Please Need Your Help on these 2 Cushions

[smoothcoat]

Hi, I''m new to this forum and would really appreciate some feedback on two cushion diamonds. I''m working with Mark at ERD and here are the details he provided. He''s searching for another one but I don''t have any information yet. I have photos of the two diamonds listed below but I''m not sure I will be able to post them for you to see, I wil try.

Thanks,
Smoothcoat

Cushion Brilliant #1

Carat weight - 2.54
Color grade - E
Clarity grade - VS1
Ratio - 1.15 (8.85 X 7.67 X 5.14)
Cut - very good
Polish - very good
Symmetry - good
Fluorescence - none
Culet - Slightly large
Girdle - Thin to thick faceted
Comments - surface graining is not shown, crown angles are greater than 40 degrees

Cushion Brilliant # 2

Carat weight - 2.72
Color grade - G
Ratio - 1.01 (8.06 X 7.95 X 5.26)
Cut - very good
Polish - excellent
Symmetry - good
Fluorescence - none
Culet - large
Girdle - Thin to extremely thick faceted
Comments - crown angles are greater than 40 degrees

 

[smoothcoat]

So here''s a picture of Cushion Brilliant #2

Carat weight - 2.72
Color grade - G
Clarity grade - VS2

 

[smoothcoat]

Picture of Cushion Brilliant #1

Carat weight - 2.54
Color grade - E
Clarity grade - VS1

 

[megumic]

Ohh I much prefer #2. It actually is SO close to the diamond I selected from Mark @ ERD. I''m still waiting on the proposal...but it''s nearly an identical diamond.

 

[MrsChil]

I LOVE #2!!! The shape is beautiful!

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 7/13/2009 11:04:57 PM
Author:smoothcoat




Hi, I'm new to this forum and would really appreciate some feedback on two cushion diamonds. I'm working with Mark at ERD and here are the details he provided. He's searching for another one but I don't have any information yet. I have photos of the two diamonds listed below but I'm not sure I will be able to post them for you to see, I wil try.

Thanks,
Smoothcoat

Cushion Brilliant #1

Carat weight - 2.54
Color grade - E
Clarity grade - VS1
Ratio - 1.15 (8.85 X 7.67 X 5.14)
Cut - very good
Polish - very good
Symmetry - good
Fluorescence - none
Culet - Slightly large
Girdle - Thin to thick faceted
Comments - surface graining is not shown, crown angles are greater than 40 degrees

Cushion Brilliant # 2

Carat weight - 2.72
Color grade - G
Ratio - 1.01 (8.06 X 7.95 X 5.26)
Cut - very good
Polish - excellent
Symmetry - good
Fluorescence - none
Culet - large
Girdle - Thin to extremely thick faceted
Comments - crown angles are greater than 40 degrees

Both are pretty looking diamonds. I assume they are similarly priced. Although Mark doesn't do a lot of ASET images he can do it I would get one for each and post them here as that would tell you about the optics of each.
Other than the optics its going to be a personal preference and come down to which shape outline you like more.
Cushion #1

a) More Rectangular
b) E colour
c) Culet Slightly Large


Cushion #2

a) Almost a perfect square
b) G colour although you might not be able to tell a big difference once set between this and the E.
c) You didn't post the clarity but I'm sure mark would not choose any diamonds that weren't eye clean.
d) Large Culet (do you like large culets?) its possible you won't notice it dramatically. I like the kozibe effect in this diamond produced by the reflection of the large culet do you?

Both have the same depth.
I like more square cushions so #2 is my choice just based on the look of each but I'd want to see the ASET as well if you don't have a clear preference on shape.

 

[UCLABelle]

Personally, I think cushions are/should be picked by personal preferences. Meaning, I prefer 1, due to the "look" and chunky facets, but heck, #2''s stats are really good too.

 

[Lorelei]

Two stunning cushions, purely down to personal preference which to pick I think!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/14/2009 4:58:16 AM
Author: Lorelei
Two stunning cushions, purely down to personal preference which to pick I think!

I agree. Lightened up and a bit smaller.

 

[Ellen]

..

 

[Lorelei]

Thank ye M''aam!

 

[AprilBaby]

Visually I prefer the more square one.

 

[smoothcoat]

All,

Thank you so very much for your feedback.

