Cushion v. oval

[penny12]

Does oval face up bigger than a cushion?

 

[Rockdiamond]

There's no set answer to this question.
It depends on the particular oval and the cushion. Some stones are ovals are cut deeper, and may face up smaller than a cushion of the same weight- and vice versa.

 

[Niel]

There's no set answer to this question.
It depends on the particular oval and the cushion. Some stones are ovals are cut deeper, and may face up smaller than a cushion of the same weight- and vice versa.

I thought in general the oval was supposed to face up larger, though

a marquise faces up the biggest

 

[msop04]

There's no set answer to this question.
It depends on the particular oval and the cushion. Some stones are ovals are cut deeper, and may face up smaller than a cushion of the same weight- and vice versa.

I thought in general the oval was supposed to face up larger, though

a marquise faces up the biggest

I thought this was the case too... hmmm...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Generalizations can lead people in the totally wrong direction.
Especially when we're talking about fancy shapes, variations in individual examples can be huge.
Not all marquises face up large either.
Like so any other things in life, each of us must be judged not based on the group to which we belong, but our own virtues. It's true for people- and diamonds!
There's some really chubby ovals and some spready cushions.

 

[Niel]

Generalizations can lead people in the totally wrong direction.
Especially when we're talking about fancy shapes, variations in individual examples can be huge.
Not all marquises face up large either.
Like so any other things in life, each of us must be judged not based on the group to which we belong, but our own virtues. It's true for people- and diamonds!
There's some really chubby ovals and some spready cushions.

well yes obviously not EVERY oval is bigger than EVERY cushion, but generalizations have their place and I as long as the OP knows "generally but not always" i think its safe to say usually thats the case...


Or am I off base?


Its not ALWAYS warmer in Michigan that Alaska, but i can make claims about weather based on the general climate

 

[Rockdiamond]

Yes, IMO totally off base. Generalizations have no place when people come looking for accurate advice on diamonds.
I look at so many cushions that are larger than ovals of the same weight- so even the assumption about averages is unfounded. This is especially true nowadays since cushions are in much higher demand than ovals, so more rough that might be cut either way ends up as cushions.

By advising people based on averages ( that are not even known to be true) it can lead them to avoid things they may really want, and drive them to things they desire less. That's not fair to people who come looking for accurate advice IMO

 

[Niel]

Yes, IMO totally off base. Generalizations have no place when people come looking for accurate advice on diamonds.
I look at so many cushions that are larger than ovals of the same weight- so even the assumption about averages is unfounded. This is especially true nowadays since cushions are in much higher demand than ovals, so more rough that might be cut either way ends up as cushions.

By advising people based on averages ( that are not even known to be true) it can lead them to avoid things they may really want, and drive them to things they desire less. That's not fair to people who come looking for accurate advice IMO

Ah see I was basing it off many posts here about depths of cushions, along with posts like this on the "knowledge" portion of this website.

"Oval cuts generally look larger from the “face up” position than other shapes of the same carat weight. "

But off base I guess. My apologies OP.

 

[arkieb1]

I will generalise. If its a well cut modern Oval versus a well cut modern cushion of the same carat size then yes the oval will face up or appear bigger. If we are talking antique stones then again the oval will probably (yes I AM generalising) still face up bigger unless you get a really deep chubby oval and then all bets are off...

 

[msop04]

There's no set answer to this question.
It depends on the particular oval and the cushion. Some stones are ovals are cut deeper, and may face up smaller than a cushion of the same weight- and vice versa.

I thought in general the oval was supposed to face up larger, though

a marquise faces up the biggest

Niel said in general... not always. And, yes, generally ovals will face up larger than cushions. Not always, but most times.

Also, if the OP is motivated by size alone, then they will go with whatever stone that they find that is larger. If the OP likes one shape over the other, then it is the OP's decision alone. It could be an oval or a cushion. No one said that one cut is more desirable than the other... the question was about size.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Guys - I look at hundreds of actual stones a month. I have been doing so for many years
Many cushions and less- but still a lot of ovals
What you are saying about ovals generally being larger than cushions does not hold true based on my real life experience - even as an average
Plus there are no agreed upon standards for either cushion or oval when it comes to declaring either well cut
It is my honest opinion that giving out generalizations is not in the best interest of people coming here looking for accurate advice about diamonds.

 

[me&myboys]

First I want to start off by saying that I am far from being an expert.

Tools, though, like the one I've attached below help me crudely visualise diamond size comparisons.

