Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Please help me find my first diamond! Antique Cushion

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
K

KR

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 30, 2011
Messages
80
Hello Everyone!

I'm ready to buy myself my first diamond! I'm relatively young and on a budget with high hopes for a 7mm antique cushion for under $5K. I'm not picky on color, I just want it to face up white, I want a cross shape in the middle, and for it to be truly eye clean.

I think I've found the one I want to order and see in person, but I am concerned it's TOO shallow. Here are that stats:

1.16 ct
7.63 x 7.77 x 3.13
40.3% table
46% depth
10.4% crown
23.7% pavillion
SL. Large Culet
K color
Faint Flour

I really like the facet structure, and it looks white enough to me. I am also in a budget and it's price realllly low with good spread.

So my questions is, how much brilliance do I lose with how shallow this stone is? Am I atleast going to get some broad rainbow flashes or is it going to just look dead?

What is the minimum pavillon percentage/depth I should be looking for in a cushion? I am looking for good spread so I'm willing to sacrifice some brillance but not all of it.

Any suggestions on a diamond I should consider or anything else that would help would be great!!!!!!

Oh I am also hoping to put it in an HW style halo or send it to Jbeg for something unqiue.
 
Looking at the numbers... I would guess that this is going to look like a flat pancake made of glass. Highly doubt it will sparkle.
 
Yikes that is shallow. I consider my OMC to be pretty shallow with good face up spread at 1.07ct 6.89x6.16x3.62mm.

I would be very interested to see that stone. I will say that I have seen a very shallow antique cushion and it did not even resemble a diamond except that it was white. Completely dead except for tiny glimmers at the edges. Imagine if the stone you have found looked good, that would be a dream buy then.
 
Start watching from 1:35 but personally I think this video makes certain diamonds look better than they really do.
http://vimeo.com/13234387

It might look something like this. Notice that it looks like a chunk of glass with no sparkle? If I am to invest in a diamond, I rather it be smaller with sparkle than big and looking like a chunk of glass with no depth. In that case, I might as well buy a nicely cut chunk of glass.
http://rockdiamond.com/index.php/jewelry/halo-diamond-ring-52-dvvs2-cushion-daussi-platinum-halo-ring-gia-diamond-dossier

Notice this one with more depth also looks like a chunk of glass with no sparkle.
http://rockdiamond.com/index.php/jewelry/three-stone-diamond-ring-109-ctr-105tw-sides-daussi-cushons-in-platinum-r3143
 
AH, I see, that DBL stone does look like glass. That is not what I want. Thanks for the advice. I had a feeling it was too good to be true. =(
 
Farmergal I like that stone! But does it have a flower shape in teh middle or is it the angle of the picture? I was looking for more of a cross shape live the AVC.

Maybe I should just save up for an AVC.
 
Dude did someone just buy this? Now the link isn't working!!!!!!!!!
 
I saw pics of the one in the original post, it does look like glass. Bummer!

OK here are two more:

Stone 1:

1.30 ct
6.92 x 6.88x 4.43
Depth: 64.4%
Table: 47%
Crown: 17.2%
Pavilion: 40.3%
Girdle: Very thin to SL thick
Culet: Large
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Fair to Good
Clarity: SI1
Color: L
Flour: None

Stone 2:

1.17 ct
6.55 x 6.29 x 4.23
Depth: 62.7%
Table: 50%
Crown: 21%
Pavillon: 43.4%
Girdle: Very Thin to Medium
Culet: Large
Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good
Clarity: VS2
Color: I
Flour: None

Both have pretty much the same facet structure.
Stone 1 is a little less symmetrical than Stone 2.
Stone 1 is a little more expensive than Stone 2 but $1000, but both are in my price range.
Stone 2 looks more appealing to my eye as the facets are way more crisp and symmetrical.
Stone 1 is bigger and is closer to 7mm than stone 2.
Both face up white and are sparkly and pretty.

I'm leaning more towards Stone 2. The only thing I might like more in Stone 1 is that it's bigger by .37 mm, and would that visially even make a differnce?
 
Hmm... not working for me but when I search for it by item number I can find it. Must be my computer. So I guess it's still in the running.

The AVC are goreous ofcourse but small in terms of spread?

I guess those are in the running now too...but what do you guys think of the ones I posted above?
 
KR|1317146097|3027009 said:
Hmm... not working for me but when I search for it by item number I can find it. Must be my computer. So I guess it's still in the running.

The AVC are goreous ofcourse but small in terms of spread?

I guess those are in the running now too...but what do you guys think of the ones I posted above?
Click to expand...

do you have pictures of the ones you posted?
 
Stone 1

Stone 1.jpg
 
Stone 2

Stone 2.jpg
 
Just posted pics.

