helpful and understood on the Old Mine Cut or Old Mine Cushion. However you never mentioned Old Mine Brilliant please explain.

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/23/2009 12:26:42 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

That part is helpful and understood on the Old Mine Cut or Old Mine Cushion. However you never mentioned Old Mine Brilliant please explain.

Old Mine Brilliant is (IMO) more of a GIA type name description...

Perhaps they can address your questions..., have you tried?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 10/23/2009 12:35:43 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/23/2009 12:26:42 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

That part is helpful and understood on the Old Mine Cut or Old Mine Cushion. However you never mentioned Old Mine Brilliant please explain.

Old Mine Brilliant is (IMO) more of a GIA type name description...

Perhaps they can address your questions..., have you tried?

From GIA diamond dictionary:

Old Mine Brilliant:

Early form of Brilliant Cut with a nearly square or Cushion Shape girdle outline, a high crown, a small table, deep pavillion and a very large culet.

From GIA Lab Gemologist:

If stone contains at least 3 of the following 4 criteria it is considered to be:

a) Old European Cut (If round shaped or near round outline)
b) Old Mine Brilliant (If cushion shaped or near cushion shaped outline (ie roundish with some sort of corners)

i) Table equal to or less than 53%
ii) Culet Equal to or larger than Slightly Large (by visual inspection not by measurement)
iii) Crown Angles Equal To Or Greater than 40 Degrees
iv) Lower Half Length Equal To Or Smaller than 60% (by visual inspection only not by measurement)

Otherwise they would be classified as a Round or Cushion Brilliant depending on the shape outline.

Also GIA only chooses a plot which is as close to this cut of diamond as they have in their database and does not change the plot based on the facets of the actual stone and it does not concern them if the facet plots are inaccurate.
-----------------------------------

Making the assumption that most Antique Cushions we see here have Crown Angles greater than 40 Degrees and Lower Halves Smaller than 60%(pretty chunky facets as seen by eye) the determining factors for GIA to characterize the stone as a cushion brilliant instead of old mine brilliant will be the size of the culet(as inspected by eye) and whether the stone has a table less than or greater than 53%

. Either way the plot is going to be wrong on the report and those names do not describe the facet design.

Regards,
CCL

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/23/2009 2:40:34 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

........Either way the plot is going to be wrong on the report and those names do not describe the facet design.

Regards,
CCL

Exactemundo....

 

[Rhino]

Great posts. In fact just completed a clip on this very subject ... ie. how lab reports are basically meaningless when it comes to determining facet structure and optics of a cushion shaped diamond.

 

[diagem]

Date: 10/23/2009 9:55:37 PM
Author: Rhino
Great posts. In fact just completed a clip on this very subject ... ie. how lab reports are basically meaningless when it comes to determining facet structure and optics of a cushion shaped diamond.

I have been saying that on PS for years...
Ironically..., based on GIA''s description policies..., the Tiffany Yellow (cut late 1800''s) and the Regent Diamond (cut early 1700''s) both Old-Mine Cut Cushions would be described as Cushion Modified Brilliants...

(these are just two examples of many more Historic Diamond out there.)
I wonder what plots would GIA apply if graded...

Cushion Modified brilliants are not only crushed ice type Cushions...

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 10/21/2009 2:50:18 PM
Author: emeraldlover1

Date: 10/21/2009 1:38:25 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 10/21/2009 7:47:06 AM
Author: supercheeks
rhino
i am saying that there''s stones out there plain and simple- some are dogs and some are beautiful- and that other vendors have acccess to OMB''s etc- what u are cutting is lovely but if someone does not want to wait, there''s stones out there to be bought that could potentially just as nice ......

why are vendors allowed to comment on forums ? shouldn''t there be a little ''church and state here'' since it seems that you had a possible biz transaction with 2nd time? don''t get that....

Supercheeks,

The stones referred to here are not Old Mine Brilliants. This is a mistake GIA makes on the certificates and plots and is misleading, they simply assign these terms based on the table % which is incorrect. For an explanation with pictures look at the bottom of my first thread on pricescope here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/old-mine-brilliant-versus-cushion-brilliant-gotta-have-the-maltese-cross.118358/.

