Cushion v. oval

[msop04]

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!!

I think you may be speaking of this post from me regarding getting more info??

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

But, yes, you are right, Christina... without the appropriate info, no one (even an expert) can give a truly "correct" answer. (Sometimes I can give the wrong answer when given the info!! Imagine the damage without it!! ) I appreciate your insight on this and agree with you 100%! I wish more ppl in the trade would join and the older members would come back -- I love to learn!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

As a general rule cushions are quite a lot smaller spread than rounds (typically 5% to 20% less) and ovals are typically as well spread or bigger than rounds by 0-5%.

For fancy colored diamonds there is no rule, and in both cases the spreads are usually considerably less than for round diamonds because making the color more apparent is the goal and more brilliance is a result of shorter ray paths through the stone which reduces face up color.
So if a cushion or an oval is to present a more brilliant appearance then, with only exceptions, cushions are smaller spread than ovals.

 

[Rockdiamond]

As a general rule cushions are quite a lot smaller spread than rounds (typically 5% to 20% less) and ovals are typically as well spread or bigger than rounds by 0-5%.

For fancy colored diamonds there is no rule, and in both cases the spreads are usually considerably less than for round diamonds because making the color more apparent is the goal and more brilliance is a result of shorter ray paths through the stone which reduces face up color.
So if a cushion or an oval is to present a more brilliant appearance then, with only exceptions, cushions are smaller spread than ovals.

I agree- however for context we need to add that there are many stones on the market that are not cut with brilliance as a priority.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

As a general rule cushions are quite a lot smaller spread than rounds (typically 5% to 20% less) and ovals are typically as well spread or bigger than rounds by 0-5%.

For fancy colored diamonds there is no rule, and in both cases the spreads are usually considerably less than for round diamonds because making the color more apparent is the goal and more brilliance is a result of shorter ray paths through the stone which reduces face up color.
So if a cushion or an oval is to present a more brilliant appearance then, with only exceptions, cushions are smaller spread than ovals.

I agree- however for context we need to add that there are many stones on the market that are not cut with brilliance as a priority.

Yes, for example the Daussi stones that you sell David. Where spread from material otherwise used for rose cuts would be one such example.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

As a general rule cushions are quite a lot smaller spread than rounds (typically 5% to 20% less) and ovals are typically as well spread or bigger than rounds by 0-5%.

For fancy colored diamonds there is no rule, and in both cases the spreads are usually considerably less than for round diamonds because making the color more apparent is the goal and more brilliance is a result of shorter ray paths through the stone which reduces face up color.
So if a cushion or an oval is to present a more brilliant appearance then, with only exceptions, cushions are smaller spread than ovals.

I agree- however for context we need to add that there are many stones on the market that are not cut with brilliance as a priority.

Yes, for example the Daussi stones that you sell David. Where spread from material otherwise used for rose cuts would be one such example.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Ouch- that's quite a personal, and professional swipe Garry. No problem because we are not a dealer for Daussi anymore.
But your point does cut both ways as I can tell you from experience that many buyers ( and PS members and readers) prefer the large spread that the Daussi cut offers.
I do agree that brilliance is not their priority- but again, that may not be what some people find most beautiful in a diamond.
And they are a good example of cushions that can spread larger than ovals.

 

[msop04]

As a general rule cushions are quite a lot smaller spread than rounds (typically 5% to 20% less) and ovals are typically as well spread or bigger than rounds by 0-5%.

For fancy colored diamonds there is no rule, and in both cases the spreads are usually considerably less than for round diamonds because making the color more apparent is the goal and more brilliance is a result of shorter ray paths through the stone which reduces face up color.
So if a cushion or an oval is to present a more brilliant appearance then, with only exceptions, cushions are smaller spread than ovals.

I agree- however for context we need to add that there are many stones on the market that are not cut with brilliance as a priority.

Yes, for example the Daussi stones that you sell David. Where spread from material otherwise used for rose cuts would be one such example.

Gary: Yes! The Daussi stones are a perfect example of a larger spread cushion. The only thing is that they just don't sparkle as much, but I guess that's the trade off for spread in lower cushion weights sometimes. And, that's ironic that you mention rose cuts, because the Daussi stones have a little more sparkle, yet are similar.

RD: You mention that many stones on the market are not cut with brilliance as a priority. Can you expound on this? Do these include colorless stones or is this more for colored or fancy stones? Assuming colorless stones are included, wouldn't those stones be considered inferior to stones cut for more superior optics?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Ouch- that's quite a personal, and professional swipe Garry. No problem because we are not a dealer for Daussi anymore.
But your point does cut both ways as I can tell you from experience that many buyers ( and PS members and readers) prefer the large spread that the Daussi cut offers.
I do agree that brilliance is not their priority- but again, that may not be what some people find most beautiful in a diamond.
And they are a good example of cushions that can spread larger than ovals.

