Please Need Your Help on these 2 Cushions

[Lorelei]

Date: 7/16/2009 7:22:46 AM
Author: 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. No, but no guarantee of beauty or cut quality, yes these grades will belong to modern graded cushions however.

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. Ok, wasn't sure exactly what you meant there.

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. Thats fine that you don't like the article, I completely respect that - my concern is that we have seen here over years newbies coming along and applying the general idea as in rounds that the depth percentage works the same way when fancies can hide weight in other ways, so depth is not as directly related to spread as in round brilliants. I have found the article very useful in the past and is something I post a lot for newbies and have had excellent feedbacl that the article is in fact helpful to them. It is also written by someone I respect and admire immensely, and someone who has taught me a lot of what I know about diamonds. I don't think the article was intended to be an exhaustive work on how to choose fancy shapes, just on the matter of weight distribution and 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. Because fancies can be more complicated than rounds, that is the truth and a different approach is needed in evaluating them.

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. Again asking a pro to check an extremely thick part of a girdle is prudent, regular and proven advice here and this advice will continue. Also you mention that you trust Mark but are concerned that the article above might force a consumer to " TRUST" an expert, Mark is someone whose opinion I would trust concerning a cushion. Again the advice with a girdle which notes it is extremely thick, if I were about to pass over my money for such a stone, I would want to know that I wasn't buying a diamond with a hulking thick girdle all the way around with a tiny thin part, I would hope that the girdle was overall thin and that the ex thick areas were placed around the corners for protection as as indeed the case. We know this because of my advice to the poster and the girdle checks out well. If I had not advised her in this manner, she might not have thought to ask and would not have known that about her diamond ( if she buys it that is! ), and that the girdle was crafted within good range. That is where my advice is coming from.

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. Absolutely, in a nutshell and what I have been trying to explain all along.

Regards,
CCL

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/15/2009 8:33:14 PM
Author: smoothcoat
Ellen,

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

No problem!