Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

GIA 2.49 D/IF True Antique Cushion Diamond at Leon Mege

HI:

Looks good tho!!!

cheers--Sharon
 
Nice!! Definitely wouldn't want to pay the premium for D IF though...but a stunning rock to be sure.
 
What a pity about the only Good symmetry and the slightly below mark 2.49 carats... But D IF so who's complaining!:Up_to_something:
 
This stone is flat as a pancake, but yet has a crown angle of 40+! The pav side is almost non-existent. It also faces up like a 3+ct. Who cut this bad boy?!! :lol::lol::lol:
 
doberman said:
I saw a couple of those when I was there. Beautiful, but probably not quite up to the standards of an AVC.
Click to expand...

I agree. D IF is beautiful to look at, but I don't think the cut of that stone is appealing at all. It's just not very well cut. And if I were paying for D IF, I'd surely be buying top cut along with it!

(I love AVC's but there are other excellent antique cushions such as ROL's and redwoods, for example.)
 
In my mind, an antique cushion cut should be warmer, to give it that "vintage" look. That's why my antique cushion is an N color.
 
doberman said:
In my mind, an antique cushion cut should be warmer, to give it that "vintage" look. That's why my antique cushion is an N color.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying, and I have seen AVCs in person from J to Y-Z colors and loved them! But antique cushions were cut in all colors, so there are still some around. I think ROL's AC is H color and gorgeous. One of my favorite diamond rings of all time was wintotty's 3.13 D AVC. Now that's a D diamond I'd be happy to own!

3.13D.AVCwintotty1.jpg 3.13D.AVCwintotty2.jpg

@Starfacet Oh absolutely! We knew you were just posting it for fun! I enjoy seeing big expensive stones! It's all fantasy for me because I couldn't buy it or this one I just posted!
 
It is a rare diamond, but customers for such a high color/high clarity stone of this period are also very far and few between. With the advent of cut standards and ASET images, such a diamond is even more difficult to sell than when less was so widely understood about the effectiveness of cut quality. The asking price definitely reflects the somewhat limited market demand for such a diamond. The reasons for this pricing are clearly spelled out above by the other participants. However, maybe one very special person is waiting in the wings for this moment to buy one of nature's very special editions. Thanks for posting the offering. It is entertaining to consider such unusual stones and highly educational, too.
 
Those are beautiful!
 
diamondseeker2006 said:
It was a magnificent ring, and one of the most expensive AVCs sold to date. But she later decided she wanted a larger one and went down in color to a 4.27 K VS1! It is the ring she still has, as far as I know. It's a beauty, too!

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/4-27avc-meets-steven-kirsch.191951/
Click to expand...

Ohhhh, Wintotty's AVCs (current and former) are two of my favorite stones ever! The AVC project I'm working on right now was heavily inspired by both of these! Now THAT is some eye candy! :kiss2:
 
diamondseeker2006 said:
I agree. D IF is beautiful to look at, but I don't think the cut of that stone is appealing at all. It's just not very well cut. And if I were paying for D IF, I'd surely be buying top cut along with it!

(I love AVC's but there are other excellent antique cushions such as ROL's and redwoods, for example.)
Click to expand...

Agreed, DS! I wouldn't want to "waste" my budget on such high color and clarity without being equally picky about cut quality. I'm sure this is a lovely stone, but it's not an AVC so I'd pass. I prefer warmer colors anyway, and I refuse to pay the premium for anything beyond eye-clean! LOL! :lol:

ETA: Also, consider the source. There are certain people who will never get a penny from me, and the seller of this stone is one of those. ;-)
 
Interesting discussion from an academic standpoint.
As a lover of spready stones, I am curious what we see in that listing that can assure us the diamond is not well cut.
I'll admit, I do know who cut it. They're amazing.
We have no idea what they started with- and surely, the shape of the rough dictated the finished diamond's proportions.
In general, the "Good" symmetry rating will not be distinguishable from an EX symmetry to human eyes. I agree that we'd love to see EX/EX on a D/IF, but not necessarily for visual reasons. Again, it's pretty much guaranteed that the piece of rough dictated this aspect as well. The cutter is no slouch.

I'm not defending this particular diamond, but rather suggesting that it's not possible to say it's badly cut from the evidence we have at hand.
 
:lol:

David, isn't there a rule about vendors not commenting on other vendors stones?

Very few of those stones have been really well cut from what I have seen.
 
I'm not recommending, or knocking the stone- or even saying it's surely well cut. As I mentioned- from an academic standpoint, I don't see enough evidence to say a stone is badly cut based on the evidence we have.
And I am not the only tradesperson commenting:D
 
Probably very, very, very rare in this color, clarity and size, but for it to have had more rough to do it in ideal proportions with this color, clarity and size, it would be very, very, very, very, very, very rare. So either twice as rare or triple times. So those would be two very different stones anyway.
 
Thought it would be more than 45,000 dollars or make an offer they can't refuse.
 
I like to think of diamonds more like real estate.
Imagine you find a lot- in a location you love, and it's in your price range.
You might love everything about it, but a percentage of it is not level. Remember, it's the only piece of land that exists in that specific spot on the earth. And you are getting more acres than a perfectly flat lot.
Larger stones are like that- one of a kind.
So judging them based on one aspect may ignore something extremely special.
I see stones get knocked all the time for reasons that may or may not be important.
I view each as an individual- that may or may not have redeeming values not indicated on a report.
RBC's are....well, kinda boring in this regard because there's only one bullseye. The best is the best. Easy to define using ASET/IS.
But in any fancy shape, there's so much more possible if one opens their mind to stats that might seem unusual.

The term "Ideal Cut" is, in the case of fancy shapes in particular, a brand name, as opposed to a scientific descriptor. There's no agreed gemological "ideal" for any shape, besides round. And even there, we have debates. But the differences possible are microscopic in rounds compared to fancy shapes.
We can have a lovely, well cut OMB at 50% and also one at 80% depth.
 
Irishgrrrl said:
ETA: Also, consider the source. There are certain people who will never get a penny from me, and the seller of this stone is one of those. ;-)
Click to expand...
@Irishgrrrl, I had an absolutely awful convo with him today, so I'm inclined to agree!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top