i am such a noobie and learning all i can BUT why is this defined as an average cut?

[windowshopper]

This is off of Dirt Cheap's site and the numbers look so good what makes this an average cut??

Laboratory: GIA
Carat Weight: 3
Color: E
Clarity: VS1
Shape: Cushion Cut --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depth: 66.3%
Table: 60%
Polish: VG
Symmetry: GD --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Culet: M
Girdle: M-VTKF
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 8.22x9.02x5.45
Cut: Average
One of these diamonds might just do the trick! "Average" is just that - diamonds that are not cut exceptionally well, or for that matter, exceptionally bad! You may be surprised to learn that diamonds that fall into this category represent the VAST MAJORITY of diamonds that are sold through chain stores.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

You might expect a well cut round that weight to be 9.3mm.

Conversely a 2.2ct round would face up bigger than that stone - and cost a lot less.

 

[windowshopper]

Garry:

yes but isnt a cushion a fancy cut---isnt that apples to oranges???????????/

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

If you are a diamond cutter - would you cut the nice 2.2ct, or the ugly more expensive smaller looking 3ct cushion. Compare prices for me and post some eg''s

 

[AGBF]

Date: 11/9/2004 11:41:39 PM
Author: windowshopper

Garry:

yes but isnt a cushion a fancy cut---isnt that apples to oranges???????????/

If I understand your question, I don''t think Garry did. I think he was saying that a cushion cut with those dimensions was going to be more expensive than a round brilliant of that weight or even less weight. I took that to mean that there would be less value to this stone than to a round brilliant. Perhaps that seemed to him to be more important than what it was about this cushion cut that had it deemed "average cut". But I could be wrong .

 

[AGBF]

Well...you are still here, Garry. Was I right in how I read your posting?

 

[windowshopper]

you arent answering my question--yuo are a snob about the rounds and about perfection which i respect but why is it average for a cushion NOT average compared to a round

 

[jenwill]

Ok window- calm down. i do not think they were being RB snobs, but perhaps they were not getting what your original question was.

If I read you right, you are wonderin why DCD gave this particular stone an average rating for a cushion cut. I woudl probably guess that it is most likely due to the GD rating for symmetry, blended with VG rating for polish.

With symmetry in the good range, as opposed to VG or EX, the performance of the stone might not be quite as spectacular as others. Good enough, but not great.

That is my hypothesis, i could be wrong.

 

[windowshopper]

Thanks JENWILL--I am thinking you are right. I think it is not right to talk about value and or cut vs a different shape. You are getting my point. Is this an average cushion or average comapred to a round brilient?????????/

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

I expect it is average for a cushion because it is pretty deep and has a very thick girdle.

From a cutters perspective - the 3ct means they struck gold. The price is a lot more than a similar sized (in mm''s) round.

My (snobby) point is that fancies are usually cheaper than rounds - but this one is not - it is probably 7k more than a comparable spread (that will look 20% bigger) round diamond.

Snob''s usually are snobs because they believe there is some superior idea they subscribe to. So yes, I am a round snob.

But if I was the manufacturer - I would definetly have cut the 3ct cushion hoping that a non snob would buy it

(Have a laugh please - its only a diamond and a whole heap of your money)

But if you want a cushion - its proportions will not be too bad from tthe diamcalc model I made. As Cushions go - it is probably downgraded mainly for spread.

 

[valeria101]

It's not that hard... You can probably say, oh well, this is a tad smaller than another cushion cut with 60% depth and a thin/medium girdle. Not that one is likely to pop up any time soon - as Garry says. That cushion with the same spread as a round would likely not be cut at all since making a round is possible.

If you can have an ideal round of the same size for less $$$, but really, really care for the cushion shape more than the size... this is a taugh call. The 3 carat mass will never show on hand - size and brilliance will, IMO.

To make things worse, even with table and depth just about as a rounds, you wil find cushion with thick girdles (this one has it too) - and that makes them look small back even worse than total depth does. Makes sense, since allot more mass is needed to fill in that thick girdle than to add a tip on the bottom of the pavilion.

It took me a while to sort out these guys below: 2.66cts_G_VS1 and 3.01_G_IF that pass all checks for proportions (as much as the GIA cert alows) and spread.

