To be (or not to be) my future cushion...

[Roxie Bling]

I saw what to the eye looked like a very nice modified cushion brilliant diamond today. I have attached the GIA report link. Unfortunately, I do not have a photo. I was hoping for a G or H color, but when this I stone was put next to an H it actually looked whiter than the H, so I am considering it. And when it was put next to other Is, this one looked the whitest by far.

I like the look of the smaller table, and to the naked eye it looked sparkly, and did not have the crushed ice look at all. I did not look at through any loupe, but other than inclusions, what should I be looking for?

The flag I see waving about this stone is the variation in girdle thickness from very thin to very thick. What if any concerns should I have about this?

The stone is priced around $7,200, and I would most likely set it in a Novo inspired setting.

Looking forward to hearing your opinions. Thank you!

http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showReportVerification&reportno=2111249477&weight=1.51

 

[Roxie Bling]

Is this hard to answer without a photo since you cannot truly tell much about a diamond from a GIA report alone? I am just trying to see if I should purchase this, or hold out for something else.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 1/19/2010 10:23:24 PM
Author: Roxie Bling
Is this hard to answer without a photo since you cannot truly tell much about a diamond from a GIA report alone? I am just trying to see if I should purchase this, or hold out for something else.

We don't favour cushion modified brilliants and certainly not without ASET images, as I said before in your first thread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/h-a-cushion-w-this-type-of-setting-how-to-do-it.130435/ you can't judge a cushion by the numbers alone.

I'd encourage you to reread other cushion threads on here and answer your own question as it seem quite trivial. Only you can answer if you are satified with this diamond but I certainly would not be without seeing the facet diagram, a photograph and an ASET image.

Modified Brilliants such as this one are cut to save weight not for light performance and that is why it is cheaper than the same specs in a cushion brilliant.

 

[Roxie Bling]

Thank you for your response.

I truly have devoured as many cushion posts here as I could get my eyes on. But I guess when I actually have a diamond to apply it to, my mind switches to "ohhh.... pretty" mode.

Instead of asking whether I should buy this diamond or not, I should have focused on whether a girdle that ranges from very thin to very thick should be a concern.

I do have a plot of this diamond and will try to get it scanned so I can post it. I read this post https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diamond-noob-needs-advice-on-a-cushion.133232/page-2 , and referencing the diagrams listed, the plots I have most resemble the first one listed under "Cushion Brilliant" and "Modified Cushion Brilliant" (I am trying hard to see a difference between the two but maybe I need more of a trained/seasoned eye), and my second plot looks most like a variation of the one in the top right of "Cushion Brilliants". So I am looking at a 4 main, and not the coveted 8 main. Sigh...

I will be the first to admit that I am confused between the labeling (or change of labeling) between cushion brilliants and modified cushion brilliants. A gentleman where I was today who seemed quite knowledgable, said something along the lines of: As of October 2009 only antique/chunky cushions will be given the name Cushion Brilliant and all others will be Cushion Modified Brilliants. Seeming to indicate that prior to October '09, this stone might have been considered a Cushion Brilliant? The GIA report is dated October 20, 2009, so could this be right?

The jeweler is holding this stone for me while continuing to look for others over the next few weeks. When I do go back, I will bring my camera so that I can repost with better information. When I was there the first time and asked about ASET, I thought they indicated that it was primarily used for RBs not fancy stones, but hopefully I can revisit that topic and get an ASET as well.

Thank you for your patience as I bungle my way through the diamond buying process. Pricescope, and forum members like yourself, have been invaluable resources.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 1/20/2010 2:09:09 AM
Author: Roxie Bling
Thank you for your response.

I truly have devoured as many cushion posts here as I could get my eyes on. But I guess when I actually have a diamond to apply it to, my mind switches to 'ohhh.... pretty' mode.

Instead of asking whether I should buy this diamond or not, I should have focused on whether a girdle that ranges from very thin to very thick should be a concern.