Please note. I'm just trying to help by providing a visual that is based on generalized proportions for both a 1.01 ct oval and cushion. It definitely helps me compare and get a rough estimate from the comfort of my couch

Have a look and you can get an idea of the potential size difference and impact in the difference in face-up surface area ......

 

[arkieb1]

Guys - I look at hundreds of actual stones a month. I have been doing so for many years
Many cushions and less- but still a lot of ovals
What you are saying about ovals generally being larger than cushions does not hold true based on my real life experience - even as an average
Plus there are no agreed upon standards for either cushion or oval when it comes to declaring either well cut
It is my honest opinion that giving out generalizations is not in the best interest of people coming here looking for accurate advice about diamonds.

I don't agree. If you look purely at face up size on the hand to my eye ovals of the same carat weight (say a triple ex GIA oval versus a triple ex GIA cushion) look bigger on the hand to me. That is all I am saying.

Rather than bicker about it, the poster should go and look at some for himself or herself. Then THEY can say which one their eye prefers....

 

[Niel]

Guys - I look at hundreds of actual stones a month. I have been doing so for many years
Many cushions and less- but still a lot of ovals
What you are saying about ovals generally being larger than cushions does not hold true based on my real life experience - even as an average
Plus there are no agreed upon standards for either cushion or oval when it comes to declaring either well cut
It is my honest opinion that giving out generalizations is not in the best interest of people coming here looking for accurate advice about diamonds.

I don't agree. If you look purely at face up size on the hand to my eye ovals of the same carat weight (say a triple ex GIA oval versus a triple ex GIA cushion) look bigger on the hand to me. That is all I am saying.

Rather than bicker about it, the poster should go and look at some for himself or herself. Then THEY can say which one their eye prefers....

I fully agree the OP should see them in person because other than size, it would be nice to know who shape is perfected.

But I'd like to continue this discussion. Because I was under the impression that a well cut 1 ct cushion had between 6x6 and 6x 6.5, but a well cut oval was more like 6x8....its a fairly widely held belief on here that oval face up bigger, so if we are collectively wrong, we should know.

 

[penny12]

Thank you everyone for your help. The visual provided by me&myboys really helps. The size is not my biggest concern, I just don't want my cushion e-ring to dwarf the oval I want to purchase.

 

[msop04]

Guys - I look at hundreds of actual stones a month. I have been doing so for many years
Many cushions and less- but still a lot of ovals
What you are saying about ovals generally being larger than cushions does not hold true based on my real life experience - even as an average
Plus there are no agreed upon standards for either cushion or oval when it comes to declaring either well cut
It is my honest opinion that giving out generalizations is not in the best interest of people coming here looking for accurate advice about diamonds.

I don't agree. If you look purely at face up size on the hand to my eye ovals of the same carat weight (say a triple ex GIA oval versus a triple ex GIA cushion) look bigger on the hand to me. That is all I am saying.

Rather than bicker about it, the poster should go and look at some for himself or herself. Then THEY can say which one their eye prefers....

I fully agree the OP should see them in person because other than size, it would be nice to know who shape is perfected.

But I'd like to continue this discussion. Because I was under the impression that a well cut 1 ct cushion had between 6x6 and 6x 6.5, but a well cut oval was more like 6x8....its a fairly widely held belief on here that oval face up bigger, so if we are collectively wrong, we should know.

I'd like to continue this discussion also...

So, I'm no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I don't think that we are collectively wrong in saying that ovals will generally face up larger than cushion cuts. I thought a lot about what has been said in each post, and how adamant Rockdiamond was in his commentary. I don't physically handle hundreds of diamonds every day (don't I wish??!! ), however I do search through hundreds, if not thousands of diamonds each month on various online sites-- yeah, I'm a nerd like that. And I know there are PS vets that search way more than I do...

So, I did a little experiment just to see what the how closely the two cuts would be on surface area. I searched Whiteflash with the following criteria: 1.00-1.02 ct oval, then cushion. Even though there is no real "ideal" cut, I still chose this option... all calculations are rounded to the nearest 0.001 mm. I selcted the first twenty stones in each cut exactly how they came up on the list.

