Which cushion to pick?

[JulesT]

Which one would you pick?

http://www.engagementringsdirect.co...cut-beyond-cushion-cut-diamond-gid-85512.html

http://www.engagementringsdirect.co...cut-beyond-cushion-cut-diamond-gid-81540.html

 

[stargurl78]

I like the first one better. I am no expert though but I just like the overall looks of it...

 

[Enerchi]

I'd prefer the 2nd one - the 3.02 - not because it is larger, but I prefer the shape of it more and the table. I also think it didn't seem to 'black out' as much as the first one. (Also not an expert!) Hopefully Dreamer, Yssie, Gypsy, and others with a WHOLE LOT MORE experience pipe up and share their thoughts.

Both are lovely, I'd just prefer the 2nd.

 

[yssie]

Do you have the report on the 2.5? If so post it, or post report number and exact ct weight as it appears on the report (x.xx)

I prefer the 2.5, based on the video, less mush under the table. I also think because it's so long it won't look significantly smaller than the other once set despite considerable difference in weight, if you set it N/S.

By "mush" (technical term obviously) I mean the indistinct areas where you can't actually see clear facet outlines - clumps of tiny virtual facets (reflections of the physical facets) that basically look like grey mush IRL, they don't return light as a unit or obstruct as a unit or turn on and off as a unit as you tilt the stone..

To scale

 

[mandasand]

I like #2 because it's square.

 

[JulesT]

Yssie, the smaller one is 2.50 H VS1, 8.41x7.51x5.14 mm. The report number is 6147583474. I actually prefer the slightly elongated shape, but I'm also considering the other stone since it's larger and the price difference is not that substantial (although it does appear that there might not be a big size difference between the two stones when set). I'm considering a small halo setting (N/S), but I'm not sure about the halo yet. Just wondering which one looks like the better quality stone.

 

[yssie]

https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=6147583474&weight=2.50

Looks fine, just wanted to check

A halo would minimize the face-up size difference even further, so definitely pick whichever stone you like better! What does Mark say?

 

[JulesT]

Thanks! He says that they're both very nice (and he's been wonderful, responsive, and generous with his time). I'm leaning toward the smaller one, but just thinking about it since it's such a big decision.

 

[CharmyPoo]

I like the 3 ct better. It is more appealing to the eye.

 

[trueblue101]

I am not an expert by any means but I did just buy a 3 carat antique style cushion and can speak from my experience. I inspected my ring after I received it and it was interesting to see how the dull spots corresponded with the "mushy" spots on the ASET. I know understand the importance of an ASET!

With that being said, I like the 2.5 better because it has less "mush" and I believe it will perform slightly better than the larger one (but once again, I am no expret!).

 

[Laila619]

I like the 3 ct better. It is more appealing to the eye.

Yes, ditto!

However, I think they are both pretty stones.

 

[JulesT]

I like the 3 ct better. It is more appealing to the eye.

Yes, ditto!

However, I think they are both pretty stones.

Thanks for the replies! Do you find the 3 ct more appealing based on the ASET/picture/video, or due to the square shape (squares seem to be more popular than elongated stones)? I'm agonizing over which one is the better cut, best performer, etc. Or whether I should expand the search to consider other stones. I know that there's limited supply in this size range, and it's confusing given the lack of defined parameters that point you to the best candidates (compared with RBs, which I also like). I don't want to compromise just because there's limited supply, so I guess what I'm asking is: are either of these very strong contenders, or can I do better? (budget is approx 30K)

Thanks!

 

[Mayk]

I'm no expert but I like the overall look of #1 better... (the smaller stone)

 

[ariel144]

I like the size and shape of the 3 c better but I would ask the opinion of the gemologist which one performs better. too bad you can't see both in person. good luck, they are both very nice

 

[SparklyOEC]

I prefer the 2.5 better, but I prefer slightly elongated cushions. I also liked the way it looked in the video as opposed to 3.02. I don't mean any offense here at all; but is this for an engagement ring? Are you the fiance buying it for your gf or the lucky lady getting one of these 2 stones? I ask because these are two very different shapes and as you can see from the replies here, everybody has their preference. ha ha If you're buying this for someone, you may want to try to find which shape she prefers IMHO.

 

[Dreamer_D]

I like the 3 ct better. It is more appealing to the eye.

Yes, ditto!

However, I think they are both pretty stones.

I agree. I find the 2.5 has a bit of a bowtie effect with the pavilion mains. Much is ok sometimes for me, when it is between facets, though as a rule I am not a fan. I do see it in the 3.0; it is somewhat a hallmark of this cut.

 

[JulesT]

I prefer the 2.5 better, but I prefer slightly elongated cushions. I also liked the way it looked in the video as opposed to 3.02. I don't mean any offense here at all; but is this for an engagement ring? Are you the fiance buying it for your gf or the lucky lady getting one of these 2 stones? I ask because these are two very different shapes and as you can see from the replies here, everybody has their preference. ha ha If you're buying this for someone, you may want to try to find which shape she prefers IMHO.

SparklyOEC, this is for me! It's a gift from my husband to mark a big anniversary. I like both of them. I'm told that they're both very good stones--the 2.5 has more facet structure and the 3.02 is brighter, a fuller stone with more brilliance and overall effects. I actually did see them in person, but I wasn't sure what I wanted and was confused. A return trip to NY to view them again isn't feasible right now. I really like the appearance of elongated cushions, but I'm most interested in performance and in picking the better quality stone.

Also, I'm considering a halo setting similar to this one (KristyDarling's lovely ring), which I think would work with either one:
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...nd-forged-halo-setting-by-mark-at-erd.174860/

 

[nkarma]

Jules, both are pretty and unique. I am no expert, so I cannot comment on cut, but it looks like Yssie and others are saying the 2.5's cut is slightly better. And you keep saying you like elongated cushions, so it looks like you have a winner. If you do decide you want something bigger than the 2.5, then I would wait for another elongated cushion. If square doesn't make you happy, no use buying it only to be disappointed, imho.