Need Opinions on Two CUSHION Options

[sang]

Hello and thanks to everyone on PS who've helped me gain a bit of diamond knowledge over the past few weeks! Armed and ready with this new knowledge, I visited 3 dealers last week and looked at well over a dozen hand selected cushions. It was fairly straight forward to narrow the choices down to 2 specific stones for the surprise ER. I'm confident that we'd be happy with either stone, but there is a substantial price difference between the two and the cut styles are different as well.

Having said that, I'm pretty sure I know which one I'm going to purchase, but I'd love to get the PS'ers opinions on these 2 stones beforehand. I only have basic information off of the certs and some "okay' photos...so I'm realistic about what advise/feedback I may get here. Please remember that I've seen both in person and would be happy with either. I'm most curious to know what people think about the table % sizes and the gridle sizes, the "Extra facet" comment on Diamond #2 and the darker shapes under the table on Diamond #1.

Diamond #1:
- Cushion Brilliant
- 8.01 x 7.38 x 4.85 mm
- 2.05 ct F SI1
- VG / VG / no flour
- gridle thin - very thick (faceted)
- 51% table / 65.7% depth
- small culet
- comments: additional clouds not shown
- only really visible inclusion is a feather near one of the edges that is impossible to see face-up...and can only be seen on the profile and with a loupe.
- chunky, antique facets

Diamond #2:
- Cushion Brilliant
- 7.74 x 7.14 x 4.80 mm
- 2.06 ct F VS2
- VG / VG / no flour
- gridle thick - extremely thick (faceted)
- 63% table / 67.2% depth
- no culet
- comments: surface graining is not shown.

Price difference is about $2,700 more. Any comments? Any guess on which one is my favorite, or is more expensive? I'm attaching some pictures and the reference diagrams.

Thanks in advance!
Sang

 

[sang]

Diamond #2:

 

[panda08]

They both look pretty good and it just depends on the kind of cushion you prefer. If it was me, it would be #1 all the way, as I love the antique, chunky facets. I've seen wildly varying table sizes for cushions. Some think under 60% is preferable if you're just looking at numbers but let your eyes tell you whether a larger or smaller table is more appealing. The girdle on both should be fine. The darker shapes under the table for #1 looks like its the cut and shouldn't be a problem IRL. You've seen it in person, right? Was it an issue? I have a cushion with antique, chunky facets similar to #1 and it photographs the same way but looks great in person. I'm guessing that #2 is more expensive because of the clarity grading. I'm in the why pay for what you can't see clarity camp.

Good luck! How exciting!

 

[sillysweetie]

Like Panda, I also guess #2 would cost more and I''d pick #1 personally. But of course, #2 looks beautiful in photo and it''s just a personal preference for different types of cushions. As for the dark area under the table in stone #1, I think it''s the reflection of the lens of the camera and it shouldn''t be a worry. How does it look in real life?

 

[Lorelei]

I would pick #2!

 

[sang]

Thanks for the quick replies! I did indeed see them in person and I did like both of them immensely and don''t recall any issues with the dark area under Diamond #1''s table...but after you look at over a dozen stones in such a short time, it''s sometimes hard to remember which stone was which

. And when I looked at the photo, I started to wonder if this is a red flag that I may have missed. I do remember specifically looking for "dead spots" in the stones...and Diamond #1 was a clear cut winner from the selections from one dealer.

Re: table size...several of the other cushions that I looked at had a large table and it definitely was not a look that I liked...I was just concerned that Diamond #1 has such a small table (51%) and whether that should be a concern.

Would you agree that Diamond #2 is not one of the "antique, chunky" style but is somewhere in between that and a more traditional cushion brilliant? I guess just comes down to personal taste at this point.

Thanks,
Sang

 

[HeartingDiamonds]

Hi there!

If the look that you are going for is that of an antique cushion, then you should go with #1, as it does that chunky look to it.

However, if that is necessarily the look you are going for, then I would say - TAKE A DEEP BREATH - and go see both stones again side by side. All factors being equal (assuming the diff in price is irrelevant), pick the one that your eyes are drawn to.

That is my personal non-scientific, completely skewed test

and it hasn''t failed me yet!

Goodluck!

 

[ericad]

I agree with Grace that #1 has the chunky faceting of an antique cut, while #2 looks modern. But it''s very hard to tell from a photo, so it boils down to specs, proportions, and which diamond you like best with your eyes, heart and on your hand.

Can you go look at these 2 stones again before making a decision?

 

[neatfreak]

As others have said, both stones have their own merits. You really should see them again, with your own eyes, and FOLLOW YOUR HEART. I have a feeling you know exactly which one you prefer, but are afraid of buying a dud and thus wanted opinions. You can''t go wrong with either one if you love it.

 

[sang]

I

Date: 9/26/2008 10:27:55 AM
Author: HeartingDiamonds
Hi there!

If the look that you are going for is that of an antique cushion, then you should go with #1, as it does that chunky look to it.

However, if that is necessarily the look you are going for, then I would say - TAKE A DEEP BREATH - and go see both stones again side by side. All factors being equal (assuming the diff in price is irrelevant), pick the one that your eyes are drawn to.

That is my personal non-scientific, completely skewed test

and it hasn''t failed me yet!

Goodluck!

I would love to be able to view the stones side-by-side but they are being offered by 2 different dealers. Not sure how I can go about making that happen. I''m also not in town anymore, so it might be another week or two before I can return and I''d hate to run the possibility of losing the stone or asking the dealer to hold it for that long when I might not purchase it. Most of the responses are correct in the #2 is more expensive (due to the clarity grading) and it''s about a $2,700 difference - so not insignificant by any means. But, I have to be honest that I''m drawn to the larger dimensions of diamond #1 as well. It does look huge for a 2.05 ct stone.

I guess I''m just wondering if I''m passing on a great stone...and whether I''m unconsciencely being drawn to the chunky cut because it''s hyped so much as being rare. BTW, of the 15 or so stones that I examined, this was the only true antique chunky one that was of my desired color/clarity level.

Another question might be if you think one of these cushion styles might go better with a setting such as this?

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/new-2-48-cushion-w-pave-setting-by-mark-t-erd.55339/

I just saw this posting...very nice looking setting. I might have to suggest it to the lady after the surprise proposal.


Thanks again,
Sang

 

[CharmyPoo]

Both are pretty diamonds. I am drawn to diamond #1 but all the dark spots concern me. It is hard to tell if it is a bad photo or the actual diamond. However, the photos appear to be taken under different settings and all have the dark areas. The first photo is amazing but in the other three - I am finding that the diamond seem to have lost some life. At the end, photos are just photos - you saw them in real life (but I do know what you mean about not remembering).

The second diamond is nice too but I like a smaller table and a more squared look. These are personal preferences of course. Why don''t you ask the second vendor to find you more options. I am sure he can get his hands on some chunky cushions if he knows what you want. Based on the photo, I think I know who the vendor is. I find you have to ask for what you want especially if it is not common versus it being offered up.

In the big magnified photos, I am always drawn to the antique styles but in real life - my boyfriend likes the modern cuts better. He finds that there is more sparkle. I am sure down the road ... I will pick up an antique chunky cushion but can''t look yet.

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/26/2008 12:05:07 PM
Author: CharmyPoo

In the big magnified photos, I am always drawn to the antique styles but in real life - my boyfriend likes the modern cuts better. He finds that there is more sparkle. I am sure down the road ... I will pick up an antique chunky cushion but can''t look yet.

Me too! LOL. CharmyPoo I think you and I have very similar tastes.