Cushion question . . . am I missing something?

[Rye]

Hello -
I''ve been comparing 1 ct princess cut dimensions to 1 ct cushion cut dimensions and it appears as though the cushion cut diamonds face up larger than princess cuts. Why is that? If this is true, it seems as though a cushion cut is a better value, assuming you like both equally.

Any thoughts? Am I missing something?

Thanks,
Kelly

 

[sunnyd]

I'm no princess expert by any means, but I'm pretty sure that they have steep depths. Which means that your carat weight on a princess that has the same size 'face' as a cushion is going to be more, which means it'll cost more. Cushions can get away with having shallower depths because there's no set percentages to follow.

I'd go for the cushion if you're looking for more size for the price thing and like them both equally.

 

[Indira-London]

I am afraid that there is no meaningful comparison of cushion and princess on depth as neither has standard proportions per carat so that each cushion and princess cut diamond varies in dimensions. Hence there is no way to know that the diamonds you compared were like for like well-cut.

Both princess and cushion are a deeper-style of cut than round brilliant. As cushions have "rounded corners", generally they can look smaller than the same carat princess. but even this is a generalisation that is not always true especially as each cushion is a unique shape varying from squarish to oblong but with "rounded corners"!

Suffice to say that when making a comparison between cushion and princess, you have to look individual diamonds in person rather analyse numbers for either of these shapes.

 

[Rye]

Thank you both for your feedback. Here''s where my confusion lies . . .

I was considering a 1.01 ct princess cut with a depth of 73% and table of 69% and thick girdle. The dimensions on this stone were 5.47 x 5.44 x 3.98. I am now considering a .90 ct square cushion with a depth of 60% and a table of 58% and medium to thick girdle. The dimensions on this stone are 6.07 x 5.80 x 3.49.

So, if I''m understanding you correctly, the smaller depth of the second stone allows for the dimensions of this diamond to be larger even though it is .10 ct lighter. Am I Right? Forgive my ignorance. I''m still learning!

I understand none of this relates to cut quality - I''m just more curious about the variance in dimensions as it relates to carat weight.

Thank you in advance!

 

[joe678]

Date: 7/15/2008 8:09:00 PM
Author: Rye
Thank you both for your feedback. Here''s where my confusion lies . . .


I was considering a 1.01 ct princess cut with a depth of 73% and table of 69% and thick girdle. The dimensions on this stone were 5.47 x 5.44 x 3.98. I am now considering a .90 ct square cushion with a depth of 60% and a table of 58% and medium to thick girdle. The dimensions on this stone are 6.07 x 5.80 x 3.49.


So, if I''m understanding you correctly, the smaller depth of the second stone allows for the dimensions of this diamond to be larger even though it is .10 ct lighter. Am I Right? Forgive my ignorance. I''m still learning!


I understand none of this relates to cut quality - I''m just more curious about the variance in dimensions as it relates to carat weight.


Thank you in advance!

I think you''ve got a good picture, if 2 stones are roughly the same size (1.01 vs .9) and the same density then the cushion will face up larger since its not as deep (since carat is a measure of the weight).

 

[Rye]

Great, thank you for your help.

So, in this situation, if everything else is equal, the cushion is the better "deal" since it will look larger for less money ($600).

Got it!