Diagem

[Ellen]

I would have emailed you this, but, I can''t. Have you changed your mind? (in regards to your post in the cushion thread)

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/depth-table-cushion-cut-question.55990/



In my opinion there are two important factors in cushions, 1) the crown needs to be noticeable to the average observer (to stick out of the setting!)
2) Table should be small size (mid 40''s to max high 50''s, in my opinion 60+% tables are to big!!!)

 

[diagem]

Date: 3/13/2009 6:06:17 PM
Author:Ellen
I would have emailed you this, but, I can't. Have you changed your mind? (in regards to your post in the cushion thread)

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/depth-table-cushion-cut-question.55990/



In my opinion there are two important factors in cushions, 1) the crown needs to be noticeable to the average observer (to stick out of the setting!)
2) Table should be small size (mid 40's to max high 50's, in my opinion 60+% tables are to big!!!)

Ellen, my own thread! You shouldnt have...

Wow..., you caught me....

First..., I suggest adding a link to the thread in subject..., (so people will know you are addressing the cushion thread at subject).

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/3-11-ct-cusion-modified-brilliant-vs2-i-color-price.109525/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/depth-table-cushion-cut-question.55990/

Ellen, it is no secret on this forum that I am a great believer in unmeasurable beauty when it comes to Gems. I stand by it!!
My point was focused on the "shallow" part of the thread but you are right..., I much better prefer ANY cut with much smaller tables...
But what can I do? The majority of cutters in this world believe otherwise and cut the majority of their production incorporating larger tables..., I think if we do a statistic on it..., we'll find most tables are cut to the average of 60-70%.

So when I hear (consumer) questions in regards to a cushion shape Diamond with a slightly shallow TD of 54% combined with a [average size) 68% table I cant feel justified by suggesting it as a candidate for rejection!

I said many times then it comes to cushions there a NO rules period.

I dont believe you meant anything wrong..., but you must also keep things in proportions when giving consumers advice..., nice cushions are not easy to come by..., (its a cushion cut jungle out there

)..., if the OP would ask for suggestion in regards to a 54% td and a 78% table then I would feel comfortable saying there is a greater chance to find better number combinations.


ETA: A 54% td and 78% tables can still be beautiful

 

[strmrdr]

Sorry but I have to call BS.
We give people advice to the best of our ability and if they so chose to make an informed decision after that then we say congrates!!
That does not mean we should stop doing our best and calling it the way we see it.
There are plenty of well cut cushions on the market and more coming on every day.

 

[diagem]

Date: 3/13/2009 6:55:23 PM
Author: strmrdr
Sorry but I have to call BS.
We give people advice to the best of our ability and if they so chose to make an informed decision after that then we say congrates!!
That does not mean we should stop doing our best and calling it the way we see it.
There are plenty of well cut cushions on the market and more coming on every day.

And a 54td, 68t can still fall within the "well cut" category.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 3/13/2009 6:49:31 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 3/13/2009 6:06:17 PM
Author:Ellen
I would have emailed you this, but, I can't. Have you changed your mind? (in regards to your post in the cushion thread)

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/depth-table-cushion-cut-question.55990/



In my opinion there are two important factors in cushions, 1) the crown needs to be noticeable to the average observer (to stick out of the setting!)
2) Table should be small size (mid 40's to max high 50's, in my opinion 60+% tables are to big!!!)

Ellen, my own thread! You shouldnt have...

Wow..., you caught me....

First..., I suggest adding a link to the thread in subject..., (so people will know you are addressing the cushion thread at subject).

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/3-11-ct-cusion-modified-brilliant-vs2-i-color-price.109525/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/depth-table-cushion-cut-question.55990/

Ellen, it is no secret on this forum that I am a great believer in unmeasurable beauty when it comes to Gems. I stand by it!!
My point was focused on the 'shallow' part of the thread but you are right..., I much better prefer ANY cut with much smaller tables...
But what can I do? The majority of cutters in this world believe otherwise and cut the majority of their production incorporating larger tables..., I think if we do a statistic on it..., we'll find most tables are cut to the average of 60-70%.

So when I hear (consumer) questions in regards to a cushion shape Diamond with a slightly shallow TD of 54% combined with a [average size) 68% table I cant feel justified by suggesting it as a candidate for rejection!

I said many times then it comes to cushions there a NO rules period.

I dont believe you meant anything wrong..., but you must also keep things in proportions when giving consumers advice..., nice cushions are not easy to come by..., (its a cushion cut jungle out there

)..., if the OP would ask for suggestion in regards to a 54% td and a 78% table then I would feel comfortable saying there is a greater chance to find better number combinations.


ETA: A 54% td and 78% tables can still be beautiful

Ok, thank you. Many (dare I say most) of us do. However, I do realize that fancies can certainly defy the odds, at least to a certain extent. Based on my own experiences, and posts here (yours included, and I was shocked, shocked I tell ya that you had a limit!

) that I've read, stones I've seen bought by posters, the smaller tabled stones are almost always the more desirable. But even knowing that, if I see stones where the numbers aren't what we'd like to see, but are not so wide in variance, I will not discourage per se, but may advise to have them checked out. However, this particular stone fell in the "uh oh" category, so I told her what she may likely experience. I didn't make that stuff up.

