New HIGH res movies - Pick favorite CUSHION

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

A Cushion poll recently on Pricescope led to calls to provide higher resolution virtual videos, and so Sergey has provided two, as well as an ASET video.

We will soon have some real stone real video’s based on the results of these polls. The cushions will be cut and polished to very stringent standards.

Here are the three video''s that play in Quicktime

Larger
Ñ 12 fps, 200 frames
768x768px, 53mb

Smaller
384x384px, 20mb

ASET 768x768px, 43mb

We greatly appreciate the interest and opinions of the Pricescope community in providing their assistance and opinions. We aim for this project to show the diamond industry that it is possible to design and polish diamonds that create real consumers excitement and bring fashion and creativity to an industry that has relied for a very long time on a diamond cut design that had its last substantial improvements nearly a century ago.

 

[Stephan]

I know I answered something else previous time, but size does matter.
Now I prefer 2, 3, 8.
But I would never buy a diamond under such lighting.
I also like to see the fire before choosing a diamond, not only pattern and light return.

 

[Serg]

numbers for Poll

 

[oldminer]

I''m still sticking with 3,5,8.

I think these three represent a range of cut types with very narrow to less narrow to rather broad sparkles of light return without the look of antique cut stones. Really, the question can be answered in several ways depending on how one interprets the question and the goal of the exercise.

 

[yssie]

I know next to nothing about cushions, but what appeals most to my inexperienced eyes..


2, 5, 8

 

[risingsun]

3,5,8--but 2 was a close contender!

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/15/2010 12:43:36 AM
Author:Garry H (Cut Nut)
A Cushion poll recently on Pricescope led to calls to provide higher resolution virtual videos, and so Sergey has provided two, as well as an ASET video.

We will soon have some real stone real video’s based on the results of these polls. The cushions will be cut and polished to very stringent standards.

Here are the three video's that play in Quicktime

Larger
Ñ 12 fps, 200 frames
768x768px, 53mb

Smaller
384x384px, 20mb

ASET 768x768px, 43mb

We greatly appreciate the interest and opinions of the Pricescope community in providing their assistance and opinions. We aim for this project to show the diamond industry that it is possible to design and polish diamonds that create real consumers excitement and bring fashion and creativity to an industry that has relied for a very long time on a diamond cut design that had its last substantial improvements nearly a century ago.

I chose 6, 9, 8.
6 has the biggest most well defined mains and throughout ther tilting motion they stay bright(and red under aset) almost throughout the tilting motion.

Thank-you for the larger videos. I think though that you could make these future video better by the following tweaks:

1) Put the diamonds closer togegther (less space in between)
2) Remove the space on the borders it isn't needed
3) 384 X 384 is big enough (serg you convinced me now
4) Add more frames twice as many frames so that the transitions are smoother

But overall the videos are good enough for me to make an informed decision for sure. I am of course a big fan of large virtual facets and well defined pavillion mains so I am very happy to see #6 which is head and shoulders the best to me.

Look forward to seeing the actual diamonds I would not hesitate to reccomend a vendor carrying 6,8,9 if the cutters could get good reproduceability of this design . However, the ones with smaller virtual facets (3, 5) look too much like cushettes example http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/4907/ and those were not popular enough to stick around as a brand.

Good-luck and great work.

CCL

 

[Serg]

re;1) Put the diamonds closer togegther (less space in between)

Current space size between diamonds is minimum for movies with stars and bloom
on all movies space size between diamonds should be same.

 

[kkaramacoska]

I really dont know much about diamonds but just by looking at the pictures i like 1 and 6. They look the most sparkly to me!
Just out of interset, have I picked the worst clarity or cut?? i noticed most people picking 3. I thought all the ones in the middle, 2, 5 and 8 seem to look a bit "cloudy" but thats just me looking with my naked eye. I really dont know what im talking about but its very interesting to know. I guess Im learning that I like a bit of contrast in my stone??? is that what it is? But more white is better isnt it?

 

[AprilBaby]

Before they moved I liked #4 but after they sparkled I liked #2 the best.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 1/17/2010 9:24:19 PM
Author: kkaramacoska
I really dont know much about diamonds but just by looking at the pictures i like 1 and 6. They look the most sparkly to me!
Just out of interset, have I picked the worst clarity or cut?? i noticed most people picking 3. I thought all the ones in the middle, 2, 5 and 8 seem to look a bit ''cloudy'' but thats just me looking with my naked eye. I really dont know what im talking about but its very interesting to know. I guess Im learning that I like a bit of contrast in my stone??? is that what it is? But more white is better isnt it?

Hi K, these are computer generated virtual movies of new designs that have not all even been cut and polished yet. They are all perfect D Flawless - only the cut is varied.

 

[Stephan]

And the winner is nr 2! Yeah!

 

[Cehrabehra]

yeah, as I expected - #2 is a clear winner - there wasn''t even a distant second place for me.

I still don''t find this particular type of cushion to be my favorite - but having the junctions at 12/3/6/9 sure eliminates a lot of other issues and in #2 you are definitely getting a nice result.

 

[tigerhearted]

I chose 7 because I adore Old Euro and Transition cuts, and 7 resembles both nicely.

 

[blo]

hello,

how important are symmetry and polish on an ideal cut diamond?

thanks

 

[CharmyPoo]

Wow - these high res videos make a huge difference.

Previous choice was 7 2 9. Now, the clear winner is 2 but I like 5 too.

Not a fan of the bottom row.

 

[clgwli]

It is close for me with 2 and 7 but I think 2 is the winner for me.

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

7 & 9 Garry...

7 looks like it has bigger facets with broader flash,
and 9 seems like it has smaller scintillating flashes.

Cool!

 

[jasonsmith092]

I think these three represent a range of cut types with very narrow to less narrow to rather broad sparkles of light return without the look of antique cut stones. Really, the question can be answered in several ways depending on how one interprets the question and the goal of the exercise.