Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Cushion Opinion

P

poiboy005

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
12
Aloha Everyone. I have my eye on 3 different cushions. They are all 8 main cushions, with the same plot type, and all weigh between 1.0 and 1.05ct. I have an ASET for one of them, and am currently waiting to get one on the other two. In the meantime, I figured I'd ask for opinions on the one that I did have.


STATS
1.05 ct, E color, VS1, X sym, X polish, 6.41mm x 6.03 mm. GIA #2106902428

XL.jpg



The other two are a little more square, but in the same ct., color, clarity and price range (although this one has the best color, sym, and clarity, and face up size). The shape really doesn't matter to me, but i thought the symmetry under the table of this one was pretty good, although i realize it's a lot of green. What do you folks think?
 
BTW, it is on hold at Excel Diamonds, and Barry and Judah have been great with providing info!
 
It is a lot of green. A LOT of green.

I'm actually more worried about the little strip of blue across the horizontal, which will probably look like a bow-tie from most viewing angles. Perhaps one of the cushion experts will chime in and correct me on this.
 
Thanks for the reply antelope. I was kind of hoping that since the thing is mostly green, then the silver lining is that at least there is very little light leakage, and the area under the table will be bright. As for the bowtie, there is a VERY small one, and the picture of the diamond shows this. I actually kind of like it though. I like it only because it's a little contrast, and the bowtie doesn't extend to the area outside of the table.

Thanks again for the input!
 
T
poiboy005 said:
Thanks for the reply antelope. I was kind of hoping that since the thing is mostly green, then the silver lining is that at least there is very little light leakage, and the area under the table will be bright. As for the bowtie, there is a VERY small one, and the picture of the diamond shows this. I actually kind of like it though. I like it only because it's a little contrast, and the bowtie doesn't extend to the area outside of the table.

Thanks again for the input!
Click to expand...

There is a a lot of leakage all over this stone, you can't see it clearly as the background is black. I see it under the table and
I would expect it to lack brightness along the edges.

Why don't you ask the vendor how bright this one is as compared to other cushions they have sold.
Definitely a pass for me.
 
Thanks for the input. I'll ask them tomorrow to compare the brightness of this stone to others that they have sold.

In the meantime, I'm still waiting on the ASET for the other two stones from James Allen. At this point, the customer service has been much better from Barry and Judah at Excel Diamonds. If anyone wants to take a look at the other two stones without the ASET, they are James Allen diamond numbers 1280131 and 1280132. I have these on hold, so they won't come up in a search. In order to view them, you need to click on any random diamond, then replace that diamond's number with one of the two that i mentioned.

Thanks for all the help so far. Reading these forums has given me a lot of insight!
 
I'm not an expert (just someone who's spent the last few months looking at tons of cushions) and i think the first one at JA looks quite a bit better than the second. the second seems to have 4 very prominent mains rather than 8 thin mains -- could just be the photo, or sometimes the GIA certs are wrong. the picture on the first one looks promising. of course you can't tell much from the photos and certs. don't be afraid to order more than one and send back the one you don't like -- it's worth the return shipping fee to be able to see a stone in person. have you looked at good old gold? a lot of people here told me to do so. they're probably a bit more expensive, but their stones look amazing. compare the ASET on this, for example, to the one you posted:
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/7530/
it's also an 8 main cushion. i know 7K+ a carat may be out of range.....

here's an 8 main cushion that's antique style rather than modern/thin style. if it's eye clean i imagine it could be very good value because it's SI2. Again, compare the ASET
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/5697/

Listen to others more than me -- I'm just sharing what I've learned from the past few months. Good luck.
 
First, I was thinking something looks funky with the aset but then I saw the picture.

534504_xlarge.jpg
 
Hey CharmyPoo. Is anything wrong with either the ASET or the picture?
 
I think CharmyPoo is saying the same thing CCL said -- the picture shows a lot of leakage. Do you see all the dark spots in the picture? Particularly right across the middle of the stone? That's leakage -- total dead space in the stone that's not reflecting light. The ASET suggests the same thing, as CCL said. I don't think this is a good option for you, even if you like the "bowtie effect" (which most people don't).
 
Just wanted to thank everyone for the comments, and to update everyone on this diamond. I appreciated the comments a lot.

Because Excel diamonds has a great return policy, I decided to order this stone anyway, as well as another 8-main cushion brilliant to compare it to. The other diamond was a square shaped cushion, with the octagonal shaped table (similar to a novo cut). The ASET was arguably better, but something (as well as Barry and Judah at Excel) was telling me to just go ahead and order the original cushion anyway. The fact that the black ASET background is standard procedure, as well as the blue across the face of the ASET being light return from the steep angle instead of leakage also played into this decision (the arrows in every H&A ASET is blue, so this is not leakage).