And in fact, she admitted it lacked some compared to others. So, I wasn't "wrong" in what I told her, and as coati pointed out, it may lack more when out in the real world. Still, Cornish loves it, and that's great. But as strm pointed out, I gave her info that could be relevant to the stone, and to a certain extent it is. She compared, and bought it anyway.

But there do still need to be guidelines, because if there isn't, we might as well shut the forum down, who would need us? Or, we can just tell every person, if you love it, buy it, no worries about how it's cut, how it will perform....


And lastly, I really didn't mean anything by this thread, except to find out if you had indeed changed your mind. And you haven't, case closed.

 

[diagem]

Date: 3/13/2009 7:36:33 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 3/13/2009 6:49:31 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 3/13/2009 6:06:17 PM
Author:Ellen
I would have emailed you this, but, I can''t. Have you changed your mind? (in regards to your post in the cushion thread)

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/depth-table-cushion-cut-question.55990/



In my opinion there are two important factors in cushions, 1) the crown needs to be noticeable to the average observer (to stick out of the setting!)
2) Table should be small size (mid 40''s to max high 50''s, in my opinion 60+% tables are to big!!!)

Ellen, my own thread! You shouldnt have...

Wow..., you caught me....

First..., I suggest adding a link to the thread in subject..., (so people will know you are addressing the cushion thread at subject).

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/3-11-ct-cusion-modified-brilliant-vs2-i-color-price.109525/
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/depth-table-cushion-cut-question.55990/

Ellen, it is no secret on this forum that I am a great believer in unmeasurable beauty when it comes to Gems. I stand by it!!
My point was focused on the ''shallow'' part of the thread but you are right..., I much better prefer ANY cut with much smaller tables...
But what can I do? The majority of cutters in this world believe otherwise and cut the majority of their production incorporating larger tables..., I think if we do a statistic on it..., we''ll find most tables are cut to the average of 60-70%.

So when I hear (consumer) questions in regards to a cushion shape Diamond with a slightly shallow TD of 54% combined with a [average size) 68% table I cant feel justified by suggesting it as a candidate for rejection!

I said many times then it comes to cushions there a NO rules period.

I dont believe you meant anything wrong..., but you must also keep things in proportions when giving consumers advice..., nice cushions are not easy to come by..., (its a cushion cut jungle out there

)..., if the OP would ask for suggestion in regards to a 54% td and a 78% table then I would feel comfortable saying there is a greater chance to find better number combinations.


ETA: A 54% td and 78% tables can still be beautiful

Ok, thank you. Many (dare I say most) of us do. However, I do realize that fancies can certainly defy the odds, at least to a certain extent. Based on my own experiences, and posts here (yours included, and I was shocked, shocked I tell ya that you had a limit!

) that I''ve read, stones I''ve seen bought by posters, the smaller tabled stones are almost always the more desirable. But even knowing that, if I see stones where the numbers aren''t what we''d like to see, but are not so wide in variance, I will not discourage per se, but may advise to have them checked out. However, this particular stone fell in the ''uh oh'' category, so I told her what she may likely experience. I didn''t make that stuff up.

And in fact, she admitted it lacked some compared to others. So, I wasn''t ''wrong'' in what I told her, and as coati pointed out, it may lack more when out in the real world. Still, Cornish loves it, and that''s great. But as strm pointed out, I gave her info that could be relevant to the stone, and to a certain extent it is. She compared, and bought it anyway.

But there do still need to be guidelines, because if there isn''t, we might as well shut the forum down, who would need us? Or, we can just tell every person, if you love it, buy it, no worries about how it''s cut, how it will perform....


And lastly, I really didn''t mean anything by this thread, except to find out if you had indeed changed your mind. And you haven''t, case closed.

I never said or implied you are making something up..., on the contrary..., I have a lot of respect for the knowledge you have in the field..., but we also must remember we learn everyday more.
As Karl wrote on top: "There are plenty of well cut cushions on the market and more coming on every day."

Regular participants here on PS must remember we live here in our own (little) world..., its a drop in the bucket when comparing to industry standards!
I would tend to agree with Karl that more "well cut" cushions are coming on..., but they are showing up on PS much, MUCH more than out there in the real cushion cut jungle. And that is because consumers come to PS and have a chance to read and get educated properly and then demand and receive those cuts.

On the cushion in subject...., all we know is that GIA identified it as a CMB shape and some numbers..., we dont have a plot (sketch) or any other signs on which faceting patterns it incorporates..., I realy believe we have no sufficient info to make serious suggestions in this specific case let alone mark it as a automatic reject.

Even if Karl decided to call the BS

!! Thanks Karl..., sweet!

 

[Ellen]

Diagem, sorry. I in turn did not mean to imply you thought I made that up. I just stated it for clarity.

 

[diagem]

Date: 3/13/2009 8:30:14 PM
Author: Ellen
Diagem, sorry. I in turn did not mean to imply you thought I made that up. I just stated it for clarity.

OK..., just make sure its an eyeclean SI1...