shape
carat
color
clarity

Cushion pro''s - how is this?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

redeemed

Rough_Rock
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
20
Cut: Ideal
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent

6.60 x 5.88 x 3.17

Depth: 53.9 %
Table: 58 %
Fl: None
L to W ratio: 1.12

This is an H I1 but I was able to have a good look at it online and the inclusion would be hidden under the claws and the retailer (trusted) says that it is eyeclean. I saw it magnified and at normal distances and it looks great - but I am just starting to learn about cushions.

I appreciate your input.

Thanks!
 
Hi redeemed,

In cushions that have depths that shallow and tables that are larger our experience is that it generally produces a watery type of appearance which does not produce the most attractive stones. Of course this isn''t a hard cold rule of thumb and it may be fine but i''d suggest finding cushions with depths that are greater than the table % for starters.

btw ... I relate to and like the name.
17.gif


Kind regards,
 
The stone would most likely look better if the table and depth numbers are reversed. 53.9% is awfully shallow. I would pass on this stone without even seeing it. Still, I am curious enough to want to see a picture of the cushion. Any pictures?
 
how did you pick this particular one against others?
i'm not trying to say that it is good or bad, just wondering what your process was to get an idea of what you are after.
 
I agree...although I guess it depends what you are after. It seems shallow. Some folks around here like shallow on a cushion. But the ones I''ve seen look more like glass...(not sure if I''m seeing the "watery" appearance that Rhino is talking about, but either way, I didn''t love it.)
 
Date: 10/12/2007 12:02:48 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi redeemed,

In cushions that have depths that shallow and tables that are larger our experience is that it generally produces a watery type of appearance which does not produce the most attractive stones. Of course this isn''t a hard cold rule of thumb and it may be fine but i''d suggest finding cushions with depths that are greater than the table % for starters.

btw ... I relate to and like the name.
17.gif


Kind regards,
Rhino is right..., but some can still be amazing looking...

This one for example is a 47% td and a bit larger table... (dont remember the table size..., maybe 51%???)

47%TDlargerTable.JPG
 
OK..., realy last try (and I give up!!!)
33.gif


47%td51%Table.JPG
 
diagem,
I clicked on your attachment and could see the photo. let me see if I can get it to show up here..

cushionpic4diagem.jpg
 
Thanks MS...
21.gif
, cant figure out why I cant post them
29.gif


but thanks again...
 
Date: 10/14/2007 8:42:24 PM
Author: DiaGem
Thanks MS...
21.gif
, cant figure out why I cant post them
29.gif



but thanks again...

your welcome. I''m not sure why either b/c it was sized appropriately. all I did was rename and attach. and you did get it on so it could be downloaded...but i''m not technical so beyond that, beats me...

cool pic though
1.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top