This is my first post. Hopefully oldminer or someone else can offer some advice here...
I am in the process of upgrading my wife''s diamond to a large cushion cut, in the 4-5 ct range. We have looked at several stones and found two we really liked. Both have depth approx 58%, one has table 66% the other 58%. Both are GIA certified so there is no other cut information available. One is F/VS1/no culet/no fluor and the other is G/VS2/sm culet/med blue fluor. Both of these stones have l/w ratios of 1.00 - 1.01. One is more squarish, the the other is more rounded. Spread is good for both. Each stone is eye clean, and the small culet can only be seen through the table with a 10x loupe. Symmetry seemed pretty good (for a big cushion-- obviously these aren''t ideal cut H&A stones).
With the rather low depth% I was concerned that they would look glassy or have a fisheye. But neither stone seemed so to my eye, or my wife''s better eye. We looked at them indoors under diffuse light, under a halogen light, and also outdoors in the shade and sun. They seemed to sparkle as much as a few other stones with more typical depth percentages.
How concerning is the 58% depth (and the 66% table on one of them) ? I did notice that Scan D.N. "ideal" was about 58% depth and 58% table -- but of course that is for a RB. Still since these stones (one in particular) are faceted much like a RB it is a bit reassuring that theys are not poorly cut.
Thanks
I am in the process of upgrading my wife''s diamond to a large cushion cut, in the 4-5 ct range. We have looked at several stones and found two we really liked. Both have depth approx 58%, one has table 66% the other 58%. Both are GIA certified so there is no other cut information available. One is F/VS1/no culet/no fluor and the other is G/VS2/sm culet/med blue fluor. Both of these stones have l/w ratios of 1.00 - 1.01. One is more squarish, the the other is more rounded. Spread is good for both. Each stone is eye clean, and the small culet can only be seen through the table with a 10x loupe. Symmetry seemed pretty good (for a big cushion-- obviously these aren''t ideal cut H&A stones).
With the rather low depth% I was concerned that they would look glassy or have a fisheye. But neither stone seemed so to my eye, or my wife''s better eye. We looked at them indoors under diffuse light, under a halogen light, and also outdoors in the shade and sun. They seemed to sparkle as much as a few other stones with more typical depth percentages.
How concerning is the 58% depth (and the 66% table on one of them) ? I did notice that Scan D.N. "ideal" was about 58% depth and 58% table -- but of course that is for a RB. Still since these stones (one in particular) are faceted much like a RB it is a bit reassuring that theys are not poorly cut.
Thanks
300x240.png)