Should I have any concerns regarding girdle thickness? Cushion#1 has a depth of 67% and table 54%, Cushion #2 has a depth of 66.2% and table 54%. How do these diamonds face up? Will they appear larger when compared to other diamonds of similiar shape and size? I like the brightness of Cushion #1, however, in the photo it looks like there''s a film covering the diamond. Do you know what this is?

I''m still undecided regarding shape so I could go either way. Will try to get ASET images of both and post if Mark can provide them to me.

Thanks,
Smoothcoat

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/14/2009 9:01:36 AM
Author: smoothcoat
All,

Thank you so very much for your feedback.

Should I have any concerns regarding girdle thickness? Cushion#1 has a depth of 67% and table 54%, Cushion #2 has a depth of 66.2% and table 54%. How do these diamonds face up? Will they appear larger when compared to other diamonds of similiar shape and size? I like the brightness of Cushion #1, however, in the photo it looks like there's a film covering the diamond. Do you know what this is?

I'm still undecided regarding shape so I could go either way. Will try to get ASET images of both and post if Mark can provide them to me.

Thanks,
Smoothcoat

The first will face up a little bit larger than the second, also depth doesn't always relate to spread or face up size in fancy shapes as it does with rounds so you can't just go by the depth %. The ex thick part of the girdle isn't ideal as it can waste weight but ask the vendor to check if the ex thick part covers a large portion of the girdle or not, if not then you should be fine. No idea if there is a film or not on the diamond, possibly there is or it is reflecting a colour in the surroundings - or even there is some grease or muck stuck on a prong or the diamond and that is causing that yellowish stain, I doubt it is in the diamond itself such as an inclusion at VS1.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/14/2009 9:01:36 AM
Author: smoothcoat
All,

Thank you so very much for your feedback.

Should I have any concerns regarding girdle thickness? Cushion#1 has a depth of 67% and table 54%, Cushion #2 has a depth of 66.2% and table 54%. How do these diamonds face up? Will they appear larger when compared to other diamonds of similiar shape and size? I like the brightness of Cushion #1, however, in the photo it looks like there''s a film covering the diamond. Do you know what this is?

I''m still undecided regarding shape so I could go either way. Will try to get ASET images of both and post if Mark can provide them to me.

Thanks,
Smoothcoat

I did notice that, could be dirty. Ask Mark to clean it well and retake photo.

 

[DiamondFlame]

I don't know if you had the 2 pics mixed up by mistake cuz the L/W ratios don't seem to agree with the photos.
#2 is supposed to look squarish (or roundish) but the photo clearly shows a rectangularish cushion.

I like them both but they exhibit different personalities. The rectangular wd look superb in an E-W orientation, a more modern feel about it.
The roundish one actually reminds me of the classic, older Old Miner Cut.

 

[smoothcoat]

All,

Mark sent me the detail and photo on the third diamond today.

Cushion Brilliant #3

Carat weight - 2.50
Color grade - F
Clarity grade - VVS1
Ratio - 1.13 (8.12 X 7.17 X 4.94)
Cut - very good
Polish - excellent
Symmetry - very good
Fluorescence - none
Girdle - Medium to extremely thick faceted
Comments - Addt''l pinpoints are not shown, crown angles are greater than 40 degrees

I asked Mark about the thickness of the girdle and he advised the extremely thick areas are only around the corners for protection? Is this diamond facing up small for it''s size?

Cushion Brilliant # 2

Carat weight - 2.72
Color grade - G
Clarity - VS2
Ratio - 1.01 (8.06 X 7.95 X 5.26)
Cut - very good
Polish - excellent
Symmetry - good
Fluorescence - none
Culet - large
Girdle - Thin to extremely thick faceted
Comments - crown angles are greater than 40 degrees

Which one of the two would you choose and why? There''s a 7k difference in cost between the two and appreciate any feedback.

 

[Lorelei]

I like the second one best out of all of them, I would ask Mark which one has the most '' flair'', he has a great eye for a cushion and I would trust his judgement.

 

[Ellen]

I vote for the G VS2.

 

[smoothcoat]

Lorelei, Ellen,

Just to be clear, the picture I just posted listed under Cushion #2 is actually a photo of Cushion #3. Do you think the 2.5ct. faces up small for it''s size?

