Old mine Brilliant -cushion cut advice - 5.0 carat

[bnhdesigns]

Hi all,

New to the site - really liking all the support and bi-partisan advice!
So..we are fast approaching 15 years and have talked about upgrading the wifes diamond.

we both love cushion cut and she is particularly attracted to the old mine.

Here are the specs for the diamond we are looking at (i go to see in person today - wife has seen already)

GIA:

Old Mine Brilliant

11.72mm x 10.01 x 5.88
Proportions: Thin 44% /Very thick faceted 56.7% (large)
carat: 5.03
Color: E
Clarity; SI2
Polish: Very good
symmmetry: very good
Flourescence: faint

Obviously this is a big purchase no matter what the specs, but my question is more regarding color vs clarity on quite a large diamond. This apparently is a one of a kind cut and diamond and quite rare (aren't they all ).

I know its subjective, but do more people feel that color and brilliance is more important than clarity - I tend to think it is, especially as the yellow hue H,I, j... tend to be more noticeable on the larger diamonds? Which is not what she wants..

face size of the diamond is important, and a more traditional rectangle ratio (rather than 1:1) so that good I think?

I'm sure we could find a "shallower" diamond that has similar face (less carat) and perhaps better clarity for same or less price? But worried about brilliance and fire (from what i've read here - shallow cushions don't always sparkle as well as a perfect symmetry/proportion)

anyway - thoughts or comments would be appreciated - the jeweler is taking it out of its current setting today so I can view stand alone - any last minute advice?

here it is in its current setting (which we don't want).

Thanks!
chris

 

[chrono]

What is the table and depth percentages? Based on the LxWxD provided, it seems to be a shallow OMC. Can you take a picture of the stone with the table/crown directly perpendicular to the camera lense?

I would presume that it is eye clean to you? I don't mind the E colour. Colour vs clarity depends on the individual's preference. Some prefer one over the other, some will not budge on both, and some don't mind any at all. Just as colour shows better in large sized diamonds, so does clarity. An SI2 in a 0.5 ct will be eye clean whereas an SI2 in a 5 ct probably isn't.

Brilliance is about the cut, which you have not touch on at all. A good picture will help us evaluate the cut better.
Face size the actual mm dimension measurements. Too shallow and you are likely to get a good bit of leakage.
Ratio is personal preference.

 

[bnhdesigns]

hi Chrono,

thank you for the quick response.

here is the GIA - I believe the table and depth were specified above but perhaps I'm missing up my descriptors?
I will ask about ASET images and IDealscope today but i'm not certain this diamond has been out of its setting for a while?

Thank you!

 

[chrono]

It's a shallow stone. This is one that you'd have to observe away from the store lighting to make sure there are no dark areas or large leakage areas. 56% is shallow for any diamond, regardless of modern or antique. 56% is extremely shallow for an antique cut.

 

[bnhdesigns]

Thank you Chrono,

So the 56% is literally based on the overall size of the diamond as in reality the depth at 5.88mm is not "shallow" and stands off the finger by .250" height almost .. I'm inferring that to get a more "perfect" depth that % should be above 60%? 65%? - which obviously means bigger diamond with this face size or smaller face with more depth?

Would scope images be able to help visualize the potential leakage or is it only an eye test?

Thank you again for the comments and advice - I really want to get this right!

 

[chrono]

The depth is based on the overall dimensions, not how high it sits above the finger. Diamonds that are cut too shallowly will have leakage (not be as sparkly as it should). The depth for modern cushions seems to be around the 60% to 65% range or a little higher up to 70%. Old cuts tend to be even deeper than that, as it requires a good crown height. There are exceptions, of course, but those are very rare. Obviously, the trade off is the smaller face up size, so one has to balance sparkle and size.

Scope images will definitely point out the leakage areas. If you are skilled, you can tell just by looking at it with your eyes.

 

[Rockdiamond]

I have a slightly different take than Chrono.
I don't feel we should either eliminate, or select fancy shaped diamonds based on measurement.
For example, I've seen antique stones with depths in the '50's that were really beautiful- and in some cases looked quite large for their weight. If you look at the profile view, a large culet will allow a stone whose in the 50's to have a similar pavilion angle to a stone with depth in the 60's.
Not to say I've never seen fugly stones with depths in the '50's- but we can make that same statement about stones with 65% depth- some are real dogs.
In terms of leakage- I find that many lovely fancy shaped stones exhibit dispersed areas of leakage.
Large leakage areas can be problematic- but if there's an issue, it's easy to see.

 

[bnhdesigns]

thank you Rockdiamond

I guess I mis-wrote the depth - its actually 58.7% not 56.7% - but to your point I saw 10-12 different stones today (all within .25 - .5 carat weight of this one) and kept coming back to this one. After scope and natural light viewing, I think we have something that is a winner. Some with depths of 65% did not have the same feel and sparkle at all, or the inclusion was black vs tiny crystals.

It's a beautiful cut, and didn't see any real evidence of leakage and the inclusions were what we had expected.

All in all, totally understand that there are trade offs unless you want to go D color and flawless which is a little beyond our scope on this size ring.

Will post some pics of it out of the old antique setting, loose (shortly) and once it is set in wife's preferred band in a couple of weeks.

Thanks!

 

[arkieb1]

Is it 100% eyeclean? It is shallow but that makes it spready or face up bigger. You are the ones seeing it - old cuts can be a law unto themselves. There is a general set of numbers that are more desirable for depth etc but each stone should be viewed in person on it's own merits. If you both love it that is all that counts. It's fairly rare to find old cuts this size that are an E colour!!! Is it a genuine old cut or a new old cut? I've seen stones coming from overseas here in Australia that are really shallow new old cuts. The setting you don't like that it is in above is an obvious replica.