Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Deciding between two Cushion cuts

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

jack1611

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
9
If only these things were easier....

I have been looking at Cushion Brilliant cuts and am currently considering two diamonds. I have looked at both but am having a hard time deciding between them. No. 1 is smaller by weight but bigger by area, whereas No. 2 gets me over that magical "2.0" mark and has a better finish.

No. 1:

Shape: Cushion Brilliant
Weight: 1.90
Measurments: 8.02 x 7.40 x. 4.51 mm
Table: 56%
Depth: 60.9%
Girdle: Thin to Slightly Thick
Cutlet: Small
Color: G
Clarity: VS2
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None

No. 2:

Shape: Cushion Brilliant
Weight: 2.03
Measurments: 7.30 x 7.26 x 5.16 mm
Table: 55%
Depth: 71.1%
Girdle: Thick to Very Thick
Cutlet: Medium
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Fluorescence: Faint

Diamond No. 2 is $990 more expensive than Diamond No. 1. If the carat weights were equal, I think I would pick No. 1. It is just a better (to me) looking stone and is more brilliant.

My concerns about No. 1 are the depth (it looks a little "light" on the bottom) and the price (it is more expensive than some of the 2 carat stones I have been looking at of similar quality, the asking price is about $500 over "list.")

My concerns about No. 2 are, again, the depth (on paper, it seems a little too deep) and the clarity is not as nice as I would like (there is a crystal just off center).

Any advice/insight would be appreciated,

Jack
 
You do realize that although #2 "weighs more" #1 faces up quite a bit bigger right? So personally, if you think that one was most pleasing to the eye, I would snatch that one up. Who cares what the weight is if it's hiding in the depth of the diamond?

#1 is a bit over "list" price probably because it is facing up so nicely and the inclusions are nice. There are a LOT of variables to consider when choosing a stone...
 
I would choose #1 as well. you did say it has more brilliance and sparkles more than #2. For cushions...the numbers are important on paper, but what you see from your eyes are even more important. good luck!
 

neatfreak: Yes, I realize that #1 faces up quite a bit bigger than #2. That is the term I should have used instead of saying #1 has a "bigger area." Thanks.



I don't necessarily care about the difference in carat weight, especially where the lighter stone faces up more than the heavier stone. However, some (read: my girlfriend) might not regard a stone that is less than 2.0 cw as well as one that is 2.0 cw or more. (That sounds bad. She has said that she will be happy with whatever I get.) The thing of it is, the 1.90 looks bigger than many of the 2.0 cw stones I have been looking at. On top at least. There is nothing to it below the girdle.

As important as it is to me get a "good" stone, it is more important that I do not get a "bad" stone (whatever that means). In other words, I do not want to overpay for what I am getting.

inlove8: Unfortunately, I cannot discount that #2 was a little dirty when I looked at it and, therefore, that may have impacted its brilliance a little bit. I looked at both stones in natural lighting, under fluorescent lighting and under jewelry store type overhead lighting.



I know that "numbers" only get me so far. However, without being able to see the stones side by side, it is all that I have to go on other than trying to paint a picture of one stone in my head when I am looking at the other.

 
I love the 1.08 ratio of diamond number 1...it definitely helps make the diamond appear bigger/fuller.

Diamond number 2 will be more square.

I would go with number 1...who cares about the 2ct mark? You said it''s bigger and more sparkly, and your girlfriend could still say it''s 2cts!
 
Date: 8/6/2007 5:37:54 PM
Author: jack1611
I cannot discount that #2 was a little dirty when I looked at it and, therefore, that may have impacted its brilliance a little bit.
Click to expand...
Honestly, a "little dirty" is probably closer to "real life" conditions than jewelry store pristine!
9.gif
Does either one seem like "the one"? I may be misreading your post but you don''t seem DELIGHTED with either. I favor #1 from your descriptions but it''s most important that you really think you''ve found the right thing. If you''re saddened by telling her it''s "less than 2ct" then, even though logically it seems silly because it LOOKS as big or bigger -- it might taint things for you. I''d say keep looking but I don''t know your time frame.
 
Date: 8/6/2007 5:04:19 PM
Author: neatfreak
You do realize that although #2 ''weighs more'' #1 faces up quite a bit bigger right? So personally, if you think that one was most pleasing to the eye, I would snatch that one up. Who cares what the weight is if it''s hiding in the depth of the diamond?