I asked Mark for his rankings and he said he rated the 2.5 ct. F VVS1 as his first choice because it has the best brilliance and best overall shape.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/15/2009 5:34:06 PM
Author: smoothcoat
Lorelei, Ellen,

Just to be clear, the picture I just posted listed under Cushion #2 is actually a photo of Cushion #3. Do you think the 2.5ct. faces up small for it's size?

I asked Mark for his rankings and he said he rated the 2.5 ct. F VVS1 as his first choice because it has the best brilliance and best overall shape.

I understand. But just so we're all clear, this is the one I like best! This is the G VS2, correct? As for it facing up small, I don't know, fancies can't be judged as easily as rounds.... I think you could easily find some with the same carat weight that were slightly bigger, and some that were the same size as this one. I would go more for what performs/looks best.

 

[smoothcoat]

Lorelei,

Thanks for clarifying - you prefer the 2.72 ct. G VS 2.


My question regarding the face up of the diamond is for the 2.5Ct. F VVS1? Does this face up small compared to other 2.5 Cushions?

Cushion Brilliant #3
Carat weight - 2.50
Color grade - F
Clarity grade - VVS1
Ratio - 1.13 (8.12 X 7.17 X 4.94)
Cut - very good
Polish - excellent
Symmetry - very good
Fluorescence - none
Girdle - Medium to extremely thick faceted
Comments - Addt''l pinpoints are not shown, crown angles are greater than 40 degrees

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/15/2009 6:14:17 PM
Author: smoothcoat


Lorelei,

Thanks for clarifying - you prefer the 2.72 ct. G VS 2.


My question regarding the face up of the diamond is for the 2.5Ct. F VVS1? Does this face up small compared to other 2.5 Cushions?

Cushion Brilliant #3


Carat weight - 2.50
Color grade - F
Clarity grade - VVS1
Ratio - 1.13 (8.12 X 7.17 X 4.94)
Cut - very good
Polish - excellent
Symmetry - very good
Fluorescence - none
Girdle - Medium to extremely thick faceted
Comments - Addt''l pinpoints are not shown, crown angles are greater than 40 degrees

Not sure if you mean Lorelei, or me.

But anywho, sorry I misunderstood, though again, my answer would be, it''s just not that easy to say. Here''s 3 in that size range to compare to.

http://goodoldgold.com/diamondResults.php?shape=2&ctMin=2.4&ctMax=2.6&resultsColumns=268435471

 

[smoothcoat]

Ellen,

My apologies. I will check out the reference and compare.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 7/15/2009 6:14:17 PM
Author: smoothcoat




Lorelei,

Thanks for clarifying - you prefer the 2.72 ct. G VS 2.


My question regarding the face up of the diamond is for the 2.5Ct. F VVS1? Does this face up small compared to other 2.5 Cushions?

Cushion Brilliant #3




Carat weight - 2.50
Color grade - F
Clarity grade - VVS1
Ratio - 1.13 (8.12 X 7.17 X 4.94)
Cut - very good
Polish - excellent
Symmetry - very good
Fluorescence - none
Girdle - Medium to extremely thick faceted
Comments - Addt'l pinpoints are not shown, crown angles are greater than 40 degrees

The girdle is NOT a major contributing factor to a smaller face up size in ANY of these stones. It is common for these size cushions to have a girdle where at least one part is very thick and if its a new cut stone as I bet this one is than it definitely won't have much of an affect.


HOWEVER:

This stone at a depth of 69% is in the deeper range of cushion cuts.

An example I did a pricescope search and found a 2.50 Carat with a 8.47 X 7.26 X 4.82 (depth 66.4%) which would look bigger faceup it is a shallower stone than yours. (This is a cushion modified brilliant and not what you are looking for though just giving you a size comparison.)

The thing with chunky faceted cushions is they should have a large crown depth and thus overall a deeper total depth.
Therefore I'd be surprised to find too many chunky cushions that had good optics that weren't at least in the mid 62 - 65% range and probably most good ones are in the 64 - 70% depth range.
I really wish someone had told me that instead of the standard "You can't judge a cushion cut by the numbers" .
I'd still prefer one that ws 65-67% deep as I'm trying to squeeze a little bigger faceup size but at this size stone you won't see a huge difference.

