It has been noted that cushions come in various cuts and styles, but I have also noticed that the actual shapes of the stones seem to exhibit some assymmetrical tendencies.
Sometimes the corner rounding and arc varies, or one side has a bit more curve than the other... Nonetheless, I have noted some of these shaping nuances are on stones that have still been graded with "good" and "very good" symmetry.
Is this "overall shape" symmetry considered to be secondary to facet alignment and facet symmetry?
I am assuming that since many of these slight shaper variances are hard to see in a mounted stone, that this is the case..?
Is this common in softer elongated shapes cushions and ovals, where the cutting and polishing does not conform to straight edges, or round shapes? I am coming to another conclusion is that a natural stone that is hand shaped is allowed to have some leeway in these shaping issues, and that facet alignment is more important when viewing a stone in a ring.
Sometimes the corner rounding and arc varies, or one side has a bit more curve than the other... Nonetheless, I have noted some of these shaping nuances are on stones that have still been graded with "good" and "very good" symmetry.
Is this "overall shape" symmetry considered to be secondary to facet alignment and facet symmetry?
I am assuming that since many of these slight shaper variances are hard to see in a mounted stone, that this is the case..?
Is this common in softer elongated shapes cushions and ovals, where the cutting and polishing does not conform to straight edges, or round shapes? I am coming to another conclusion is that a natural stone that is hand shaped is allowed to have some leeway in these shaping issues, and that facet alignment is more important when viewing a stone in a ring.
300x240.png)