Thoughts on 1.69ct cushion - never seen this plot before

[Lexie43]

What do you guys think of this stone? It looks pretty gorgeous to me, but I'm so green I don't trust myself yet...

I'm learning about different plot diagrams and think I understand how they affect the appearance of the stone...but I've never seen this one before...It looks like an 8 main cushion brilliant with an extra pretty little flower right around the small culet....

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/H-VS2-Ideal-Cut-Cushion-Diamond-1424691.asp

 

[mugwamp]

Hi

I found a similiar one on JA and asked for the ASET.

Please find attached images. This one is a J color and lots of light leakage unfortunately so I don't think I am going to go with it.

 

[catia]

Lexie--
I can *definately* confirm that I looked at a JA diamond with this ***EXACT PLOT*** it was it's smaller J 1.12 sister.
At the time there were 3 of these beauties on the site, so I am *assuming* they are all from the same cutter. The J 1.12 was the one in my budget.


The stone was absolutely gorgeous!!!---the sole reason I ordered the stone was because of the plot!!!
--because I had not seen it before & wanted to see what that tiny modification near the culet looked like.
I still have a pic of the one I viewed on my home computer & will try to post it later.

The faceting on these cuts is just beautiful & I got LOTS of pastels when the stone was at it's most "mellow" & lots of fire when it was active. My ASET showed red in the middle, so I went ahead & got it. Get the ASET--it was a wonderfully bright stone. The chunkyness was great it has BOTH large chunky fire & a small amount of pin fire due to the center modification by the culet that you see in the plot.

I did return the stone--Let me be clear--there was ***NOTHING*** wrong with it, I ****almost*** kept it because BF & I loved it SO MUCH.

The reason for my return was because I wanted a more antique cut--a SUPER antique cut is what I was after--with a LARGE culet--something like an old mine cushion to go in my antique setting, & I couldn't swing keeping the JA stone while also viewing stones from GOG--just didn't have the cash to float.

I felt sick when the stone I returned to JA was snatched within a few days--because I was worried I had made a mistake.
In the end, I did go with an August Vintage Cushion--because I wanted super antique cut. If I had not found it with GOG I would've contacted JA to see if they could get another in my size/price range with this exact plot.

The stone I viewed from JA with the same plot as the one you posted was the ONLY stone that was a *very close 2nd*, she was certainly the *runner up* to the GOG stone--if I didn't want extreme antique cut, I would have kept the stone, the performance was just beautiful. The J color was perfect for the cut--I suggest you DEFINATELY view the stone!!!
IF/When you do, you'll see why--that's my opinion.

 

[mugwamp]

Thank you for your post. Was the J color very yellow? Could you notice the tint when out and about? I have the one I posted above but it is a J and I am just not sure about it. Do you have any pics of the J one you viewed?

 

[TitanCi]

Hi

I found a similiar one on JA and asked for the ASET.

Please find attached images. This one is a J color and lots of light leakage unfortunately so I don't think I am going to go with it.

correct me if I'm wrong, but all the green just means it's not as bright as the red areas, not necessarily leakage...

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi

I found a similiar one on JA and asked for the ASET.

Please find attached images. This one is a J color and lots of light leakage unfortunately so I don't think I am going to go with it.

correct me if I'm wrong, but all the green just means it's not as bright as the red areas, not necessarily leakage...

Guys, after looking at countless fancy shaped diamonds, I strongly believe that trying to eliminate based on ASET may cause folks to miss the some of the best looking stones in real life. Especially if people rely on third party interpretations. Taste plays a huge role.
If someone has correlated a lot of ASETs with actual diamonds, maybe ( just maybe) they can guess what the stone will look like in real life based on ASET.
Brightness is not a universal thing in diamonds. I say this because so many factors will influence what we see as bright.

 

[mugwamp]

Hi

I found a similiar one on JA and asked for the ASET.

Please find attached images. This one is a J color and lots of light leakage unfortunately so I don't think I am going to go with it.

correct me if I'm wrong, but all the green just means it's not as bright as the red areas, not necessarily leakage...

Guys, after looking at countless fancy shaped diamonds, I strongly believe that trying to eliminate based on ASET may cause folks to miss the some of the best looking stones in real life. Especially if people rely on third party interpretations. Taste plays a huge role.
If someone has correlated a lot of ASETs with actual diamonds, maybe ( just maybe) they can guess what the stone will look like in real life based on ASET.
Brightness is not a universal thing in diamonds. I say this because so many factors will influence what we see as bright.

You could be correct about the Green. I just thought the more red the more sparkle.

 

[Rockdiamond]

You could be correct about the Green. I just thought the more red the more sparkle.