There are 8 main Cushion Brilliant stones with Antique Chunky Facets and a large culet and there are Old Mine Cuts, but most modern cut stones and new inventory fall into one of these two categories despite the GIA label and plot which says Old Mine Brilliant and is arbitrarily assiged based on the Table %.

I refrained from commenting on your posts before in this thread because it does appear the OP cannot wait and his spec range is not available in a GOG signature cushion and there may be a long waiting time for one to be available.

I do suggest though to avoid further misleading posts that you read my thread this was my first one on Pricescope https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/old-mine-brilliant-versus-cushion-brilliant-gotta-have-the-maltese-cross.118358/. There are many posts from experience Pricescopers contained within and I have provided a side by side ASET comparison of a stone sourced by Mark and a GOG signature cushion.

There is no comparison between the best that Mark at ERD can offer in 8 main cushion brilliants and the GOG signature OMC line. If a customer is looking for the best and brightest maltese cross under the table with no obstruction than GOG is the only place to find these stones. Even the top choice in this thread although a beautiful bright antique cushion brilliant it is clear from the pictures that there is some obstruction and darkness in the 4 mains (3,6,9,12).

I am very impressed with Mark at ERD he is a wonderful vendor, and he has taught me a great deal about what I know about cushions(we also bought all of our rings from him) see this thread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-shocking-final-diamond-choice-i-gave-to-my-fiance-which-one-would-you-pick.121154/ on my side by side lineup,
however as of yet he has not spent the time and resources to optimize the light return in these OMC stones. ERD has a wider range of stones (more variety in the 4Cs especially higher colors) available as he works regularly with a vendor that cuts them but they have not taken the sames risks as GOG to develop the line and use stringent light performance measures to reject stones that don''t meet Rhino''s stringent cut criteria.

I spoke to a dozen or so vendors and cutters and none of them wanted to offer the same assurance that I would get a stone with the same cut consistency, that and the price and risk just made it impractical to go anywherelse but GOG if you ''Gotta have that bold maltese cross!''

In addition Rhino is allowed to comment in threads when posts are made with inaccurate information. I feel that comparing any other non branded OMC to his signature line is quite inaccurate and misleading and warrants his comments. I only wish I had made this post earlier and he did not even have to respond here as it sounds much better coming from an unbiased consumer.
Mark at ERD and Jon(Rhino) at GOG were my greatest source of information on Cushion Cuts and I am eternally greatful to both for their long discussions with me even though neither made a great profit(if any) from my purchases.

Sincerely,
CCL

CCL: I wasn''t going to respond however, I''m confused. Are you saying that you are unbiased? I''ve read quite a few of your threads and I''m surprised that you think your suggestions are unbiased. Personally I think they are opinions based on your personal experience. While that is valid information and helpful in my opinion is biased.

While it is great that you had an amazing experience, as did I with Mark, its frustrating to read the posts with questions from forum members about cushions and halo settings (more so about the settings) where you consistently think that what ERD can produce is what the consumer wants and needs. Maybe you don''t intend it this way but its the way it has come across to me. The only reason that I am typing this is because I think that one of the purposes of this forum is to help consumers understand diamonds and settings and help them get what they want, not what CCL thinks is the best and wants them to get. Unfortunatley that is the way it comes across sometimes.

Did you post your finished ring anywhere? I was looking for it as I saw your post in BWW but I didn''t see your ring posted anywhere. Congrats on getting engaged.

Sorry to the OP for the threadjack. I''m glad that you found a stone.

EC,


Thanks for your interest. At the request of my Fiance I cannot post her ring as much as I would like to. She feels that the ring should be hers alone and not shared with others. I hope she will change her mind in time so I can share it with the community that inspired the work. However if you want to see a copy of my design and the inspiration for CushionDivine''s ring you can see the cad drawings and pictures of her 4 Ct ring created by Mark at ERD posted here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-10yr-cushion-upgrade-from-erd.124340/. The halo melee size, shank size melee, pave style and most other elements are similar to my Fiance''s 1.59Ct ring. There is certainly a degree of bias and subjectivity in anyone''s comments on settings especially mine on this design as I spent considerable time breaking down the ~25 or so technical elements into a 12 page design file that make a HW micropave ring so beautiful.