Good-Luck,
CCL

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 7/14/2009 9:06:50 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 7/14/2009 9:01:36 AM
Author: smoothcoat
All,

Thank you so very much for your feedback.

Should I have any concerns regarding girdle thickness? Cushion#1 has a depth of 67% and table 54%, Cushion #2 has a depth of 66.2% and table 54%. How do these diamonds face up? Will they appear larger when compared to other diamonds of similiar shape and size? I like the brightness of Cushion #1, however, in the photo it looks like there's a film covering the diamond. Do you know what this is?

I'm still undecided regarding shape so I could go either way. Will try to get ASET images of both and post if Mark can provide them to me.

Thanks,
Smoothcoat

The first will face up a little bit larger than the second, also depth doesn't always relate to spread or face up size in fancy shapes as it does with rounds so you can't just go by the depth %. The ex thick part of the girdle isn't ideal as it can waste weight but ask the vendor to check if the ex thick part covers a large portion of the girdle or not, if not then you should be fine. No idea if there is a film or not on the diamond, possibly there is or it is reflecting a colour in the surroundings - or even there is some grease or muck stuck on a prong or the diamond and that is causing that yellowish stain, I doubt it is in the diamond itself such as an inclusion at VS1.

Lorelei,

Can you please provide an example of ANY cushion brilliant or ANY Modified cushion brilliant that hides significant weight in the girdle.
Things like Excellent Polish and Very Good Symmetry should point to newer cut stones that are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to hide weight in the girdle.

I have very confident that Mark at ERD would never choose a stone that did. I am also fairly certain that anything with good overall optics and cut in the last 10 years or even longer doesn't have this issue either.
Yet time and time again I see this statement "You can't just take depth percentage it might be hiding weight in the girdle".

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/16/2009 3:38:35 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 7/14/2009 9:06:50 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 7/14/2009 9:01:36 AM
Author: smoothcoat
All,

Thank you so very much for your feedback.

Should I have any concerns regarding girdle thickness? Cushion#1 has a depth of 67% and table 54%, Cushion #2 has a depth of 66.2% and table 54%. How do these diamonds face up? Will they appear larger when compared to other diamonds of similiar shape and size? I like the brightness of Cushion #1, however, in the photo it looks like there's a film covering the diamond. Do you know what this is?

I'm still undecided regarding shape so I could go either way. Will try to get ASET images of both and post if Mark can provide them to me.

Thanks,
Smoothcoat

The first will face up a little bit larger than the second, also depth doesn't always relate to spread or face up size in fancy shapes as it does with rounds so you can't just go by the depth %. The ex thick part of the girdle isn't ideal as it can waste weight but ask the vendor to check if the ex thick part covers a large portion of the girdle or not, if not then you should be fine. No idea if there is a film or not on the diamond, possibly there is or it is reflecting a colour in the surroundings - or even there is some grease or muck stuck on a prong or the diamond and that is causing that yellowish stain, I doubt it is in the diamond itself such as an inclusion at VS1.

Lorelei,

Can you please provide an example of ANY cushion brilliant or ANY Modified cushion brilliant that hides significant weight in the girdle.
Things like Excellent Polish and Very Good Symmetry should point to newer cut stones that are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to hide weight in the girdle.

I have very confident that Mark at ERD would never choose a stone that did. I am also fairly certain that anything with good overall optics and cut in the last 10 years or even longer doesn't have this issue either.
Yet time and time again I see this statement 'You can't just take depth percentage it might be hiding weight in the girdle'.

If you reread what I posted above I said a very thick girdle isn't ideal because it CAN waste weight, not that it WILL. Also to get Mark to check said girdle to see if it does waste weight, if it does not then it should be fine. And also it is prudent advice to look at the whole picture of a diamond, particularly a fancy shape and get a pro to check all girdle variances to check for possible weight retention or durability issues as the case may be. Polish and symmetry grades are also unrelated to girdle thickness and are not a reliable indicator of girdle suitability or cut quality - or beauty.

And also fancy shapes such as cushions can hold weight in various areas, not just the girdle or depth - depth does not relate to face up spread in the same way as rounds which is a common misconception, so it really isn't that simple. You might find this article interesting. The basic advice in this article applies to fancy shapes other than Princess also.