Definitely not.

 

[TitanCi]

You could be correct about the Green. I just thought the more red the more sparkle.

Definitely not.

More brightness, right?

 

[mugwamp]

You could be correct about the Green. I just thought the more red the more sparkle.

Definitely not.

good to know. Do you think that diamond would be a good one then?

 

[Rockdiamond]

You could be correct about the Green. I just thought the more red the more sparkle.

Definitely not.

More brightness, right?

It really depends on what the lighting environment, and what each of us perceives as "brightness"
If the light bounces around in the diamond, it will not be as bright technically- however it may appear that way in certain lighting

And of course "sparkle" is something totally different

mugwamp- I can not comment on any other sellers stone- my comments are aimed at providing general assistance when shopping.

ASET is a very useful tool IF one understands how to correlate the results.

my own personal feeling that a series of good photos is better - even if one knows how to interpret the aset based on their own personal taste.

 

[Rhino]

You could be correct about the Green. I just thought the more red the more sparkle.

Definitely not.

Are you kidding me?

 

[Rhino]

David you know I respect your personal opinion/preference but to tell consumers and the general public what you are saying here is extremely misleading. You are putting yourself in a position of authority ABOVE one of the worlds leading gemological laboratories who happen to know what they are talking about and can back it up with peer review. I have numerous videos corellating and demonstrating the exact science behind AGS' system and ASET technology. Before you make such statements you should at least spend a considerable amount of time studying diamonds and how their ASET imagery corellates to actual AGS cut grades.

Regards,
Rhino

 

[Dreamer_D]

I don't understand ASET very well, and have noticed that some vendors provide ASET images that are not very helpful even if you know what to look for! For example, I believe a black background is not desirable, white is preferred. Using a black background somewhat defeats the purpose of the ASET because it masks leakage and makes it harder to see patterning.

Anyways, the plot looks cool and so does the photo. Beyond that, what the diamond looks like in person is anyone's guess.

 

[richddt]

I think this has the same plot as birks amorique cut really bright and pretty in person

 

[catia]

There was no issue with yellowness at all in the *J* 1.12 ct I viewed.
It was not steely***I do not like steely***, but it was white, the slightest hue, & I would hesitate to say 'warmth'--
What i mean slight hint of something akin to the difference btwn celing white with the bright bluish undertone) & the color of say eggshell white--the J I viewed would be eggshell white--does that help?

I do not have pics i took myself, I have JA's pics & the aset & sarin of the stone I viewed/purchased--they're on my computer & I'm not home.

The faceting is just beautiful on this cut. I do not know why there are not a LOT more like it!!!!

In the stone I viewed, in person, for about 2-3 weeks...in multiple environments & multiple lightings, it was always beautiful.
There was nothing that disappointed me about the stones performance--I just wanted old mine cushion.

About the ASET in the stone I viewed:
Here's my personal opinion.
The green correlated more to fire. The green areas were not dark in the diamond, if that's what you were concerned about.

You just got more colored light reflection from those areas, as opposed to just white light flashes.
There was a lot of fire from multiple angles.

I am a person who ***prefers*** the colored light reflecting instead of just white flashes, I personally find the white light reflecting kinda of, well...boring.

I do think cushions ASETS are a little different than rounds--the light in a cushion's facets reflects a little differently than a round.
I think a lot of green in a round might refect differently than a cushion, but I am not an ASET expert.

I did NOT find any dead zones in the stone I viewed, no bow ties, no weird wonkiness.
The symmetry is awesome.
At no time was the stone a dud, when it was in it's mellow state, i got some pinkish & blueish pastels specifically from the green areas on my ASET--which is pretty similar to the ASET posted here.
--i got a LOT of fire under spotlighting & naked CFL bulbs.

Most of the facets are chunky, but there is a tiny amt of pin type fire/sparkle from the center, due i suppose to that modification by the culet. I'd love to see this cut in a honker big enough to see that little flower like thing--like how it is in the close-ups!

You won't see the cuts close to the culet with the naked eye looking down into the diamond--at least I did not in the 1.12ct I viewed.
It was also hard to see those tiny modifications by the culet when it was flipped over face down with the naked eye--they are tiny.
The center of the stone was bright & good.

I'd not hesitate to view the stone.
JA is pretty easy to do business with.
If you do not like the stone, you can return it within their time frame--it's really that simple.
JA pays return shipping, so don't stress about racking up s/h charges, it's included in the price.