#1 is a bit over ''list'' price probably because it is facing up so nicely and the inclusions are nice. There are a LOT of variables to consider when choosing a stone...
Click to expand...
Hiding in the depth where???
Jack1611 wrote: "(it looks a little "light" on the bottom)... means..., its not hiding..., its probably sticking out on the crown height!!!
Could be a great looking cushion which has the "sculpture effect".
If cut correctly... could be a winner!!! (based on what Jack1611 is describing)
 
Other than the fact that #1 is a type of stone that apparently does not surface often (a stone just under 2.0 cw of good quality that faces up quite big), I do not have a set timetable or other pressure to buy a ring immediately. I have been looking for about 3 weeks and have looked at about 15 stones from 4 different vendors. (That may not seem like a lot of stones but I gave very specific/narrow specs.)

Ideally, I would shop around a little bit more but I do not want to miss the opportunity that #1 seems to be. It seems easier to find "modified" cushion cuts than older style cushion cuts. I do not much care for the modified cut, so I do not not want pass on #1 and regret it later. I could probably pass on #2 except that the price is very good compared with others I have seen of similar quality.

In the end, I think it comes down to not wanting to miss out on #1. That said, I would not buy it for that reason alone. I genuinely like the stone. Is it "the one"? I don''t know. I feel it is kind of like buying an airline ticket. I could buy a ticket today that would have cost less if I bought it tomorrow and would have been non-stop rather than 1-stop. In other words, there is always the chance of another stone surfacing. But, at some point, I guess I will just have to accept that risk.
 
Hey Jack--

Pretty simple at this point....

#2 is out because you said stone #1 looked nicer to you. On top of that it faces up larger.

The real question is whether #1 is THE ONE, and that we cannot answer for you, especially without pictures.

But honestly, you should not be considering #2 because you have found a stone you like better. Do not get sucked in by the numbers on a cushion.

Also, I guarantee you that while your GF might prefer the idea of a 2.0 stone over a 1.9, she would much rather have a stone that LOOKS bigger and nicer.
 
Date: 8/6/2007 5:53:01 PM
Author: decodelighted

Honestly, a ''little dirty'' is probably closer to ''real life'' conditions than jewelry store pristine!
9.gif
Does either one seem like ''the one''? I may be misreading your post but you don''t seem DELIGHTED with either.
Click to expand...


decodelighted: You are not entirely misreading my post. It is just that I tend to get overly-stressed by even small purchases and this would, obvously, be a very large purchase. I am the type who researches, comparison shops, and then researches some more. Most things I buy do not involve personal taste. Instead, I usually worry about whether I am getting a good deal and, more importantly, whether I could have gotten a better deal. Price/quality only get you so far in buying a diamond, then there is the subjective factor that I am, again, not used to dealing with. That may account for the tone of my initial post. In the end, I am not worried so much about how I will like it as much as how she will like it.

Date: 8/6/2007 6:31:10 PM
Author: boston_jeff

Hey Jack--

Pretty simple at this point....

#2 is out because you said stone #1 looked nicer to you. On top of that it faces up larger.

The real question is whether #1 is THE ONE, and that we cannot answer for you, especially without pictures.

But honestly, you should not be considering #2 because you have found a stone you like better. Do not get sucked in by the numbers on a cushion.

Also, I guarantee you that while your GF might prefer the idea of a 2.0 stone over a 1.9, she would much rather have a stone that LOOKS bigger and nicer.
Click to expand...

boston jeff: Sorry, don''t have pictures. Wish I did. I am not ruling #2 out. I have seen it only once and need to look at it again. (I have seen #1 twice now.) While I have easily said no to several stones, I can''t say no to #2.

I know that I am the only who can answer whether a stone is the "ONE." If nothing else, I am just looking for advice/insight on the non-subjective aspects of the stones. I know that the numbers don''t mean much in and of themselves without being able to see the stone but to the extent that the numbers affect the stone, I would like to hear about it.

For example, the two things about #1 that are giving me a headache are the depth (60.9%: is that too shallow for a ring of this dimension or is the ring too shallow compared with how much it faces up) and the price (about $15,700).
 
