Pushin for a Cushion!! Help with thoughts on this one?

[SquareCut]

I love this site-it''s good to know that I am not the only person searching for the perfect cushion.  I''ve loved cushions for years and now that they are finally cutting them again I thought I''d be able to find a well cut one.  But I''m having a difficult search for the perfect "moremoremore" or "Rena" style cushion.  Any thoughts on this stone?

EGL Cert (was looking for a GIA)
2.66 ct Cushion Brilliant (but with somewhat chunky facets)
H SI1 -(which looks like a true H)
8.99x8.40x 5.14 (great spread)
Girdle: thin -sl thick
good to very good polish/ symetry, no culet
Depth 61.2 Table 64 (how bad is a table that much greater than depth?)

I''m concerned that the table is that much larger than the depth and how that effects the crown angles and brilliance. I don''t have sarin info. I do know that it''s not as brilliant as another I''ve seen which scored a 90 on the GCAL. But I do love the shape which is not too roundish, squareish, rectangular or oval. I''d love to hear from the experts on this one!

 

[moremoremore]

WOW! Thanks for the compliment! With fancies, numbers don''t tell you much. Are you working with a trusted vendor? What are their thoughts on the stone? On the positive side, that''s a great depth,so the stone will look HUGE! Is it *so* less brilliant than the other that you saw that it bothers you? There''s a lot to be said for shape appeal also... I can''t get over how HUGE this is going to look

 

[SquareCut]

Hi Moremoremore! I love your stone and ring! They are truly perfect. I''m working with "cushion boy" and by the way-your husband is very cute! I saw him coming out of "cushion boy''s" office when he was picking up your ring. Yes, the size is unbelievable for the carrat weight. I wish you could see it. I was originally going for around a two carrat F or G but have rejected every stone on the market. This stone ends up costing less then many of the 2cts I''ve seen but looks almost like a three carat. At first I thought it was too big but know I am spoiled. If it only had a 56 table like yours it would be perfect. It''s still brilliant but I may be sacrificing some brilliance for size. I don''t trust my eyes to tell how much. I''ve rejected every cushion on the market, they are all shaped so differently but that''s what I like about them over the standard issue round. I think you can tell alot by the numbers-your numbers look great. But I just don''t know what to do. I''ve been looking for months and there was only one other stone that I fell in love with but it had an inclusion. Cushion boy is ready to fire me. What to do?

 

[moremoremore]

LOL...just made my husband''s day...I told him to read your post...his eyes lit up when you started talking about "the size is unbelievable"...but I told him you were talking about your stone LOLOLOL!!!!!
Well, size is important- most people notice diamonds for their size...and as long as they have good sparkle...that''s all that matters in my opinion. And if Mark thinks it''s a nice stone, well, then I''m sure it is! Where was the inclusion in the stone you loved? Was it really bad? I can''t see a dark spot in mine but I don''t much care. If you love this stone''s shape and you are impressed by the way it looks, then I think you''ve found a keeper!

 

[SquareCut]

Oh my god -that''s hysterical! Tell your husband that I have x-ray vision! ]and yes, size does matter, especially on diamonds. The other diamond I loved had a very visible inclusion-it was a GIA misgrade. It seems I find something wrong with every cushion I see, except yours and Rena''s. This cushion has the same spread as a 3.5 square cushion on the GOG site. IMO, they should start cutting cushions with the same specs of the round. Why should rounds get all the respect?

 

[moremoremore]

sounds like you have bad luck like me or eagle eyes like me. I rejected a vs2 before b/c of the visible inclusion and i can even see a teeny dot in mine under certain circumstances.
I bet the cushion you''re considering is awesome. Mark just wouldn''t get you junk...and OMG...it''s HUGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HUGEHUGEHUGE.

 

[valeria101]

Congratulations for the lucky find.

Ever if there were all the numbers out, there''s no much to say about them without some sort of model (like the HCA is for rounds) to plug the numbers in. You could ask for an Ideal Scope to figure out what exactly does this diamond with the light thrown at it... but if you have seen lots of diamonds to compare this one with, than any such checkup remains an academic matter. It will tell you what chances there are that a brighter stone exists somewhere out there - but that might not have been cut yet

Honestly, those numbers do not say much of anything - either bad or good. If this stone had the same table and depth as MMM''s, that doesn''t mean the stones would look the same and definitely not that they have similar optics.

If you liked it out of many, ''bet the spread doesn''t come as a tradeoff against some serious loss of brilliance.

You can find that out precisely, if you so wish...

 

[SquareCut]

Thanks moremoremore and Valeria. It''s a tough choice. I just don''t trust my eyesight to judge the brilliance. I''d prefer a smaller table but it''s tough to find one with a low table and depth. Won''t the crown be shallow with a 64 table? Doesn''t that mean it''s not a great cut?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/17/2005 8:14:52 PM
Author: SquareCut
Won't the crown be shallow with a 64 table? Doesn't that mean it's not a great cut?

I am not sure if the crown height depends precisely on the crown angle for cushion cuts as it hapens with rounds. Besides, there are quite a few versions of the cushion shape, each with it's own facet arangement. So every stone has it's own rules, so to speak.

That's why Garry's toy would come handy, 'cause it doesn't have to know much more than red, white or black... no numbers. To model the diamond precisely and guess where brilliance might stand is allot harder, I think.

You say "chunky facets" - that sounds like old-mine style rather than brilliant-style facets (if that makes any sense). At least in the oldies the "chunky" look comes from steep crown angles and those happen around a larger table.The same arrangement produces diamonds with strong contrast and fire, which is not bad news at all. Can't see the stone

but this is one guess about what the table number may mean. There are quite a few other "scenarios" imaginable. With the details on a GIA cert I don't have enough even to schetch a remote resemblance of the stone

 

[SquareCut]

Thanks Ana. Do the idealscopes come in blue as well as pink?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/17/2005 8:26:15 PM
Author: SquareCut
Thanks Ana. Do the idealscopes come in blue as well as pink?

Oups! that was a typo

I did edit (and add to) the post afterwards.

No idea about blue ''scopes, but some H&A viewers are (the one at Nice Ice, say).

 

[SquareCut]

Thanks again for your help Ana! What is "contrast"? I know you can''t tell by numbers but I thought a smaller table meant more fire? Are there appraisers that will give you an ideal scope image and a brilliance scope report?

 

[valeria101]

Date: 1/17/2005 8:55:52 PM
Author: SquareCut
Thanks again for your help Ana! What is 'contrast'? I know you can't tell by numbers but I thought a smaller table meant more fire? Are there appraisers that will give you an ideal scope image and a brilliance scope report?

The Iscope is pretty cheap - you can get one I guess for $30 or so and they seem to be reasonably easy to handle by just about any PS user report. It may be hard to take pictures through one, but that's just good for the rest of the world

My memory is not all that great, but I thought AGA has a new Brilliance Scope. There should be others out there as well.


About "small-table=fire" - yeah, but... I wouldn't swear by it. You can get plenty of fire from a diamond with no crown at all. At least for rounds, small table also means high crown and steep crown angle - all of which add up to show fire. For all other cuts these connections dissaprear: you can have a small table with flat crown angles as well and if any general rule applies anymore, I am not that sure anymore. "Guess it is harder to imagine such a cut if the table size is really small (50-ish), but that 64% is neither too big or too small, so there's lots of roo for error if trying to guess, I think.

Contrast ? well, David Atlas used to have a nice description of what this is on gemappraisers.com. You may want to to look it up (a few lines). I meant the play of light from one facet to the next - what makes the difference between a diamond and a small light bulb