 

[valeria101]

The prices for rounds were not choces among the ideals - just the regular listings for GIA stones with the default choices of table & depth. Looking below, it seem that at least some cushion cuts are both desirable makes and a relative bargain compared to rounds of the same size. For what that matters... I bet there are more listed. These were just the two more promissing on a quick search.

 

[windowshopper]

THANKS TO GARRY --AND VALERIA --VERY HELPFUL

 

[marriahlyn]

Sifting thru this message, I wasn''t qualified to give a reason but after valeria put up the 2 stones.........unless you have to have E.....if it were my choice, I''d go with the 2.66 G because it''s got a very good in symmetry and the 3.0 E is $37 while the 2.66 G of the same dimensions is $24. That is a major price difference. The 3.0 carries a higher premium because it was probably cut for weight but as you can see, a smaller carat weight with less a premium will be the same size and much much cheaper.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/10/2004 8:54:35 AM
Author: marriahlyn
The 3.0 carries a higher premium because it was probably cut for weight

It''s quite amazing what "IF" clarity does. What difference that makes up from VVS1 is anybody''s guess, but there surely is a price jump. Very, very obvious. For G color 3 carat rounds the difference between VVS2 and IF came about 25%... this is why that refference price is soooo high.

Bothe those stones are quite "skinny" - the size is very much in line with weight. But that unfortunate G/IF was the ONLY 3 carat cushion between D/G and IF/VS2 that appeared with parameters (table, depth, girdle and the resulting spread) close to a round''s. Quite amazing scarcity, really.

It would be interesting to see what prices / spread (diamond surface unit, not weight) look like. Didn''t go that far this time, although it is not hard.

 

[JC]

windowshopper......First of all, sorry for the confusion.

Our website uses a computer program to try and categorize different diamonds
into different cut categories. When the program was created we used the
charts from Dave Atlas as general guidelines on how to "pigeon-hole" most of
the more popular cuts. This included rounds, princess cuts, radiants,
marquises, etc. At the time we didn''t enter any guidelines for cushion
cuts. Since the default category is "Average", all cushion cuts come up as
"Average"! Because of this thread, however, we are going to go back to the
AGA website and try to incorporate some cut grading logic into our cut
filtering logic for cushion cut diamonds.
So, in short, the problem is with our search engine results - not with the
diamond. The diamond itself appears to have excellent proportions and
should be a real winner. If you''re interested in this stone just give us a
call and we can bring it into our office for personal examination prior to
any sale. Thank you.

 

[Hest88]

Whew! Logical explanation. Thanks Josh!

 

[windowshopper]

That's a reasonable explanation but i dont recall all the cushions aon their site benig average..........i thought they were ideal premium and average SEE BELOW

$39,242
Stock Number: 2334724
Laboratory: GIA
Carat Weight: 3.3
Color: F
Clarity: VS1
Shape: Cushion Cut
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depth: 63.5%
Table: 58%
Polish: VG
Symmetry: GD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Culet: L
Girdle: M-VTKF
Fluorescence: Faint
Measurements: 8.41x9.37x5.34

Cut: Ideal
These diamonds have been grouped together because they represent diamonds that have been cut to maximize light return over all other factors. Round diamonds in this group have "Ideal" Proportions, along with Polish and Symmetry ratings of either "Very Good" or "Excellent". Regardless of shape, all of the diamonds in this category represent the finest cuts available, regardless of cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Color: F
For someone seeking a completely colorless diamond, "F" diamonds offer the best value. This diamond will appear completely clean and white, yet is relatively less expensive than "D" and "E" color stones, which also reside in the "Colorless" category.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarity: VS1
VS diamonds (which stands for "Very Slightly Included") have inclusions that are too small to detect with the human eye. Sometimes these inclusions can be seen with a 10x "loupe" (pronounced "loop"), but in most cases a 30x microscope is needed to clearly identify the tiny clarity characteristics of this diamond. VS diamonds are the safest choice for anyone who demands a diamond totally

 

[valeria101]

Sure works... the search engine at DCD. Cushion cuts labeled "ideal", "premium" and "average" show up.

BTW, as of today, there is no AGA chart released specifically for cushions. As far as I remember, David Atlas said that this is so because cushions come with very different cut patterns, so it is less obvious why would different cuts be all lumped under a single rule.

I can understand why DCD needed a rule - anything - just to make their website design posible. Not sure where their post above comes from... You can always report it if you want.