The hunt continues... Modern Cushion Cut

[gwhizz]

gotcha. sooo. i ordered it to see it in person.

i'm pretty excited to see this guy, I will keep you all updated. thanks so much for the help, i really would be lost without all the help.

 

[gwhizz]

I need some serious help ASAP. I've eliminated my search down to 3 diamonds.... and I would love your opinion. The sooner the better as they are all holding for me until today. (And one person has my credit card #!!)

Here are my questions.
- Specs wise, I believe the first one may possibly be the most sparkly, and the faceup is definitely the biggest. .... but I'm worried that the outline will be too square for what I was shooting for. Do you guys think I'm just being too picky since this is a magnified image?
- Between option 2 & 3, what do you think looking at the IS image and ASET?? video also attached for option 3.

Sorry guys, I probably sound a bit frantic. but I'm nearly tearing my hair out trying to make the decision.

Option 1:
* 1.67ct
* F-color
* VS2-clarity (100% eye clean)
* legitimate Ideal Cut with the splintery look
* 7.24 x 6.85mm diameter (1.056 L/W) -
* Excellent Polish, Very Good Symmetry
* 99th percentile rank on sparkle production

I know for a fact this one will be extremely brilliant. My only worry is the shape seems much more square than I was hoping for.

Option 2:
H VS2,
6.89 x 6.89 x4.76


Option 3:
H, VS2
6.82x6.77x4.72

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO_yuEyt0YI&feature=youtu.be

 

[gwhizz]

sorry, they only allowed me 4 attachments. here are pics for option 3.


Please, send your harsh opinions ASAP. thanks guys.

 

[gwhizz]

One more thing!!

In regards to actually face up size, I was looking at this tool. To me it doesn't look like you can tell much difference in the size surprisingly enough... thoughts?

http://www.diamdb.com/compare/1.67ct-cushion-7.24x6.85x0-vs-1.71ct-cushion-6.89x6.86x4.76/

 

[noscrusir]

Of those 3 cushions, I like option 1 the least. The table seems to be quite large and there may be potential leakage under the table. Options 2 & 3 seem like they both would perform well but I like option 3 since it has more of a symmetrical look. I'll let the experts like Gypsy chime in.

Option 3 however has more of a squarish look (straighter lines along the edges) and I know you're trying to avoid that. In my research, I've found that some of the best cut cushions (BDG signature, Brellia) have a very square lines. Option 2 might provide the more curvy, feminine edges you're looking for - that's a personal, subjective call. They both look like excellent performers with 3 (-) being more square but (+) looking more symmetrical with slightly better brightness under the table.

Best of luck & keep us posted! Can't wait to see your choice

 

[gwhizz]

thanks noscrusir really appreciate the opinion. definitely will take it to heart

 

[telephone89]

#3, wow!

 

[gwhizz]

thanks telephone. any other thoughts??

 

[gwhizz]

gypsy, any thoughts??

 

[Gypsy]

2 and 3 have similar performance. Am I missing the ASET for 1? I'm not sure which one it is.

 

[gwhizz]

The first diamond is from a really good friend of a trusted friend... so I was trusting that it would be brilliant... though after mulling it over, there is a pretty good chance that I will go fly to see the diamond in person myself.

do you see any advantages between #2 or #3 gypsy?

thanks guys. more opinions much appreciated!!

 

[Gypsy]

I think 2 is the best for you.
Why? It's more cushiony and less square than the others. And it is the one that is going to look the most like the pic you posted.

I wouldn't go on faith with a diamond purchase. In my 9 years on the boards I've seen exactly TWO "friend" transactions where the person really was getting a great stone at a good price. And we get "friend" posts every week. Soo... the odds aren't great.

If you DO want to fly out to see the stone. BUY #2. Then take it WITH YOU to see #1 in the return period. Then if you prefer 1. Return#2.

It's best to see diamonds side by side. Seeing one by itself when you don't know the performance of it isn't going to be very helpful unless your eyes are well trained.

 

[gwhizz]

that is a good point. i probalby would need to see them side by side!

do you think #2 & #3 look essentially the same? i do like the shape of #2 a bit better, tho its close

 

[Gypsy]

They do have VERY similar performance. But I think #2 is more cushiony. Which I know is the look you want.

 

[gwhizz]

sorry gypsy. i missed you first line. thanks for your opinion.

 

[gwhizz]

sorry gypsy. i missed your first line. thanks for your opinion.

 

[gwhizz]

sorry gypsy. i missed your first line. thanks for your opinion.