If number one is speaking to you, then take it. Men like quantitative measurements and diamonds sometimes have an intangible quality that makes them more interesting. I like #1.
 
Date: 8/6/2007 6:57:46 PM
Author: jack1611
Date: 8/6/2007 5:53:01 PM

Author: decodelighted


boston jeff: Sorry, don''t have pictures. Wish I did. I am not ruling #2 out. I have seen it only once and need to look at it again. (I have seen #1 twice now.) While I have easily said no to several stones, I can''t say no to #2.


I know that I am the only who can answer whether a stone is the ''ONE.'' If nothing else, I am just looking for advice/insight on the non-subjective aspects of the stones. I know that the numbers don''t mean much in and of themselves without being able to see the stone but to the extent that the numbers affect the stone, I would like to hear about it.


For example, the two things about #1 that are giving me a headache are the depth (60.9%: is that too shallow for a ring of this dimension or is the ring too shallow compared with how much it faces up) and the price (about $15,700).
Click to expand...

I would say that the depth is shallower than I would typically want, but if its a beautiful stone, it really doesn''t matter if it is 50%, 60%, or 80% depth. There are always exceptions to the "rules" (in fact, there are very few rules when it comes to cushions). I did not look at stones that shallow, but that was only to make my search more manageable, and there are very few old-style stones with that depth.

re: price, it seems to be in line with what I would expect for a stone of that size, color, and clarity.
Click to expand...
 
At this point I've looked at quite a few cushions, and I always have better luck with depths closer to 70 than to 60. Of course, as everyone is saying, there are many possibilities that work. I've focused on ones with taller crowns which increases depth though. But make sure you're getting good light return from all parts of the stone especially the center where I've seen more issues with shallower stones.

That said, I think the 2.03 is facing up a bit small for the weight. Also I don't think the 1.90 is over "list" as it's "oversize" which commands a premium. But I agree, I think it's high for internet pricing, maybe not so bad if at a local b&m. There's supposedly a 30-40% premium going over 2 carats. If the 1.90 is particularly fine and the 2.03 isn't so great, that explains part but not all of the difference.

Good luck.
 
Date: 8/7/2007 10:49:11 AM
Author: elmo
At this point I've looked at quite a few cushions, and I always have better luck with depths closer to 70 than to 60. Of course, as everyone is saying, there are many possibilities that work. I've focused on ones with taller crowns which increases depth though. But make sure you're getting good light return from all parts of the stone especially the center where I've seen more issues with shallower stones.


That said, I think the 2.03 is facing up a bit small for the weight. Also I don't think the 1.90 is over 'list' as it's 'oversize' which commands a premium. But I agree, I think it's high for internet pricing, maybe not so bad if at a local b&m. There's supposedly a 30-40% premium going over 2 carats. If the 1.90 is particularly fine and the 2.03 isn't so great, that explains part but not all of the difference.


Good luck.
Click to expand...


This is not an internet price, it is from a vendor in NYC on W. 47th Street who I have been working with for awhile. (Although, I have found the same stone listed with 3 other vendors on the internet. The range in price is $500 and, of course, my vendor has the highest price of the 4.) The light return on the 1.90 is quite nice but I can't say that I focused on the center of the stone. Compared (in my memory at least), the 1.90 is more brilliant/scintillating than the 2.03 under comparable lighting. The only difference being that one stone (1.90) was more clean than the other (2.03). Well, not the only difference of course. I take it that, among other things, the over 70% depth of the 2.03 may be affecting the brilliance.

When you say "taller crowns," what do you mean by that? Unfortunately, I do not know the crown height of the 1.90.

Also, forgive my ignorance, what does "b&m" stand for?

Thanks to all BTW for their comments to date.
 
b&m stands for a brick & mortar store....as in a physical store as opposed to an online store.