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/21/1/The-matter-of-depth-in-a-princess-cut.aspx

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Lorelei,

1) My pet peeve is too often this is mentioned and we see too many threads with the poster worried about hidden weight loss and asking if the stone is too small faceup. This hidden weight effect is rarely exhibited and I still would like you to show me any with even a 2% surface area reduction in any precision cut brilliant stone due to hidden weight loss ANYWHERE in the diamond.

2) For Princess Cuts , Emerald Cuts, Asschers, Radiants (with small cut corners), Modern Square or Rectangular Cushions all ratios spread can be approximated as Surface Area and to a first approximation(good enough) SA= Length X Width.
Now if all of these fancies were LW ratio = 1 than the Width would truly represent the spread and you would only need to look at this.
However because these stones can be rectangular you have to look at Surface Area.

In this case as is the case 99% of times this question comes up there are one of two solutions DIRECTLY FROM THE NUMBERS :

a) If you are comparing stones of the same cut (ie cushions) with similar LW ratios than looking at the depth % is good enough.
b) If you are comparing a square shape to a rectangular shape than calculate the surface area by multiplying Length X Width and use this to compare stones with similar weight.

Articles like the one you posted really take the power of novice consumers away unecessarily to the point where you might force them to just "TRUST" an "expert" when a consumer can do a lot more homework on their own.

Comparing Depth% of a Round to a Cushion is not accurate however comparing the Surface Area is quite accurate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/16/2009 6:21:16 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 7/16/2009 4:27:20 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 7/16/2009 3:38:35 AM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 7/14/2009 9:06:50 AM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 7/14/2009 9:01:36 AM
Author: smoothcoat
All,

Thank you so very much for your feedback.

Should I have any concerns regarding girdle thickness? Cushion#1 has a depth of 67% and table 54%, Cushion #2 has a depth of 66.2% and table 54%. How do these diamonds face up? Will they appear larger when compared to other diamonds of similiar shape and size? I like the brightness of Cushion #1, however, in the photo it looks like there's a film covering the diamond. Do you know what this is?

I'm still undecided regarding shape so I could go either way. Will try to get ASET images of both and post if Mark can provide them to me.

Thanks,
Smoothcoat

The first will face up a little bit larger than the second, also depth doesn't always relate to spread or face up size in fancy shapes as it does with rounds so you can't just go by the depth %. The ex thick part of the girdle isn't ideal as it can waste weight but ask the vendor to check if the ex thick part covers a large portion of the girdle or not, if not then you should be fine. No idea if there is a film or not on the diamond, possibly there is or it is reflecting a colour in the surroundings - or even there is some grease or muck stuck on a prong or the diamond and that is causing that yellowish stain, I doubt it is in the diamond itself such as an inclusion at VS1.

Lorelei,

Can you please provide an example of ANY cushion brilliant or ANY Modified cushion brilliant that hides significant weight in the girdle.
Things like Excellent Polish and Very Good Symmetry should point to newer cut stones that are HIGHLY UNLIKELY to hide weight in the girdle.

I have very confident that Mark at ERD would never choose a stone that did. I am also fairly certain that anything with good overall optics and cut in the last 10 years or even longer doesn't have this issue either.
Yet time and time again I see this statement 'You can't just take depth percentage it might be hiding weight in the girdle'.

If you reread what I posted above I said a very thick girdle isn't ideal because it CAN waste weight, not that it WILL. Also to get Mark to check said girdle to see if it does waste weight, if it does not then it should be fine. And also it is prudent advice to look at the whole picture of a diamond, particularly a fancy shape and get a pro to check all girdle variances to check for possible weight retention or durability issues as the case may be. Polish and symmetry grades are also unrelated to girdle thickness and are not a reliable indicator of girdle suitability or cut quality - or beauty.

And also fancy shapes such as cushions can hold weight in various areas, not just the girdle or depth - depth does not relate to face up spread in the same way as rounds which is a common misconception, so it really isn't that simple. You might find this article interesting. The basic advice in this article applies to fancy shapes other than Princess also.