I do have a plot of this diamond and will try to get it scanned so I can post it. I read this post https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diamond-noob-needs-advice-on-a-cushion.133232/page-2 , and referencing the diagrams listed, the plots I have most resemble the first one listed under 'Cushion Brilliant' and 'Modified Cushion Brilliant' (I am trying hard to see a difference between the two but maybe I need more of a trained/seasoned eye), and my second plot looks most like a variation of the one in the top right of 'Cushion Brilliants'. So I am looking at a 4 main, and not the coveted 8 main. Sigh...

I will be the first to admit that I am confused between the labeling (or change of labeling) between cushion brilliants and modified cushion brilliants. A gentleman where I was today who seemed quite knowledgable, said something along the lines of: As of October 2009 only antique/chunky cushions will be given the name Cushion Brilliant and all others will be Cushion Modified Brilliants. Seeming to indicate that prior to October '09, this stone might have been considered a Cushion Brilliant? The GIA report is dated October 20, 2009, so could this be right?

The jeweler is holding this stone for me while continuing to look for others over the next few weeks. When I do go back, I will bring my camera so that I can repost with better information. When I was there the first time and asked about ASET, I thought they indicated that it was primarily used for RBs not fancy stones, but hopefully I can revisit that topic and get an ASET as well.

Thank you for your patience as I bungle my way through the diamond buying process. Pricescope, and forum members like yourself, have been invaluable resources.

Roxie, you don't have to thank us for our patience as it is our choice to be here and help others - you are doing fine and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask as you have done.

To try to address your concerns, wiith the girdle, you do tend to find more variations than with rounds but without seeing the diamond or knowing more about it, it isn't possible to judge. I would make the sale- if you buy it- final on the stone checking out with an independant appraiser, then they can judge if the very thin parts are an issue or not. You are aware that what we can tell you about the diamond is limited unfortunately without images and as CCL mentions, cushion modified brillants aren't to everyone's taste. Concerning ASET, they are also used for rounds but are better suited for fancy shapes than Idealscope. If you could get an ASET scope for this stone, it would be helpful.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Date: 1/20/2010 2:09:09 AM
Author: Roxie Bling
Thank you for your response.

Instead of asking whether I should buy this diamond or not, I should have focused on whether a girdle that ranges from very thin to very thick should be a concern.

You should be concerned at least for the very thin areas - could be prone to chipping if you aren''t careful. My cushion has some very thin areas - I had an independent appraiser check it out and told me it was ok. I suggest if you really like the diamond to have an independent appraiser check it out.

Date: 1/20/2010 2:09:09 AM
Author: Roxie Bling

I will be the first to admit that I am confused between the labeling (or change of labeling) between cushion brilliants and modified cushion brilliants. A gentleman where I was today who seemed quite knowledgable, said something along the lines of: As of October 2009 only antique/chunky cushions will be given the name Cushion Brilliant and all others will be Cushion Modified Brilliants. Seeming to indicate that prior to October ''09, this stone might have been considered a Cushion Brilliant? The GIA report is dated October 20, 2009, so could this be right?

I don''t think this is true - I have heard nothing like this. If you look at modifed cushion brilliants, they sort of have a ring of facets instead of the mains going to the edge. You can also see this effect in real life. For cushions, they all look pretty until you see a REALLY nice cushion. This is porbably the struggle you are having with picking the modified cushions - you just haven''t been shown a really nice cushion. I suggest you reach out to one of the recommend cushion vendors (ex. GOG and ERD) to get educated and guided along the process.

For me, modified cushion brilliants < 4 main cushion brilliants < 8 main modern cushion < 8 main chunky cushion < August Vintage (GOG branded stone). The cushettes or Daussi cushions aren''t included on my list - I just don''t like them much. The preference order I listed for me seems to be the general consensus here on PS but again .. all this individual. Buy the diamond you like but remember .. there really isn''t such a thing as a deal - they are usually cheaper for a reason.

 

[CharmyPoo]

Date: 1/19/2010 8:32:23 PM
Author:Roxie Bling
I saw what to the eye looked like a very nice modified cushion brilliant diamond today. I have attached the GIA report link. Unfortunately, I do not have a photo. I was hoping for a G or H color, but when this I stone was put next to an H it actually looked whiter than the H, so I am considering it. And when it was put next to other Is, this one looked the whitest by far.

It looks whiter because of the Medium Blue Fluorsence.