Long story short, I'm glad I ordered both diamonds. Like many on this site has said, it helps to see a cushion with your own eyes. While the square 8-main was a nice stone, the shape and color of the original rectangular stone was much more appealing to my eyes. The brightness of the rectangular stone was also at least equal (if not, brighter) than the square to my eye. Maybe technical standards would say otherwise, so this could possibly have something to do with the rectangle being an "E" color, and the square being a "G". I returned the square, kept the rectangle, and sent it off to BGD to have it set.

Barry and Judah at Excel were GREAT throughout the process. Had i listened to them and just ordered the rectangular diamond, I would have saved on about $100 in shipping! the price was worth it to compare two stones with my own eyes though. Can't thank Barry and Judah enough, and as advice to anyone else shopping for a cushion: If you're torn between two stones (or like a stone, but are wary of it's ASET), order both and see them with your own eyes. You may miss out on a beautiful diamond if not.
 
Grant,

Many thanks for posting this update on your thread and for your kind words.

I believe it bears mentioning that this is perhaps a 'teachable' moment.

Your particular experience only serves to highlight and validate what has been in our opinion, correctly advocated on these boards.

Namely; these excellent tools (and we use all of them), are best utilized as rejection or 'weeding' tools, but cannot be absolutely considered as the Sine qua non for diamond selection.

Indeed, this stone was rejected and dismissed earlier in this thread as exhibiting "lots of leakage" with the implication that the black background in the ASET photo was somehow misleading. This black background is an actual component of the presentation setup as created and supplied by AGS. The correctness of this black color background in the ASET was corroborated by Patrick Stout at AGS Labs (personal communication).

We are therefore grateful that you took the opportunity to actually physically inspect this stone for yourself before ultimately making your decision.
 
Judah Gutwein said:
Namely; these excellent tools (and we use all of them), are best utilized as rejection or 'weeding' tools, but cannot be absolutely considered as the Sine qua non for diamond selection.
Click to expand...

Can you explain? Because some others above said that they would reject the diamond based on the ASET (e.g., use the ASET as a rejection tool). But poiboy ordered the diamond (disregarding the ASET), so...I'm just not clear on what you're saying wrt ASET and buying diamonds.
 
Sure.
(and perhaps the OP himself is in the best position to answer your question)

I don't believe 'poiboy' 'disregarded' the ASET at all.
I do believe that he was sufficiently impressed with the ASET as part of his considerations in purchasing this stone.

In fact, he writes on this thread......

"The fact that the black ASET background is standard procedure, as well as the blue across the face of the ASET being light return from the steep angle instead of leakage also played into this decision (the arrows in every H&A ASET is blue, so this is not leakage)".
 
OP I am glad you found a diamond that you love!

In the interest of education, I would like to suggest that seeing two diamonds in person may not be enough to conclude that indeed the selected diamond is very well cut. The comparison stone may or may not be a top cut stone. In this particular case, the OP was suitably impressed by the stone he chose, and that is a great outcome. But there is no way to know, generally speaking, if one sees only two stones in person where one has an ASET similar to the one posted and the second is an unknown whether the viewer would have preferred the appearance of a hypothetical third diamond that had an ASET image that was deemed "excellent" by the majority on PS. It is accurate to conclude that the viewer liked the one he/she chose best of the two examples, but not accurate to conclude that the diamond is the one the viewer would have liked best given a wider variety from which to choose. If the viewer was able to compare the diamond with the so-so ASET to one with a top-knothc ASET, then perhaps the previously selected stone would indeed have been rejected?

So while I certainly agree that seeing diamond in person is the best method for selecting stones, I do not think that seeing only two fancy cut diamonds in person (as a rule) is enough to conclude that one of the diamonds is exceptionally well cut. So in my opinion, the OPs experience does not tell us much about the usefulness of ASET as a rejection tool.
 
Judah,

I chose tactfully not to comment further in this thread as any comments I make in the interest of education and for future customers may highlight the limited education you provided this customer. Really you should have left this alone and left the customer's testimonial albeit inexperienced and limited to stand on its own merits.

This consumer considered virtual stones as opposed to in house inventory and selected three near square 8 main cushions for potential selection. An ASET for one was posted here and two were shipped out to them. All selections were likely less than top performers in terms of light performance, but given those were this consumer's options they chose one of them feeling that it was the most beautiful to them.

Well were they well educated? No, this is the situation where the consumer was given limited information and choices upon which to make a decusion.

Did they see in person top performing stones from other vendors? I doubt it.

Is the stone they chose beautiful to them? Yes it is which is the most important thing, but this has only a partial correlation to light peformance and subjective standards of beauty depend heavily on ones experience, standards and level of diamond education.

Can the customer be sure this is the most beautiful cushions they could have found for their budget? No, but thats a matter of how much time and effort they were willing to make in their search and what their overall preferences are.

The customer chose the better of the two diamonds they saw, and finds it beautiful, that position has nothing to do with the stone's light performance which is still mediocre. Their decision does not correlate to a proper interpretation or comparison of two ASET images. The second ASET image of which we never saw and didn't comment on.
 
CCL,

Well said!

SM
 
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