Ovals:
Smallest SA: 39.921 mm(sq)
Largest SA: 48.617 mm(sq)
Average of the 20: 43.525 mm(sq)
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/search.aspx
Oval weights:
1.00 ct = 5
1.01 ct = 14
1.02 ct = 1

Cushions:
Smallest SA: 29.482 mm(sq)
Largest SA: 35.956 mm(sq)
Average of the 20: 32.825 mm(sq)
http://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/search.aspx
Cushion weights:
1.00 ct = 3
1.01 ct = 13
1.02 ct = 3

I calculated the surface area of the first 20 stones that appeared for each cut and took an average as shown above. The difference in the averages was significant. This particular sampling showed that the oval cuts averaged 10.700 mm more surface area than cushions. The largest cushion in the bunch was still smaller than the smallest oval in the sampling.

Was this a real scientific study? No. Did it prove that all ovals show more surface area (face up larger) than all cushions? No. Did it provide evidence showing that most ovals face up larger on average than most cushions. Absolutely. This was just a random sampling of 1.00-1.02 cushions from one website. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I would like to have done this with about 100-200 stones, but... ya know... I got a little tired of calculating.
I didn't do this to argue or bicker... I did it to show that... generally (read: "most of the time") ovals will present larger than cushions. I think that statement is more than fair to say on this forum or to a potential buyer.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks Neil,
There's actually two discussions here:
1) Is an oval larger than a cushion
2) Whats the best way to advise consumers?

About number 1. If I'm buying a colorless oval, yes, it will typically have a larger appearance than many cushions. This is NOT the case when I'm buying pink, yellow or brown ovals. When buying Fancy Colored Oval Diamonds, the considerations are totally different- and many of the most attractive stones are not that spready and may appear smaller than a cushion of the same weight.
Furthermore, when I buy diamonds, I look through many stones to pick the ones we will buy- I can again stress that as an average, ovals are NOT more spready ( larger looking) than cushions nowadays- in the best cases, yes, but that's by no means an average

But discussion 2 is inexorably wrapped in this answer- for example the OP did not mention colorless or fancy color.
If people want advice from non experts, they're getting it at the mall, big box store- and unfortunately in many jewelry stores.
This is why I am so committed to providing expert advice, in a manner that is more transparent.
For example: many people are given advice in jewelry stones based on the seller's desire to sell.
If the store has a cushion they want to sell, they can say cushions look larger for the weight.
What if they have a dumpy "roval" that looks much smaller than a cushion of the same weight- then they can whip out the fact that "Ovals look larger than cushion"

That's why I feel generalizations are a detriment if folks want accurate, expert advice.

arkieb1- if we are comparing rounds it's a lot easier- because there's basically only one measurement, as opposed to LxW which can vary greatly in either cushion or oval. Symmetry and Polish ratings have nothing whatsoever to do with this
Plus, you mentioned "triple ex GIA oval and cushion"
Fact- no such thing exists
GIA does not grade the cut of either oval or cushion, so the most it could be is a "double EX"- but as I mentioned, this would have no bearing on this discussion whatsoever.
A stone can be overly deep, or shallow, yet still be graded EX in polish symmetry or both.

 

[Niel]

I understand what you're saying about being specific, but in my mind if someone asked a generic question they will get a general answer. The question was not specific so generalizations didn't seem inappropriate

 

[msop04]

Thanks Neil,
There's actually two discussions here:
1) Is an oval larger than a cushion
2) Whats the best way to advise consumers?

About number 1. If I'm buying a colorless oval, yes, it will typically have a larger appearance than many cushions.

Isn't this what has been stated ad nauseum? I'd bet that a good 95% of posters are indeed referring to colorless diamonds unless they state otherwise. Maybe this should have been clarified with the OP before you insisted that everyone else was "totally off base."

This is NOT the case when I'm buying pink, yellow or brown ovals. When buying Fancy Colored Oval Diamonds, the considerations are totally different- and many of the most attractive stones are not that spready and may appear smaller than a cushion of the same weight.Furthermore, when I buy diamonds, I look through many stones to pick the ones we will buy- I can again stress that as an average, ovals are NOT more spready ( larger looking) than cushions nowadays- in the best cases, yes, but that's by no means an average

But discussion 2 is inexorably wrapped in this answer- for example the OP did not mention colorless or fancy color. You are right, RD. The OP didn't mention this... but neither did you while giving your expert opinion -- until this last post.
If people want advice from non experts * I'd be interested to know your definition of expert and non-expert. Do you consider all those in the trade an expert, such as yourself? Do you feel all those not formally in the trade to be non-experts? I am in no way an expert, but I have spoken with many in the trade that knew way less than most of the veteran PS members I've been following on this forum.