Both are really similar. I think Stone 2 is "prettier" but Stone 1 has the the size I want. Will .32 mm make a difference though?

It will go into an HW style halo to increase finger coverage to atleast 8mm or more.

What do you guys think?
 
Hi All,
Without a doubt photography of diamonds is difficult.
At the end of the day, each photograph, or video is merely a representation in 2 dimensions of a 3 dimensional object.
Charmy was nice enough to post a few different videos.
The Daussi cushions which Charmy feels look like glass?
Well, I'd love to find glass that looks like that!

Seriously, looking at the videos ( that I made) a can correlate the two dimensional image with what my eyes see in 3 dimensions when I look at this type of stone. I am not reminded at all of glass looking at the stones Chunky linked to ( or the video).
Looking at the other video, it's easy to see how different points of view affect the way a photograph, or video is made.
I love crushed ice, Jon seems not to like it at all.
I believe this comes out in the videos.

KR- by all means, it's vital that you look at some cushion in person.
As a rule, expecting to get something 7mm, white, and under $5k makes your task pretty much impossible.

Having said that, I have seen stones with depths in the 40's that were amazing to look at- and very large for their weight- but not with the type of facet structure it seems you want.
 
Ohh, I love stone 1!!!
 
I like #1.
 
I like stone #1 too.
 
Rockdiamond, ok wait, so the daussi in the video really isn't glassy? If I saw it in person it would still sparkle? I do like how the daussi is like a cross between a cushion and an EC, my original ering is an EC 2.15 ct ruby.

Is 7mm really out of the question for $5K? That totally sucks. What price am I more looking at?

It doesn't have to be perfectly white. I like SOME warmth.

The diamond from my first post, the seller sent me pics and I guess I can post them but they said the performance was compromised by the depth. I didn't like the look of it and he sent me stone 2, which I really like.

What cuts can be cut in the 40's with good spread and still be sparkly? I mean, what facet structure? You have them? Can you link me? I do love your stones and rings but so many of them are out of my price range =( I have my eye on an OEC halo you have on ebay but it's $1000 above my budget for a completed ring. Do you give a PS discount?

You're right I need to see some in person. Need to find someone who stocks antique cuts bc I'd feel really super bad if I had them call a bunch in and just said, "oh I was just looking." What am I looking for when you give this advice.

Anyway, so far 3 for stone #1? When you guys vote can you guys say why?

Also, is it me, but does it looks like stone 1's girdle is chipped??????????

By the way, Stone 1 I think just looks whiter in the picture. Stone 2 has a whiter color grading.
 
Hi KR,
The term "glassy" is not descriptive enough to be of use in this discussion- other than as an insult

For example- an emerald cut also has things in common with glass- but diamonds have a certain sparkle that distinguishes them from glass.
So- if we're talking transparency, being "glassy" might be what we want.

Daussi cushions have been trashed many times on PS- CharmyPoo, for example is very vocal in expressing dislike for them.

On the other hand, there are also many fans of the cut.
As a seller, I am limited in what I can discuss about them- but in general : you hit the nail in the head comparing them to Emerald Cuts.
They do seem to have some of the personality of an EC

You raise some great questions: Such as, how is it possible to look at antique cushion stones in person.
it's such a limited item that store carrying them are few and far between.
If you say what city you're in maybe others may have suggestions for local dealers.

In terms of the depth- if you don;t like the way a stone looks, that's our answer- no matter the depth.
I have seen antique stones that were in the 40's in terms of depth, yet not flat like a pancake due to having a large open culet.

7mm: Unless the diamond is tall and thin, with 7mm being the tall measurement, we'd probably be looking at a 1.50ct+ stone to hit 7mm.... and 5K is not going to cut that.....
 
Thanks Rockdiamond!

I like the daussi. I see how it's not "glassy" it's just more like an EC. My EC Ruby does not look like red peice of glass so I hear what you're saying in that!

So, back to the stones I have been comparing.......

then stone 1 is a good deal since it's $5K and 6.92mm? Stone 1 is 1.3 ct.
 
OK guys now I"m really conflicted.

Stone 1 I now can get for less than stone 2.

Stone 2 techically has better specs (I color, VS2) than Stone 1 (L color, SI1)

But Stone 1 has the that alost 7mm spread I'm looking for.

HELP!!!!!!!
 
Rockdiamond|1317151737|3027094 said:
Hi All,
Without a doubt photography of diamonds is difficult.
At the end of the day, each photograph, or video is merely a representation in 2 dimensions of a 3 dimensional object.
Charmy was nice enough to post a few different videos.
The Daussi cushions which Charmy feels look like glass?
Well, I'd love to find glass that looks like that!
Click to expand...