However, my comments about cushion comparisons were really supposed to be objective and not a sales pitch for GOG. To that end Rhino and I collaborated on a a video comparison between the best 8 main antique cushion I could find in his inventory and his august vintage cushions http://www.vimeo.com/7222811. In my opinion this is the fairest comparison of a Antique 8 main and GOG''s signature line that could possibly be made and you and the posters here can make up your own mind if you see the differences. This comparison is also extremely fair to other vendors as most Antique 8 mains don''t have nearly as much red in the ASET as that 1.03 G VVS1.

Although it may not appear this way prima facie (you may not know I sent back a GOG August Vintage and bought my only diamond from Mark at ERD) I am actually trying to educate posters in this thread on the nuances of cushions not push them to one vendor or another or cram my opinion down someone''s throat.

CCL

 

[Cehrabehra]

my stone is an old mine brilliant (avatar) and it is not round nor square and the 12/3/6/9 pavs are wider than the corner pavs are. But it says old mine brilliant (OMB) right there on the gia cert... hope that helps!

I think Jon''s stones should be called OMG! hehehe

 

[Cehrabehra]

An old mine brilliant is basicly like a modern brilliant only in different proportions. Normally it has a culet and smaller table than a modern round brilliant. An example of a stone that could be called one is here http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6452/. (Although many would call this an Old European Cut(OEC) as well)


The outline shape for an OMB could be round, or slightly off so the dominant criteria I was looking for to distinguish the two was that the OMB should have relatively even sizes of the pavillion mains like in a round, Unlike the OMC which has 4 smaller and 4 larger pavillion main facets.


The plots of the pavillion main facet structure for both OMB and OMC that I am basing this on are posted below

Further to this I was also told that GIA labels stones as Old Mine Brilliant based on a Table % and thus the GOG signature cushions are called OMBs by GIA as they have tables of <55% and thus are not classified as cushion brilliants. The facet plot they assign to the GOG stones is incorrect both in the crown and the pavillion.


Regards,

CCL

CCL - I think you might be confusing an OEC with an OMB. OECs are round and OMBs are cushions. OMBs are not round at all - in any way. I think you may be mistaken.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 10/23/2009 2:40:34 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 10/23/2009 12:35:43 PM

Author: DiaGem

Date: 10/23/2009 12:26:42 PM

Author: ChunkyCushionLover


That part is helpful and understood on the Old Mine Cut or Old Mine Cushion. However you never mentioned Old Mine Brilliant please explain.

Old Mine Brilliant is (IMO) more of a GIA type name description...


Perhaps they can address your questions..., have you tried?

From GIA diamond dictionary:



Old Mine Brilliant:


Early form of Brilliant Cut with a nearly square or Cushion Shape girdle outline, a high crown, a small table, deep pavillion and a very large culet.


From GIA Lab Gemologist:



If stone contains at least 3 of the following 4 criteria it is considered to be:


a) Old European Cut (If round shaped or near round outline)

b) Old Mine Brilliant (If cushion shaped or near cushion shaped outline (ie roundish with some sort of corners)



i) Table equal to or less than 53%

ii) Culet Equal to or larger than Slightly Large (by visual inspection not by measurement)

iii) Crown Angles Equal To Or Greater than 40 Degrees

iv) Lower Half Length Equal To Or Smaller than 60% (by visual inspection only not by measurement)


Otherwise they would be classified as a Round or Cushion Brilliant depending on the shape outline.


Also GIA only chooses a plot which is as close to this cut of diamond as they have in their database and does not change the plot based on the facets of the actual stone and it does not concern them if the facet plots are inaccurate.

-----------------------------------


Making the assumption that most Antique Cushions we see here have Crown Angles greater than 40 Degrees and Lower Halves Smaller than 60%(pretty chunky facets as seen by eye) the determining factors for GIA to characterize the stone as a cushion brilliant instead of old mine brilliant will be the size of the culet(as inspected by eye) and whether the stone has a table less than or greater than 53%

. Either way the plot is going to be wrong on the report and those names do not describe the facet design.


Regards,

CCL

I think maybe you''re getting caught on the ''brilliant cut'' thing - that refers to the basic facet structure which an OMB, an OEC, an antique OMC and a modern round brilliant ALL have in common.