And strange as it may seem - HCA is the only cut grade system that rewards diamonds for larger spread (others penalize for smaller spread).

 

[Rockdiamond]

Expound? Me
Sure!
When it comes to colorless ovals, it is my experience that stones that I would consider beautifully cut are very hard to find. Remember there are no cut grades for ovals. Aspects that I find are lacking in many ovals- both colorless and fancy colored: non-detrimental, bowtie- (or stones with no discernable bowtie). This particular aspect could be associated with brilliance
There's also Excellent shape. Good spread for the weight. I see a lot of ovals that do not suit my taste
I don't prefer the term "superior optics" as much of this is personal taste– and the Daussi cushions are good example of why.
Some people hate them – but some people really love them for reasons that might not be associated with what is considered a well cut diamond to other people
How about "different optics"?

 

[msop04]

Expound? Me
Sure!
When it comes to colorless ovals, it is my experience that stones that I would consider beautifully cut are very hard to find. Remember there are no cut grades for ovals. Aspects that I find are lacking in many ovals- both colorless and fancy colored: non-detrimental, bowtie- (or stones with no discernable bowtie). This particular aspect could be associated with brilliance
There's also Excellent shape. Good spread for the weight. I see a lot of ovals that do not suit my taste
I don't prefer the term "superior optics" as much of this is personal taste– and the Daussi cushions are good example of why.
Some people hate them – but some people really love them for reasons that might not be associated with what is considered a well cut diamond to other people
How about "different optics"?

Fair enough.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Expound? Me
Sure!
When it comes to colorless ovals, it is my experience that stones that I would consider beautifully cut are very hard to find. Remember there are no cut grades for ovals. Aspects that I find are lacking in many ovals- both colorless and fancy colored: non-detrimental, bowtie- (or stones with no discernable bowtie). This particular aspect could be associated with brilliance
There's also Excellent shape. Good spread for the weight. I see a lot of ovals that do not suit my taste
I don't prefer the term "superior optics" as much of this is personal taste– and the Daussi cushions are good example of why.
Some people hate them – but some people really love them for reasons that might not be associated with what is considered a well cut diamond to other people
How about "different optics"?

Misinformation.
AGS cut grade ovals and some proprietary cushions.

Today many ovals are polished with their pavilions rotated by 1/32 so they do not show bow ties and perform better.
There are also tricks played with girdles that lower the pavilion angle across the stone that, while decreasing spread for weight, they improve brightness.

 

[delight]

Hi Garry,

I'm sorry for butting in here. I know AGS grading ovals for light performance/ cut grade is old news that dates back in 2008. People who keep up with times probably know of this but I guess the underlying reason behind vendors not using AGS is because most ovals are cut crappy (for a lack of a better word). It doesn't help vendors move diamonds with a damning report from AGS.

That said, do you happen to have any reports from AGS for oval cut grades? Or any report numbers that could be used as an example here?

 

[arkieb1]

As a general rule cushions are quite a lot smaller spread than rounds (typically 5% to 20% less) and ovals are typically as well spread or bigger than rounds by 0-5%.

For fancy colored diamonds there is no rule, and in both cases the spreads are usually considerably less than for round diamonds because making the color more apparent is the goal and more brilliance is a result of shorter ray paths through the stone which reduces face up color.
So if a cushion or an oval is to present a more brilliant appearance then, with only exceptions, cushions are smaller spread than ovals.

Thank God. One of the older members steps in to save the day. My family own a shop here and I am so sick of the fact that because I don't list myself as trade or whenever I make a generalisation - which btw the poster actually asked for I keep getting slammed that my observations must somehow be baseless fiction.

It's not only statistics. If I pulled a typically well cut 2 carat Oval and a typical 2 carat well cut Cushion and put them on my hand took pics and posted them here not in this thread but in an entirely new one not mentioning the damn size I would make a fairly sure bet most of the people voting would pick the Oval as the larger of the two diamonds. YES it IS a generalisation but they DO tend to face up bigger on the hand in my experience.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Garry,

I'm sorry for butting in here. I know AGS grading ovals for light performance/ cut grade is old news that dates back in 2008. People who keep up with times probably know of this but I guess the underlying reason behind vendors not using AGS is because most ovals are cut crappy (for a lack of a better word). It doesn't help vendors move diamonds with a damning report from AGS.

That said, do you happen to have any reports from AGS for oval cut grades? Or any report numbers that could be used as an example here?

I searched Rapnet and found 37 stones. Two had AGS cut grades (I opened most of the 37).
This was the best at AGS 5, the other was AGS7.