...they're getting it at the mall, big box store- and unfortunately in many jewelry stores.
This is why I am so committed to providing expert advice, in a manner that is more transparent.
For example: many people are given advice in jewelry stones based on the seller's desire to sell. This is true, but that's probably why they come to PS to educate themselves more so that they are less likely to be taken advantage of...

If the store has a cushion they want to sell, they can say cushions look larger for the weight.
What if they have a dumpy "roval" that looks much smaller than a cushion of the same weight- then they can whip out the fact that "Ovals look larger than cushion"

Again, not one poster has said this was a fact. It is a generalization and has been presented as such throughout this thread. Sellers can really say whatever they want, but if the buyer is educated and knows what he likes/what to look for, then what difference does it make which stone faces up larger for the carat weight? If buyers are educated enough to know that ovals tend to face up larger than cushions, then that may lead them to go, "Hmmmm... wonder why this one is smaller?..." At this point, they can do further research and/or seek the opinions of those on PS. We have eyes and we also have access to many online sites to compare (let's not forget PS!!). Someone can tell me all day long that the dumpy "roval" is smaller than a cushion of the same weight, but if I like the dumpy roval... then that's what I like. If I've studied up, then I know I can do a search of an oval that has the same look and try to figure out the "hows and whys" of it all. If the cushion happens to be smaller or larger than whatever, and I want a cushion, then guess what??... I'll probably do some more research.

That's why I feel generalizations are a detriment if folks want accurate, expert advice. I totally agree with you if the question is specific and/or the advice given is specific. Neither of which happened until the last post. Actually, the OP never gave any specifics, which lead us to believe that the OP did indeed want a generalization.

by Niel » 26 Aug 2013 10:26

I understand what you're saying about being specific, but in my mind if someone asked a generic question they will get a general answer. The question was not specific so generalizations didn't seem inappropriate

This was my feeling exactly.

 

[kathley]

Hi Friends,

I too did the area of the oval and cushion cuts calculations. Area of the oval is pi * r1 * r2. The area of the cushion is roughly (would not account for rounding of edge) l * w assuming the measurements given are length and width; not edge to edge and tip to tip. Results were ave. of 32.70 mm2 for 1 ct. ovals vs. 31.98 mm2 for 1 ct. cushions. If Rockdiamond is selecting ovals and cushions for his inventory that will likely sell, then perhaps the rough results in calculations for his inventory will be slightly different than those randomly measured online. For me, it makes the most sense to see the diamonds of interest before purchasing.

 

[msop04]

Hi Friends,

I too did the area of the oval and cushion cuts calculations. Area of the oval is pi * r1 * r2. The area of the cushion is roughly (would not account for rounding of edge) l * w assuming the measurements given are length and width; not edge to edge and tip to tip. Results were ave. of 32.70 mm2 for 1 ct. ovals vs. 31.98 mm2 for 1 ct. cushions. If Rockdiamond is selecting ovals and cushions for his inventory that will likely sell, then perhaps the rough results in calculations for his inventory will be slightly different than those randomly measured online. For me, it makes the most sense to see the diamonds of interest before purchasing.

AMEN, kathley... Amen. I appreciate you doing more proper mathematics on this -- a random sampling is just so... well... random.

 

[kathley]

Hi Friends,

I too did the area of the oval and cushion cuts calculations. Area of the oval is pi * r1 * r2. The area of the cushion is roughly (would not account for rounding of edge) l * w assuming the measurements given are length and width; not edge to edge and tip to tip. Results were ave. of 32.70 mm2 for 1 ct. ovals vs. 31.98 mm2 for 1 ct. cushions. If Rockdiamond is selecting ovals and cushions for his inventory that will likely sell, then perhaps the rough results in calculations for his inventory will be slightly different than those randomly measured online. For me, it makes the most sense to see the diamonds of interest before purchasing.

AMEN, kathley... Amen. I appreciate you doing more proper mathematics on this -- a random sampling is just so... well... random.

Thank you msop for your direction and thought for doing the calculations!

 

[Rockdiamond]

We can't use geometric calculations accurately at all- because of corner size, LxW will not give an accurate surface area- particularly with ovals and cushions which can vary on shape in a way LxW can't document.
Plus, the sample size and selection is simply not going to allow any substantive conclusions to be drawn.

Basically as a professional it's simply irresponsible for me to give a general answer that overlooks what my experience has proven to me.
That's why I'm here- to clarify things as opposed to the typical answers consumers will get from a person without experience.