The crown is the area between the girdle and the table. Boston Jeff''s crown is amazingly beautiful, and pretty tall. I''m sure there are huge flashes of light off of that baby!!! I''m not sure if a smaller crown is a bad thing...or what the ideal percentages are. Someone else will have to chime in on that. :)
 
P.S. If you''re on 47th street anyway, then why don''t you schedule an appointment with Mark Turnowski of Engagement Rings Direct? He''s known as the cushion guy for a reason!
9.gif
 
Date: 8/7/2007 12:00:35 PM
Author: luckystar112
If you're on 47th street anyway, then why don't you schedule an appointment with Mark Turnowski of Engagement Rings Direct? He's known as the cushion guy for a reason!
9.gif
Click to expand...
TRU DAT!!! I had no idea you were doing the Diamond District ... Mark T has proven to be an AMAZING short-cut for cushion shopping folks around here (who still get better deals than most could get on their own).

And -- geez -- I almost wanna come down & help you! I love cushion shopping & am just north of the city. (Was there this weekend for a preview of GREASE & the Police concert) I WISH I'd had time to cruise around looking at bling ...

But -- SERIOUSLY -- even if #1 is "the stone" -- you might feel more solidly "yes" or "no" after meeting Mark T & seeing his amazing eye at work. You'll either fall in love with something he shows you or you SHOULD then know that you'll never find anything better than #1.



ETA: I shopped for my own stone in the DD w/o aid of an "expert" like Mark T ... and we did fine too in the end. You just really have to know your stuff & kinda get lucky a bit. If there had been a solid shortcut for Asschers in the DD I probably would have done it.
 
Take a look again at DiaGem's post - that's what I mean by tall crown. To generalize quite a bit, older and more traditional cushions often have tall crowns (which can result in a small table) giving a different look than moderns that often have crown height more like a modern round brilliant.

I see your stone in the listings here. You could potentially use this to negotiate $8000/ct if you decide this is the one. Like everyone is saying, it could be really nice...if so the extra spread and just under 2 carats are a big plus and worth a premium. Or maybe it was cut more for spread. Only way to tell is look at lots of stones, hopefully with similar lighting, and train your eyes.
 
I have met with Mark T's partner once already (I met Mark as well) and am meeting with him again tomorrow to look at one of the stones again and, hopefully, some additional stones. Both Mark and Gary were very helpful and informative (and, most importantly, patient).

FWIW, I think luck has a fair bit to do with it in the sense of talking to the right peson at the right time ("right place, right time").

The 1.90 is, I think, a more modern cut of the cushion brilliant. The GIA certificate is dated May 24, 2007. It does not really look like the pictures of the older mine cut or the antique cushions I have seen so far. I have attached the plot, which shows the facets. It is, I am afraid, the closest I can come to a photo for the moment.

I do not know whether it was cut for spread. That is one of the things that is a concern. Any dead give aways when comparing it with another stone?

I would like to think that I can negotiate down a little bit by virtue of its being listed by other vendors at a lower price but the price I have been given has already been negotiated down and the vendor seems reluctant to lower it any further.

Again, thanks for all of the comments.

1.90 plot(2).jpg
 
That's what I call a traditional eight-main cushion, but not an old cut.

If you have to have it, pay the price and be done!
1.gif
After you've looked at enough stones to be sure it works but want a better price, it's perfectly appropriate to show them the pricescope listing, offer $8K/ct on the spot and move on if not. That's exactly list as you say not counting the oversize premium, which seems like a reasonable target to me if it's a nice stone. There's always another diamond - always - and being willing to continue looking for something else works in your favor.

Edit: stones like that are what Garry Holloway has called "big reflectors" - they can have big blocky patterns with lots of punch, a very nice look. On the other hand, if cut too shallow or deep, those big reflector pavilion mains can have big leakage, or be susceptible to bow tie effect. Calibrate your eyes! You're in the best place in the world to do that.
 
Get Mark''s opinion on the 1.90. He will be completely honest with you if it''s not a good stone, and he''ll find you something better. Do you insist on working with that one vendor? A lot of these companies have a price match policy, and if your vendor doesn''t want to discount it further to the competitor''s price, then I would go with a different vendor!
 
Date: 8/7/2007 1:36:04 PM
Author: luckystar112
Get Mark's opinion on the 1.90.
Click to expand...
If you're already working with someone else on the 1.90 I respectfully disagree. Certainly it's fine to give Mark a shot at finding what you want at the same time though.
 
elmo & luckystar112: No, I do not insist on the one vendor. That said, he has been good to me and I would be willing to pay a small "premium" because of that but not $500 more than the lowest price listed for the stone. He knows that I know it is listed elsewhere at a lower price. That only got me so far. He discounted a bit but was reluctant to go any further. There may be a little wiggle room but not much. He has the advantage of actually holding the stone and does not seem to think he will have a problem selling it if I turn it down. So, I do not see him giving up the stone anytime soon -- especially if he thinks I am going to go across the street and buy it from someone else. Anyway, I do not want to screw the guy, as I said, he has been good to me.
 