 

[Rockdiamond]

David you know I respect your personal opinion/preference but to tell consumers and the general public what you are saying here is extremely misleading. You are putting yourself in a position of authority ABOVE one of the worlds leading gemological laboratories who happen to know what they are talking about and can back it up with peer review. I have numerous videos corellating and demonstrating the exact science behind AGS' system and ASET technology. Before you make such statements you should at least spend a considerable amount of time studying diamonds and how their ASET imagery corellates to actual AGS cut grades.

Regards,
Rhino

Hi Jon,
Right back atcha with respect- I have been studying diamonds- for over 35 years
Let me pose a question to you Jon: Do you think every expert agrees with AGSL regarding fancy shapes?

We can agree that there's a "pinnacle" of cut in round diamonds agreed upon around the world. Furthermore, pretty much every expert agrees that the best cut RBC stones are identified by either GIA or AGSL grading.
So, if we are discussing rounds, there's a broad consensus, which encompasses ASET interpretation.

Cutting houses are working to cut stones that fulfill these parameters. Due to increased technology, and other factors, the results are improving around the world. What this means is that more and more well cut round diamonds look very much alike. Of course we realize there ARE differences from a well cut stone, to a "super ideal"- however it takes an expert to see some of these differences.


However ALL this goes out the window if we're discussing Fancy Shapes.
There's many different paths cutters take to get to the finished diamond- and the resultant shapes and optical signatures show a tremendous variety. Thank goodness there's great variety in Fancy Shape cutting. I believe variety is the spice of life.

There is NO widespread agreement on which is the best "optics" when it comes to cushions. This includes the modern interpretations of OMB and OEC diamonds.
I strongly believe that sellers who compare the newer cut stones to genuine antique cut diamonds and make claims such that "Older stones were not "cut for optics" are making a sales pitch wrapped up in "research and technology"- but at the end of the day, it's just a sales pitch. Nothing wrong with creative selling- as long as it's kept separate from legitimate, objective science.
OMB's cut 100 years ago were cut to be as beautiful as the cutter knew how. I suggest that means "cut for optics"
We can make a case that today's technology aids cutters to produce a better result- however we can find many consumers who will argue for the "optics" of genuine older style stones.

When it comes to Fancy Shapes in particular, there's a lot of disagreement among experts regarding AGSL cut grades.
This is why of all the AGSL reports we see, a minuscule percentage is for fancy shaped diamonds.

Diamonds who have multiple bonces or longer light paths become a totally different ball of wax when it comes to ASET interpretation, photography and video.
Well cut Radiant cuts ( those that are cut in the style of the creator of the cut), for example, will show a lot of green in ASET.
Other stones that show green may look not as nice.
Red in and of itself does not indicate "sparkle"
I sincerely believe that for most consumers, trying to interpret ASET for fancy shapes adds to confusion.
Photos and videos are way more informative to most consumers.

I also have numerous videos depicting both the type of stones that involve less light bounces- more like H&A transposed onto a fancy shape- as well as literally hundreds of videos showing how nice a stone can look if there's more bounces- what some have called "crushed ice"

For me, I think a point that gets lost is that consumers need to look at diamonds for themselves. "Chunky" is not better than "crushed ice"- just different.
By asking others to interpret aset and select the fancy shaped stones for them, they may indeed end up with a stone you love, but they may not.

 

[Lexie43]

Thanks for all the helpful advice!! So this one performs like a Square H&A? I'm not sure I like that look...the facet patterns look a bit more romantic to me than the H&A, which looks very clinical to me.

I wonder if the diamond on the left in the video is this one...compared to the H&A, it seems to under-perform in the 3 tests but I still like it more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhOsLRZjsfY&feature=relmfu

I also notice a huge premium on these diamonds...I think they are cut in Canada b/c the certificates all have a maple leaf on them...

 

[Rhino]

HI Dave,

Just returning from my weekend. At my earliest I'll respond in detail but just wanted to answer Lexie.

Thanks for all the helpful advice!! So this one performs like a Square H&A? I'm not sure I like that look...the facet patterns look a bit more romantic to me than the H&A, which looks very clinical to me.

I wonder if the diamond on the left in the video is this one...compared to the H&A, it seems to under-perform in the 3 tests but I still like it more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhOsLRZjsfY&feature=relmfu

I also notice a huge premium on these diamonds...I think they are cut in Canada b/c the certificates all have a maple leaf on them...

Hi Lexie,

Just to clarify since you mentioned this video. The diamond on the left in that clip has a completely different ASET than the one mentioned in this thread. I know your intent is to help but that particular video would actually mislead a person into thinking it is something it isn't. They may in fact like it more or like it less. The only way to really know would be to learn what this particular person's personal preference was for optics.

Kind regards,
Rhino