AGS#: 104060584022
Report Type: Diamond Quality™ Analysis
Shape and Style: Oval Brilliant
Measurements: 8.06 x 5.10 x 2.74 mm
Cut Grade: AGS Fair 5
Color Grade: AGS 1.5 (G)
Clarity Grade: AGS 0 (IF)
Carat Weight 0.761

And you are not butting in

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

As a general rule cushions are quite a lot smaller spread than rounds (typically 5% to 20% less) and ovals are typically as well spread or bigger than rounds by 0-5%.

For fancy colored diamonds there is no rule, and in both cases the spreads are usually considerably less than for round diamonds because making the color more apparent is the goal and more brilliance is a result of shorter ray paths through the stone which reduces face up color.
So if a cushion or an oval is to present a more brilliant appearance then, with only exceptions, cushions are smaller spread than ovals.

Thank God. One of the older members steps in to save the day. My family own a shop here and I am so sick of the fact that because I don't list myself as trade or whenever I make a generalisation - which btw the poster actually asked for I keep getting slammed that my observations must somehow be baseless fiction.

It's not only statistics. If I pulled a typically well cut 2 carat Oval and a typical 2 carat well cut Cushion and put them on my hand took pics and posted them here not in this thread but in an entirely new one not mentioning the damn size I would make a fairly sure bet most of the people voting would pick the Oval as the larger of the two diamonds. YES it IS a generalisation but they DO tend to face up bigger on the hand in my experience.

I object to being called OLD
Arkieb1 you should register as trade. In fact you are meant to under the rules.
Its a good generalisation too.

 

[delight]

Thanks. Here's the link for anyone who's interested. http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104060584022-DQA.PDF

 

[arkieb1]

As a general rule cushions are quite a lot smaller spread than rounds (typically 5% to 20% less) and ovals are typically as well spread or bigger than rounds by 0-5%.

For fancy colored diamonds there is no rule, and in both cases the spreads are usually considerably less than for round diamonds because making the color more apparent is the goal and more brilliance is a result of shorter ray paths through the stone which reduces face up color.
So if a cushion or an oval is to present a more brilliant appearance then, with only exceptions, cushions are smaller spread than ovals.

Thank God. One of the older members steps in to save the day. My family own a shop here and I am so sick of the fact that because I don't list myself as trade or whenever I make a generalisation - which btw the poster actually asked for I keep getting slammed that my observations must somehow be baseless fiction.

It's not only statistics. If I pulled a typically well cut 2 carat Oval and a typical 2 carat well cut Cushion and put them on my hand took pics and posted them here not in this thread but in an entirely new one not mentioning the damn size I would make a fairly sure bet most of the people voting would pick the Oval as the larger of the two diamonds. YES it IS a generalisation but they DO tend to face up bigger on the hand in my experience.

I object to being called OLD
Arkieb1 you should register as trade. In fact you are meant to under the rules.
Its a good generalisation too.

Sorry I didn't mean OLD in that context!!!! My husbands family are in the trade. Technically I am not. And I joined P/S to learn more about Old Cuts because lets face it we don't see a large variety of them here compared to the UK and the US....

 

[arkieb1]

Thanks. Here's the link for anyone who's interested. http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104060584022-DQA.PDF

Do you have any images of the stone? I would personally go for a better cut and a lower clarity - but that IS a personal choice. I think you could find GIA graded Ovals with better specs.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Thanks. Here's the link for anyone who's interested. http://www.agslab.com/pdf_sync_reports/104060584022-DQA.PDF

Do you have any images of the stone? I would personally go for a better cut and a lower clarity - but that IS a personal choice. I think you could find GIA graded Ovals with better specs.

Old is OK. I am fit and healthy old (but need a nap )

This was not a search for desirable - it was one of 2 diamonds I could find with AGS cut grades on offer on the largest B2B data base with $6 billion dollars worth of goods.

And yes - it was not a good stone - I have suppliers who list AGS PGS light performance data and AGS1 is commonly available, but when you compare the light performance to round cuts, the best AGS 0 oval might make AGS 7 if they used a round system grade (which their software makes impossible).
I am unhappy about that because it seems to be a misleading system.

 

[Rockdiamond]

For the record: I never said that an oval couldn't be larger than a cushion of the same weight. There are many that are.
I never said there was not an AGS cut grade for oval diamonds. That does not change the fact that there is no such a thing as a "triple X" oval diamond.
The fact that Gary found only two ovals out of $6 billion worth of diamonds with an AGS cut grade was proves that the AGS cut grade for ovals, for what it's worth, is irrelevant. It may also go to the fact of my experience: that really well cut ovals are not that easy to find.
I also think that it's great that Garry is back posting – and paying attention to PriceScope. Although would be nice not to have personal attacks involved I think a difference of opinion when expressed respectfully makes it a much richer place.
If Gary thinks it's a good idea to say that ovals are larger than cushions in general – that's his opinion, and of course he's entitled to it. Just the same as my opinion which is that this discussion is illuminating, and helps consumers get past generalities and learn more about diamonds

 

[Christina...]