I wouldn't quibble over $500 really ... that 1.90 is *more* desireable than "standard rates" because of it's unique spread & just under 2 ct weight. If it was OVER 2 ct weight it would get even more. Things are "worth" the MOST someone would pay for them. I agree that whoever the vendor holding that stone is could get their asking price from someone else.

Whoever found that stone initially is entitled to the sale IMO.


ETA: And I don't think much could be determined from the CERT alone. So I wouldn't worry that competitors didn't "say much" about the 1.90 based on that alone.
 
Agree, this guy gets first shot at selling you the stone. Nobody on pricescope is giving these away so like you say $500 is $500. Unless this is a special case where the broker is the owner, once you make an offer he may hold onto it for a few more weeks but the owner will eventually want it back, at which point I'd say it's fair game for anyone.

Deco I agree, if that is "the one" then I wouldn't worry so much about $500. I'm not sure Jack's convinced that's the one though
1.gif
more that it might work. In that case, no problem shopping until you've found the one or are tired of shopping
3.gif
.
 
This is how I see it, (although Elmo has already said that she disagrees, so I guess it depends)

The 1.90 doesn''t belong to that particular vendor, so sure...he could sell it pretty quickly, but so could every other vendor, and for a lower price! I could call up James Allen or someone else and have that stone tomorrow. So if the vendor doesn''t want to meet the competitors price, then it''s his loss, IMO. Is it rude, especially since you''ve been dealing with that one vendor for that particular stone? Maybe. But if you give the vendor the option of meeting you even somewhat close to the competitors and he doesn''t take it....well then that wouldn''t be any weight on MY shoulders. That''s just my opinion though. If I really loved the vendor and highly valued his expertise, than I would pay $500 more...but that would be the only case.
 
Date: 8/7/2007 1:44:14 PM
Author: jack1611
elmo & luckystar112: No, I do not insist on the one vendor. That said, he has been good to me and I would be willing to pay a small ''premium'' because of that but not $500 more than the lowest price listed for the stone. He knows that I know it is listed elsewhere at a lower price. That only got me so far. He discounted a bit but was reluctant to go any further. There may be a little wiggle room but not much. He has the advantage of actually holding the stone and does not seem to think he will have a problem selling it if I turn it down. So, I do not see him giving up the stone anytime soon -- especially if he thinks I am going to go across the street and buy it from someone else. Anyway, I do not want to screw the guy, as I said, he has been good to me.
Click to expand...
Ahh, okay. Cause to me it sounded a little bit like he was trying to pressure you with the whole, "I could sell it quickly" bit. I was like, "YEAH? Well so can everyone else!!" Sometimes you don''t know who you can trust in the diamond district...which was why I was saying to get a second opinion from Mark. I''m glad this guy is being good to you.
9.gif
 
Well they are applying a little pressure if they're saying how easy it will be to sell otherwise! Jack can counter if he's willing to walk. BTW I don't think we're talking about several thousand dollars margin to work with here. I expect that $500 is a fairly significant portion of the net.
 
A little pressure but also, perhaps, some frustration. I first looked at the 1.90 in mid-July, and I think he thought I was sold on the stone more than I actually was. I need to see it a few times.

In some ways, elmo hit the nail on the head. I am not 100% sure if it is THE one or just one that will work. However, I am not going to buy it just because it "works." It is the best of the stones that I have seen to date (within my budget of course). Given that I do not want a stone less than 1.9 cw or one of lesser quality, it will be hard to find another stone similar to the 1.90 because I will, most likley, have to go above 2.0 cw and will have to pay the price premium associated with that. I do not want to pay what a quality 2.0 cw diamond will cost me.

As for the margin, I happened to see what the ultimate owner is selling it for and the margin is certainly not several thousands of dollars. So, yes $500 is a fairly significant portion of the net
 
 
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
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top