Fish-eye Cushion

[Acrata]

I recently went to get a diamond appraised and the appraiser said it was a fish-eye. I think I can see it. The center gets a dark filled-in circle when I look at the stone straight-on. It is more pronounced when I view at a closer distance. I don't notice it at all from an arm's length. I don't see a white circle outline like seen here https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-cut-fish-eye-effect/ . The darkness creates a little bit of contrast, since there are some flashes inside the circle, so I have mixed feelings about it. The appraiser didn't think it was a huge deal but made sure I knew about it. I know it is generally a negative feature but is there any positive effect or mitigating circumstances? Any other thoughts?

I have attached some info on the stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Of course it's not possible to make any meaningful comment without actually seeing the diamond.
Having said that, I think it's very possible this appraiser used the term loosely- very much so.
The photo shows no evidence of an apparent fish eye.
Measurements, again, don;t tell the whole story, but generally speaking a stone would need to be overly shallow to show a fish eye- again, that's not the case here.
If you love the diamond, I would not let this comment sway you.

 

[Acrata]

I have attached my own photo. Is this what a fish-eye looks like? Do fish-eyes normally become pronounced when you are viewing from a closer distance?

Thanks!

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Your appraisor is correct this stone has three things that are indicative of fish-eye in the proportions of the stone.

1) Extremely Thick Girdle
2) Shallow Pavilion Angles
3) Large Table

Personally I dislike descriptive unscientific terms like "fish eye" as they get tossed around here and debated often out of context when a stone doesn't fit the exact appearance of an example.

I prefer to describe what I see as significant leakage around the edges of the table and this stone definitely exhibits this.

You can find a better cut cushion. There are two potential problems with this stone:

1) It has leakage around the edge of the table (the light areas).
2) The centre may be darker and may reflect your head or be darker when viewed at close proximity.

In between the blue lines is where I see significant leakage.

 

[tyty333]

It looked like a fish-eye to me (before I read CCL comments which are very informative). *I* personally would not be happy
with this stone.

 

[antelope1]

This is a huge investment, and you've probably been looking for a long time...but I would keep on looking.

More stock comes up all the time, so just be patient for the right diamond!

 

[TakingthePlunge]

For the future to help you weed out fisheyes look at them against a dark or deep colored backround so the eye will be much more noticable. If you cant find a backround place it between your fingers on the top of your hand.

 

[Frenchcut]

It also look like a fish eye to me. As already suggested you should keep looking for a better stone.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Looking at the second photo, I'd also agree with CCL- it does look like a fish eye

 

[Acrata]

I took a picture of the original stone next to a SCHA with the same camera. The left is original, right is http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6784/

I don't know if this is useful, but I figured I may as well take a photo. To my eyes they are very different qualitatively, but I don't have as strong a preference for the SCHA as I thought I might have, based on ASET and video I had seen before. They both get dark in the center when I look up close, but the original stone is worse because the fish-eye outlines it for you.

I am returning the original stone but I am not sure yet if I will go for a smaller SCHA or a bigger generic cushion. Thanks for all the input!

 

[slg47]

if you dont love the SCHA then don't get it, it is more $$ than a generic cushion. that being said, I think you can find a much better generic cushion than the one you posted.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Sorry folks, there is no way that is a fisheye. The pavilion is way to deep - it is close to a nailhead - the exact opposite..
Does not make it a fab stone, but it is not a fisheye.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I took a picture of the original stone next to a SCHA with the same camera. The left is original, right is http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6784/

I don't know if this is useful, but I figured I may as well take a photo. To my eyes they are very different qualitatively, but I don't have as strong a preference for the SCHA as I thought I might have, based on ASET and video I had seen before. They both get dark in the center when I look up close, but the original stone is worse because the fish-eye outlines it for you.

I am returning the original stone but I am not sure yet if I will go for a smaller SCHA or a bigger generic cushion. Thanks for all the input!

The original stone is close to a nail head and the ring around the dark zone is possibly leakage. Do you have an ASET or ideal-scope of this stone?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

All this is based on the AGS report which I just tried to model in DiamCalc - impossible!
34.5 crown angle, 65% table and 12.5% crown height?????
+52% pav depth?????
Are they the same stone?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

All this is based on the AGS report which I just tried to model in DiamCalc - impossible!
34.5 crown angle, 65% table and 12.5% crown height?????
+52% pav depth?????
Are they the same stone?

 

[Acrata]

It is the same stone as the cert. The appraiser checked this. I don't have any other imaging unfortunately.