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/21/1/The-matter-of-depth-in-a-princess-cut.aspx

Lorelei,

1) My pet peeve is too often this is mentioned and we see too many threads with the poster worried about hidden weight loss and asking if the stone is too small faceup. This hidden weight effect is rarely exhibited and I still would like you to show me any with even a 2% surface area reduction in any precision cut brilliant stone due to hidden weight loss ANYWHERE in the diamond. It is generally rounds which are precision brilliant cut, if you mean cushions then when I have time and I am not sure when that will be yet I will try to find some examples. Also I don't think you read what I was trying to say above, this is STANDARD advice from experts also with girdles, especially ones with thick or very thin areas to get an expert to check as they can have issues on occasion and to make sure a very thick part does not encompass a large amount of the girdle, therefore possibly wasting weight, conversely thin being a potential durability issue etc. Sorry if this irritates you but this advice won't change.



2) For Princess Cuts , Emerald Cuts, Asschers, Radiants (with small cut corners), Modern Square or Rectangular Cushions all ratios spread can be approximated as Surface Area and to a first approximation(good enough) SA= Length X Width.
Now if all of these fancies were LW ratio = 1 than the Width would truly represent the spread and you would only need to look at this.
However because these stones can be rectangular you have to look at Surface Area.

In this case as is the case 99% of times this question comes up there are one of two solutions DIRECTLY FROM THE NUMBERS :

a) If you are comparing stones of the same cut (ie cushions) with similar LW ratios than looking at the depth % is good enough.
b) If you are comparing a square shape to a rectangular shape than calculate the surface area by multiplying Length X Width and use this to compare stones with similar weight. Agreed.

Articles like the one you posted really take the power of novice consumers away unecessarily to the point where you might force them to just 'TRUST' an 'expert' when a consumer can do a lot more homework on their own. Disagree, that article was written by an expert who devotes his valuable time in trying to EMPOWER the consumer and is extremely helpful and its use is valid. Of course a consumer can do as much or as little homework as they want, articles like the above can only be helpful, in the end the info is here for all consumers and they can use it or not as they wish. How is that article taking ANY power away from a consumer?

Comparing Depth% of a Round to a Cushion is not accurate however comparing the Surface Area is quite accurate.

You posted above " Therefore I'd be surprised to find too many chunky cushions that had good optics that weren't at least in the mid 62 - 65% range and probably most good ones are in the 64 - 70% depth range.
I really wish someone had told me that instead of the standard "You can't judge a cushion cut by the numbers" .
I'd still prefer one that ws 65-67% deep as I'm trying to squeeze a little bigger faceup size but at this size stone you won't see a huge difference."

I took this to mean that like many you were judging depth as being the main determining factor for face up size as in rounds, hence the article.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Lorelei,

a) I mentioned the finish grades because we can use this to give a good inidication of how recently cut the stone was. You won''t find many 1800s - 1900s OMC, OMB, CBs with Excellent Polish or Symmetry. I mention this because I know these are recently cut stones just from the finish grades.

b) Precision cutting meaning with computers and with today''s modern equipment. It doesn''t just apply to Round Brilliants, it includes any brilliant cut stone (like cushion brilliant) and I could extend it to step cut ones. I just want to exclude the older stones because then the outline shape could be very different and some approximations would fail.

c) I don''t like the article for three reasons:

i) "It shows how even the simplest rules of rounds do not necessarily apply to fancy shapes." Once again lets make it complicated for fancy shapes.
ii) It doesn''t tell you how to compare fancy shapes. The whole psychology section is a long winded explanation when it is simply the formulas for calculating depth in a round and in a princess are different.
iii) Most consumers are not going to get into looking at pavillion angles and pavillion depths as they would need a sarin report for this. They will look at total depth so why complicate things by switching from pavillion depth to total depth.

This article may have been designed to help but the take home message is fancies are more complicated and we aren''t going to tell you a rule for them just tell you its not simple like rounds.

Your general advice is fine and I wouldn''t argue with it you have much more experience than I do. But if it has the poster questioning Mark''s judgement and you are suggesting to check potential problems that are unlikely to be there than that is where I would prefer it to be more selective.

i) None of these stones have very thin girdles, thin is fine especially in these cushions where it is common.
ii) The very thick part was deliberate on the corners and is not an issue with any of them no harm in asking Mark to confirm it.

Regards,
CCL