Msop- you bolded the part of my statement about which oval I will buy.... but left this part out

Furthermore, when I buy diamonds, I look through many stones to pick the ones we will buy- I can again stress that as an average, ovals are NOT more spready ( larger looking) than cushions nowadays- in the best cases, yes, but that's by no means an average

Looking at online samplings has very little bearing on the way I get to see stones- in person, from cutters, and en masse

but we all agree, stones must be seen to be evaluated-
Although we may disagree about what the correct and professional manner in which to advise people asking, and I do believe everyone is giving what they believe to be helpful advice- there is no offense intended to anyone posting.

 

[Niel]

David I respect your desire to fully answer peoples questions above and beyond the original question. I've noticed you do it often and it shows a dedication to deeper understanding. I get why you do it as a trade member.

 

[msop04]

We can't use geometric calculations accurately at all- because of corner size, LxW will not give an accurate surface area- particularly with ovals and cushions which can vary on shape in a way LxW can't document.
Plus, the sample size and selection is simply not going to allow any substantive conclusions to be drawn.

Basically as a professional it's simply irresponsible for me to give a general answer that overlooks what my experience has proven to me.
That's why I'm here- to clarify things as opposed to the typical answers consumers will get from a person without experience.

Msop- you bolded the part of my statement about which oval I will buy.... but left this part out

Furthermore, when I buy diamonds, I look through many stones to pick the ones we will buy- I can again stress that as an average, ovals are NOT more spready ( larger looking) than cushions nowadays- in the best cases, yes, but that's by no means an average

Looking at online samplings has very little bearing on the way I get to see stones- in person, from cutters, and en masse

but we all agree, stones must be seen to be evaluated-
Although we may disagree about what the correct and professional manner in which to advise people asking, and I do believe everyone is giving what they believe to be helpful advice- there is no offense intended to anyone posting.

I don't think any offense was taken (at least not for me), so that's no biggie. I understand and appreciate your desire to give people the best advice possible, based on your experience. I do have a question about the L x W statement above though. I get what you mean on the actual surface area and corner size... but isn't the simple L x W (speaking about the 1 dimensional, face up view) of the stone pretty much what our eyes see, regardless of actual surface area?

I left out the bolded statement because I felt it unnecessary, since the stones you see make up your personal experience, being totally different from what others may have seen. Maybe you tend to get deeper ovals and/or shallower cushions... another person may get more of the opposite, ya know? That said, samples will vary, so I was simply trying to do a totally random check to see which cut was found to be larger from that sampling. While it's true we can find shallow cushions and deep ovals all day long, but as you stated in a previous post, colorless ovals tend to face up larger than most cushions.

I respect that you feel a responsibility to deliver the absolute best information to the consumer, but there is always an exception. That said, the concensus here is what it is just as a general rule, not the gospel. Of course, there are usually exceptions to any "rule" -- that's why we can all agree that a stone should be viewed in person (or at least not just on paper) for proper assessment. And, yes, I feel that everyone really is trying to be as helpful as possible.

 

[kathley]

Hi Rockdiamond,

I think you just reworded what I was trying to say when I used the word "roughly" in the calculations. I am a scientist by profession, and I have the ability to get pretty close to "accurate" in the calculations of area, stone by stone. However, due to time constraints and more importantly, that is beyond the scope and point of this discussion. I am thinking when you are saying that ovals are not more spready than cushions nowadays implies that possibly they trended to be that way before(?); and perhaps that is what people are remembering now. Just a hypothesis. Additionally, I am thinking that what appears to be larger looking when comparing stone by stone, can be visually subjective as well. Which brings us all back to the same agreed-upon logic, diamonds must be seen in person to assess what is the right individual fit.

 

[Christina...]

I've been following this thread and wasn't quite sure if or how I wanted to respond. But I do think that an important point has been made, and it relates to many topics, not just to this one. There are many popular 'party lines' (as Yssie refers to them) on PS, statements of opinion that are carried over to other threads and repeated as 'fact'. For example the affect that fluorescence has on a diamonds color, assumptions about color from pictures or video, affects of inclusions at particular clarity grades. I've made all of these mistakes and will continue to make more as I continue to learn. But what I've noticed lately is how many newbies post for the very first time looking for advice and have mistakenly assumed that the advice they were being given was from an expert rather than from a consumer. It reminded me of how much impact our 'opinions' or ill advice has on a consumer. We all post with the best of intentions, believing that we are giving good and accurate advice, and often times if our advice is incorrect someone with more knowledge, or a trades member will come along and correct any misinformation or misunderstandings. Sadly though there appears to be less involvement from the trade and many PS veterans have left, so this just leaves the OP with bad information in which to make a really important and expensive decision.