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!!

I think you may be speaking of this post from me regarding getting more info??

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

But, yes, you are right, Christina... without the appropriate info, no one (even an expert) can give a truly "correct" answer. (Sometimes I can give the wrong answer when given the info!! Imagine the damage without it!! ) I appreciate your insight on this and agree with you 100%! I wish more ppl in the trade would join and the older members would come back -- I love to learn!

No! I wasn't referring to you at all. In fact I truly wasn't referring to anyone in this thread at all. I would have come to the exact same conclusions as everyone did...in fact I'm still not convinced that ovals don't face up larger than cushions (in general).

 

[tigerbell]

For the longest time I was sure I wanted a cushion until I actually tried some on in the jeweler. It was very anticlimactic- i hated it. I then tried on the oval and literally cried because it was so beautiful.

I also tried on rounds and the cushion (same exact carat weight as the round and oval) by far looked the smallest face up.

 

[msop04]

As a general rule cushions are quite a lot smaller spread than rounds (typically 5% to 20% less) and ovals are typically as well spread or bigger than rounds by 0-5%.

For fancy colored diamonds there is no rule, and in both cases the spreads are usually considerably less than for round diamonds because making the color more apparent is the goal and more brilliance is a result of shorter ray paths through the stone which reduces face up color.
So if a cushion or an oval is to present a more brilliant appearance then, with only exceptions, cushions are smaller spread than ovals.

Thank God. One of the older members steps in to save the day. My family own a shop here and I am so sick of the fact that because I don't list myself as trade or whenever I make a generalisation - which btw the poster actually asked for I keep getting slammed that my observations must somehow be baseless fiction.

It's not only statistics. If I pulled a typically well cut 2 carat Oval and a typical 2 carat well cut Cushion and put them on my hand took pics and posted them here not in this thread but in an entirely new one not mentioning the damn size I would make a fairly sure bet most of the people voting would pick the Oval as the larger of the two diamonds. YES it IS a generalisation but they DO tend to face up bigger on the hand in my experience.

Glad you chimed in, arkieb1 -- I agree with you 110%!! I, for one, had learned a lot from your posts and value your opinion and knowledge of diamonds (this also goes for many other PS members who may not have *TRADE* next to their avatars )... so thanks to everyone!

 

[msop04]

Christina
No! I wasn't referring to you at all. In fact I truly wasn't referring to anyone in this thread at all. I would have come to the exact same conclusions as everyone did...in fact I'm still not convinced that ovals don't face up larger than cushions (in general).

Oh, that's fine!! I was kinda sleepy when I was posting in this thread, so I was like, "OMG!! I hope that didn't come across the wrong way!" I swear, I only meant it to inquire! Who knew folks could be so passionate about diamonds??!!

...it's no wonder our SO's think we've gone cuckoo!!

 

[msop04]

...really well cut ovals are not that easy to find.

True that, RD!! The cut can be sooo pretty, but it's really hard to find a good one -- I think we can all agree on that! It seems like for every nice one, there are about 20 ugly ones!!

 

[Rockdiamond]

You're welcome msop!
I apologize if I ruffled anyone's feathers- I feel bad about that- but at the same time I think this type of discussion has been lacking from PS as of late- with a lot of folks chiming in.
arkieb1- apologies specifically to you- of course your experience is valuable- re-reading the thread, your posts made a lot of sense. It was not my intention to contradict you.

 

[Christina...]

Christina
No! I wasn't referring to you at all. In fact I truly wasn't referring to anyone in this thread at all. I would have come to the exact same conclusions as everyone did...in fact I'm still not convinced that ovals don't face up larger than cushions (in general).

Oh, that's fine!! I was kinda sleepy when I was posting in this thread, so I was like, "OMG!! I hope that didn't come across the wrong way!" I swear, I only meant it to inquire! Who knew folks could be so passionate about diamonds??!!
...it's no wonder our SO's think we've gone cuckoo!!

It's an illness. I just wanted to assure you again that I was NOT speaking about you, or anyone else on this thread, just a observation in general of late. I was actually thinking the other day that I admire your lust for knowledge and am absolutely convinced that you are going to be a huge asset to the PS community!

 

[msop04]

It's an illness. I just wanted to assure you again that I was NOT speaking about you, or anyone else on this thread, just a observation in general of late. I was actually thinking the other day that I admire your lust for knowledge and am absolutely convinced that you are going to be a huge asset to the PS community!

WOW!!! Thank you, Christina!!! That means a lot to me! If I ever even have half the knowledge some of you guys posess, then I'll be very happy!!

<< SORRY FOR THE LITTLE THREADJACK!!! >>