where''s the weight?

[Cehrabehra]

Okay.... I''ve seen this before on a DBL stone, but now I see it again on a virtual stone I found via whiteflash.... here: http://www.whiteflash.com/cushion/Cushion-cut-diamond-123745.htm

Okay... this is 2.73 carats with measurements: 9.19-7.03X4.88..... my stone is 9.53x7.59x5.01 - so bigger in EVERY direction, and yet mine is 2.71. they''re just about the same weight but the sizes are way different.... the DBL stone I saw was a FULL half carat larger than mine in weight but the same dimensions if not smaller... what''s up with that??? mine is gia certed and when reweighed elsewhere it was 2.72...

so.... it can''t just be in the girdle since the overall depth is 4.88 mm... so where does it all hide??

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/31/2006 2:08:22 PM
Author:Cehrabehra
Okay.... I've seen this before on a DBL stone, but now I see it again on a virtual stone I found via whiteflash.... here: http://www.whiteflash.com/cushion/Cushion-cut-diamond-123745.htm

Okay... this is 2.73 carats with measurements: 9.19-7.03X4.88..... my stone is 9.53x7.59x5.01 - so bigger in EVERY direction, and yet mine is 2.71. they're just about the same weight but the sizes are way different.... the DBL stone I saw was a FULL half carat larger than mine in weight but the same dimensions if not smaller... what's up with that??? mine is gia certed and when reweighed elsewhere it was 2.72...

so.... it can't just be in the girdle since the overall depth is 4.88 mm... so where does it all hide??

Weight can be distributed many ways - especially in shapes with the variety of configurations seen in cushion cuts. The diameter & height dimensions are helpful but don't tell the whole story in the same way 60:60 doesn't tell it. Rounds are somewhat predictable, as are square shapes, but even here the overall weight can be distributed differently in stones with the same general dimensions.

These princess examples are not all realistic but they illustrate the point:

They weigh 1.32, 1.42 and 1.22 carats (L to R), but all three have the same general dimensions: 6.00 x 6.00 x 4.40 mm.

 

[JohnQuixote]

...

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 10/31/2006 3:53:40 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 10/31/2006 2:08:22 PM
Author:Cehrabehra
Okay.... I''ve seen this before on a DBL stone, but now I see it again on a virtual stone I found via whiteflash.... here: http://www.whiteflash.com/cushion/Cushion-cut-diamond-123745.htm

Okay... this is 2.73 carats with measurements: 9.19-7.03X4.88..... my stone is 9.53x7.59x5.01 - so bigger in EVERY direction, and yet mine is 2.71. they''re just about the same weight but the sizes are way different.... the DBL stone I saw was a FULL half carat larger than mine in weight but the same dimensions if not smaller... what''s up with that??? mine is gia certed and when reweighed elsewhere it was 2.72...

so.... it can''t just be in the girdle since the overall depth is 4.88 mm... so where does it all hide??

Weight can be distributed many ways - especially in shapes with the variety of configurations seen in cushion cuts. The diameter & height dimensions are helpful but don''t tell the whole story in the same way 60:60 doesn''t tell it. Rounds are somewhat predictable, as are square shapes, but even here the overall weight can be distributed differently in stones with the same general dimensions.

These princess examples are not all realistic but they illustrate the point:

They weigh 1.32, 1.42 and 1.22 carats (L to R), but all three have the same general dimensions: 6.00 x 6.00 x 4.40 mm.

thanks john! It does have a 56 table vs my 53 but it just seems like such a difference being about .5mm in each direction! mine has a 20% crown height as well but maybe so does the one I linked to - or bigger! I figured it was possible to tuck some in the crown and also in girth of the pavillion depending on the culet size and whether it has a long or pointed (not as in no culet but as in coming to a round vs a long line like mine) culet... but especially in the DBL stone that was essentially the same or smaller dimensions and a full half carat larger weight... left me wondering where did it go??? A half carat is both of my earrings put together and it''s hard to see where I could stick them on my stone and not change the dimensions LOL

 

[FireGoddess]

That was a great illustration. Thanks John!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/31/2006 4:03:20 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
thanks john! It does have a 56 table vs my 53 but it just seems like such a difference being about .5mm in each direction! mine has a 20% crown height as well but maybe so does the one I linked to - or bigger! I figured it was possible to tuck some in the crown and also in girth of the pavillion depending on the culet size and whether it has a long or pointed (not as in no culet but as in coming to a round vs a long line like mine) culet... but especially in the DBL stone that was essentially the same or smaller dimensions and a full half carat larger weight... left me wondering where did it go??? A half carat is both of my earrings put together and it's hard to see where I could stick them on my stone and not change the dimensions LOL

Imagine grinding them into dust first (or don't - it may be painful!).

Even tenths of degrees around the whole crown or pavilion can add - or subtract - not only surface area, but layers of thickness. Your crown thinking is sound; the larger table implies more weight if the height is near yours. As always, knowing the angles would shed some 'light.'

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/31/2006 4:09:21 PM
Author: FireGoddess
That was a great illustration. Thanks John!

You''re welcome, M''Goddess.

 

[MustangGal]

If it''s a cushion stone like yours, could it maybe have more of a rectangular shape and therfore have more weight in the "shoulders"? Just a thought...

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 11/1/2006 12:55:46 PM
Author: MustangGal
If it''s a cushion stone like yours, could it maybe have more of a rectangular shape and therfore have more weight in the ''shoulders''? Just a thought...

Yes, it could.... though mine is fairly shouldered... could be more though - excellent point... and another reason why ovals face so big!! I''ve noticed on mine it''s pudgy in widt but rather straight/flat on the ends. If it was flat both ways that could be more width too....