Now I have no idea which faces up larger, an oval, or a cushion, I haven't looked at nearly enough of either, though I would have come to the same conclusion as most here did. But I do believe that RD makes a valid point that often times we need to ask more questions from the OP in order to offer them more accurate information or lead them to areas where they can find the information for themselves as one of the posters above did. I'm the furthest person from an expert and I'm sure that this post will ruffle a few feathers, but it's not intended to, as I said, I'm as guilty as anyone maybe more so. I just think that RD has given us all something to consider the next time we post.

Just to clariy, I'm not speaking about anyone in this thread...just about PS in general as I've observed it recently!! Since this topic was touched on here I thought it might be an appropriate place to make my statement. Please do not think I'm referring to anyone who has posted. It's a general statement only!!

 

[Enerchi]

Christina

Well said! I too have been following this and have learned from it. What's that crazy expression... "Never assume, it just makes an.." - yup, that's the phrase! - I also "assumed" the same that an oval would face up larger, so I am very glad that we were able to learn from David - who is an expert in diamonds.

I also agree with your suggestion to get as much info from the OP as possible to learn what they are thinking/the direction they are headed/any budget constraints, etc., so we can all help in a knowledgeable and informed manner and give the OP the answers they are looking for.

I too feel like sometimes people get swayed or thrown off by posts that are written with the best of intentions, but can get blurry. AGain, like you, that's just my 'behind the scenes' observation of several threads in the past few months. I'm sure I've been an unintentional "blurry poster" too!

Any how, well said Christina - very well put and I find I never stop learning on this site! Yay to all of us who keep coming back for more and more knowledge! -- and to the trades people who are so generous with their input.

 

[Christina...]

Christina

Well said! I too have been following this and have learned from it. What's that crazy expression... "Never assume, it just makes an.." - yup, that's the phrase! - I also "assumed" the same that an oval would face up larger, so I am very glad that we were able to learn from David - who is an expert in diamonds.

I also agree with your suggestion to get as much info from the OP as possible to learn what they are thinking/the direction they are headed/any budget constraints, etc., so we can all help in a knowledgeable and informed manner and give the OP the answers they are looking for.

I too feel like sometimes people get swayed or thrown off by posts that are written with the best of intentions, but can get blurry. AGain, like you, that's just my 'behind the scenes' observation of several threads in the past few months. I'm sure I've been an unintentional "blurry poster" too!

Any how, well said Christina - very well put and I find I never stop learning on this site! Yay to all of us who keep coming back for more and more knowledge! -- and to the trades people who are so generous with their input.

Aww! Thanks Enerchi! I was expecting to find myself standing all alone on the playground so it's reassuring to know that you've also observed similar situations. I truly posted with only the best intentions and I truly believe that PS has THE most informed group of consumers around! Fantastic advice is given every single day by so many knowledgeable and insightful posters, and I learn something new every time I log on. I admire the time and dedications that so many offer and appreciate their contributions. It's just also important to me to know that what I am learning is also accurate.

 

[Niel]

Christina

Well said! I too have been following this and have learned from it. What's that crazy expression... "Never assume, it just makes an.." - yup, that's the phrase! - I also "assumed" the same that an oval would face up larger, so I am very glad that we were able to learn from David - who is an expert in diamonds.

I also agree with your suggestion to get as much info from the OP as possible to learn what they are thinking/the direction they are headed/any budget constraints, etc., so we can all help in a knowledgeable and informed manner and give the OP the answers they are looking for.

I too feel like sometimes people get swayed or thrown off by posts that are written with the best of intentions, but can get blurry. AGain, like you, that's just my 'behind the scenes' observation of several threads in the past few months. I'm sure I've been an unintentional "blurry poster" too!

Any how, well said Christina - very well put and I find I never stop learning on this site! Yay to all of us who keep coming back for more and more knowledge! -- and to the trades people who are so generous with their input.

Christina!
I agree. There are a hand full of things that are just regarded as fact around here that aren't necessarily. They seem to be said by people often and thus assumed. Some may be right, some may not. I do agree with lots of what David said, though I don't think the generalization of face up size is something that hurt the poster, I can see why he said what he did. And was happy to hear why this widely held belief may not be accurate.

I love to see long held beliefs turned on their head so please keep them coming.