I am sorry - I forgot only you are allowed to use random words for description. Using the term "light performance" is a no no for you but I thought beauty as you advocate is in the eye of the beholder. To me, it looks like a chunk of glass and not appealing at all. I have glass cut nicer than that :tongue:

KB - You can formulate your own thoughts and buy whatever you wish. It isn't my money and I don't make any money off this forum. It is up to you who you listen and take advice from - personally, I wouldn't take guidance from a vendor who has a personal stake on the topic - the last two videos I linked are from Rock Diamond's inventory - he is one of the few vendors on here that carries a large number of Daussi Cushions in his inventory.

If Daussi cushions are so amazing, don't you wonder why they are not more popular on PS - heck, who wouldn't want an amazing diamond that faces up much larger than other cushion cuts.

I outright admit I don't like Daussi Cushions - I liked them even less after I saw them in real life. I am entitled to my opinions as are you.
 
Well--I'm not buying a daussi. I'm buying an antique cushion and I'm hoping you can help me decide on which one?

I've posted the pics and specs on stone 1 and 2. Help!
 
Hi KR,
I apologize that heated discussions ensue- and sometimes cloud the issue when you're simply here for advice.
For me, the bottom line is that each of us has our own vision.
Sometimes shoppers that call us ask me what I think- and I'm hesitant to give my opinion because I don't want to influence their decision.
Basically- what I like is not important - what the recipient likes is most important.
I have never seen a "consensus" here on PS- IOW it's not accurate to say "most ps'ers love XYZ- nor is it accurate to say "most PS'ers don't like such and such.

I find it upsetting when people give strong negative opinions. Someone reading that post may really love something another one just bashed. This is not "end of the world" stuff- but I do value pleasant discourse.
Another problem I see here is that sometimes opinions get mixed up with technicalities.
For example, depth.
A stone can be very bright- sparkly and full of life with a depth of 45% or 85%
Deeper stones tend to face up smaller for their weight ( not a rule, but a generality)
Shallower stones tend to face up larger- again, not a rule.
If you can find a shalloer cushion who's appearance pleases you, and it's got a large face up, so much the better.
It's not going to assist you to try to shop by depth.

Follow your instincts- hopefully you'll be able to look at some stones to get a feeling.
No matter what- GET A MONEY BACK GUARANTEE- that is very important .
 
Rockdiamond|1317228876|3027929 said:
Hi KR,
I apologize that heated discussions ensue- and sometimes cloud the issue when you're simply here for advice.
For me, the bottom line is that each of us has our own vision.
Sometimes shoppers that call us ask me what I think- and I'm hesitant to give my opinion because I don't want to influence their decision.
Basically- what I like is not important - what the recipient likes is most important.
I have never seen a "consensus" here on PS- IOW it's not accurate to say "most ps'ers love XYZ- nor is it accurate to say "most PS'ers don't like such and such.

I find it upsetting when people give strong negative opinions. Someone reading that post may really love something another one just bashed. This is not "end of the world" stuff- but I do value pleasant discourse.
Another problem I see here is that sometimes opinions get mixed up with technicalities.
For example, depth.
A stone can be very bright- sparkly and full of life with a depth of 45% or 85%
Deeper stones tend to face up smaller for their weight ( not a rule, but a generality)
Shallower stones tend to face up larger- again, not a rule.
If you can find a shalloer cushion who's appearance pleases you, and it's got a large face up, so much the better.
It's not going to assist you to try to shop by depth.

Follow your instincts- hopefully you'll be able to look at some stones to get a feeling.
No matter what- GET A MONEY BACK GUARANTEE- that is very important .
Click to expand...

David, could you explain the bolded? To the best of my knowledge, that is the rule - if you have examples to the contrary, I would genuinely, no sarcasm, love to see them.

KR, I actually much prefer the facet structure of stone #1, but I also like a little warmth. Do you think you'd be comfortable with an L? Have you seen similar stones in person?
 
NO Problem at all Circe!!
It's actually a wonderful question.
The answer is rather complex- one reason is the wide range of shapes we must consider.
Rounds present the smallest "window" of acceptable depths- therefore allow less examples of stones at the extreme- and the extreme stones will be informative.

Another reason there's no simple answer are variations such as open culets and different placement of the girdle due to CA/PA combinations.
One example that comes quickly to mind is a stone which an open culet.
If viewed in profile, we can see that if the pavilion was extended so that the culet was closed, it would result in a higher depth, yet not affect CA/PA, or girdle table relationships. So, aside from the effects of the open culet, appearance would not change.
Let me think about this a little bit and see if I can find good examples- or hopefully others may also have examples of anomalies.
 
Aaaaaaaaaaaaah - I never thought about culets! You're opening a whole new world, here. The girdle placement is a tougher one for me to envision without examples - will be checking back frequently!
 
So as not to take the OP's thread even further afield, I started a new discussion Circe.
Here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top