What do you think of this price

[eyeshurt]

So I'm about to plunk down some cash and would like some raw opinions of the 2 cushion cut that I'm considering.

Cushion Modified Brilliant
7.69x6.57x4.47
1.71 carat
d: 68%
t: 57%
polish: VG
sym: G
VS2
Color: E
No Florescence

or

Cushion Brilliant
6.54x6.28x4.58
1.5 carat
d: 73%
t: 61%
polish: G
sym: G
VS2
Color: F
No Florescence

 

[eyeshurt]

And any advise on settings would be much appreciated as well.

Thanks much.

 

[valeria101]

Hm...

"Cushion" is a market name. Most of stones that one would informally call "cushion cut" would come with words like "square modified brilliant" on the GIA certificate - a questions of lingo.

There is no standard for what a "cushion cut" is - so the facet pattern may vary and so does the look.

Are you buying these as a pair? Did you see them? Are you going to? What are the terms of sale (return policy, certificates, other presentation means for the stones...) ?

 

[valeria101]

As for the stats... I would prefer the first, and a third, if there was a choice to look further.

73% depth delivers a small stone for all those carats (which make the price anyway), so stone #2 falls fom grace asap.

Actually, I would not choose these by numbers at all, beyond keeping depth and table both below 65% for "economic" reasons ( = avoiding the stone look small for it's weight and cost).

Other than some generic rule of thumb, I am affraid there is no effective rule for what the proportions of a cushion cut should be (but you may want to use the AGA charts for ovals as inspiration, if it comes to descend one potentially nice stone from the Web).

It is much better to get one or two promissing stones selected for their brilliance by the provider or an independent party (appraiser and/or a believable test of light return other than the seller's opinion!). Something that "Cushionsercher" (PS avatar nae, of course) did for her stone, for example

I hope this makes sense...

 

[eyeshurt]

Actually, these are for stones that I found in NY's diamond district. I'm very hesitant to purchase cushions online, just because I've seen such variety even among stones that have the same stats.

Both of these stones are very bright and yes, I know exactly what you mean about not getting the appearance of size when the table is too high a percentage.. I turned down a 2ct that had worse dimensions for exactly that reason.

I personally like both of them and the 1.71 more (not sure if I like it $2k more yet, though). My largest concern is that after reading all the problems of the diamond district I am weary of being ripped off. Needless to say I will be bringing the stone and GIA cert to an independent appraiser, but I don't expect to hear "you can do better" from them.

 

[valeria101]

It woudl be greta to be able to judge the brilliance of these stones. It is great to see them, but even better to see them with serious experience on board. If most stones you have seen were not great to say the least (and you obviously rejected a bunch for blatant faults), it would be nice to rank the once you picked against the best of the species - which may NOT have been on the table after all!

Assuming you agree that diamonds should be cut for brilliance... such evaluation could be done via BrillianceScope or the IdeaScope and it's versions.

I woudl definitely ask for all the "pedigree" for this stones given the premium you are being demanded to pay!

 

[eyeshurt]

Great points, I've two more appointments today at other places and I will try to get a better idea of what the 1.71 is worth.


Edit:
-The other stores had a total of 7 cushion cuts for me to check out... nothing better (stats or apearance) from what I've seen so far, but a little less expensive.