which diamond to choose

[diamondgirl777]

my husband and i are about to make a big purchase on a new cushion cut diamond. could someone please advise us which is the better decision money wise and as far as which sounds like the better of the 2 stones?? please note that they are both beautiful in person, but as far as the specifications of the diamonds, which seems like a better investment? by the way they are both roughly the same exact price.

Diamond #1
5.90 cushion cut
gia certification
measurements 10.64x10.67x7.01
depth 65.7%
table 61%
culet slightly large
girdle thick to very thick faceted
polish very good
symmetry good
clarity sI1
color D
fluorescence none

Diamond #2
5.78 cushion cut
gia cert.
measurements 11.55x10.75x6.72
depth 62.5
table 58
culet medium
girdle md-thk faceted
polish excellent
symmetry excellent
fluorescence none
someone please respond soon, this decision needs to be made asap. thanks!!

 

[reena]

first of all: WOW! cannot wait to see this baby! it's gonna be amazing.

two questions:

are these antique stones, and what is the color/clarity combo on the second one?

 

[diamondgirl777]

forgot to post that. the color and clarity of the second stone is G VS1

 

[diamondgirl777]

and no they are both to my knowlegde modern cut cushion cut diamonds.

 

[reena]

once again: wow.

i'm excited on your behalf!

okay, i am not an expert but i have spent the last 2 months searching high and low for cushions, so this is what i think:

the depth and table on both seem to be right in the correct range. i prefer the girdle and the Ex-Ex polish and symmetry on the second stone (the latter two are rare for a cushion in my experience!). can you see the culet (from the top down it will look like a small circle in the bottom center of the stone) in either diamond? if you can and it doesn't bother you, no biggie--it will give it more of an antique-y sort of look--but if it does bother you it'll probably be less pronounced (obviously) in #2.

another question: is the SI1 eyeclean? that is, are there any inclusions visible to your naked eye?

i think both look fabulous from the numbers, but if it were me i'd pick #2. everything looks right on spec-wise with that one, plus it will be slightly less square than #1 which i prefer myself. i would venture a guess that if the two stones are right around the same price the second one is better cut (given that #1 is both larger and a D color, which carries a big premium), but you might want to ask an appraiser.

however the most important thing is which one looks better to YOU--these cushions are so tough to judge without seeing them! if you like a squarer stone, and/or if you're a stickler for the D color, then you probably can't go wrong with #1 either (as long as it's eyeclean).

i hope this helps! good luck and definitely keep us posted!

PS: what kind of setting are you thinking about?

 

[diamondgirl777]

thanks for your advice. i personally prefer a "squareish" shape to a more rectangular, but they both are so beautiful that that is not even a factor for me in this situation. the first one you can see a culet if you look very closely, but it is not offensive at all. i am leaning towards the first stone but i am worried that buying an si1 will not be a good investment. is that true? it is eyeclean. i cannot see the inclusions with my eye, only with a loupe. do you know anything about ideal proportions? i have been told mixed things regarding cushions and what the depth should be. do you think the depth on the 1st stone seems too deep? because it is bigger than the 2nd stone in weight, but the measurements are smaller. in the same respect though, the 5.90 has a lot more brilliance than the 5.78. could that be attributed to the depth being slightly more?

 

[diamondgirl777]

as far as the seeting goes, i am going to do a thin delicate pave band and also have tiny diamonds in the basket. what do you think?

 

[reena]

----------------
On 9/8/2004 10:16:25 PM diamondgirl726 wrote:

thanks for your advice. i personally prefer a 'squareish' shape to a more rectangular, but they both are so beautiful that that is not even a factor for me in this situation. the first one you can see a culet if you look very closely, but it is not offensive at all. i am leaning towards the first stone but i am worried that buying an si1 will not be a good investment. is that true? it is eyeclean. i cannot see the inclusions with my eye, only with a loupe. do you know anything about ideal proportions? i have been told mixed things regarding cushions and what the depth should be. do you think the depth on the 1st stone seems too deep? because it is bigger than the 2nd stone in weight, but the measurements are smaller. in the same respect though, the 5.90 has a lot more brilliance than the 5.78. could that be attributed to the depth being slightly more? ----------------

i should have said that neither stone will appear rectangular--the second will appear only a little "less square".

as far as the SI1 being a good investment: diamonds in general are a terrible investment, in terms of resale value!

so that would not be my concern. many people on this board, including myself, would tell you that if you were lucky enough to find an eyeclean SI1 stone in that carat weight, you should snap it up in a second!!!

no sense paying for what you can't see. AND, if it is much more brilliant and appealling than #2, that's the one for sure.

there are no "ideal proportions" for cushion cuts unfortunately--the best wisdom is to use a combo of the cut charts for oval and radiant on www.gemappraisers.com. but i can tell you that both of your stones fall right in there--and in my opinion 65% is not at all too deep for a cushion. (much different than with Round Brilliants). even in the low 70s is not too deep, although when you get up to those numbers you start to sacrifice size. (the same is true, incidentally, for the very thick girdle.) the brilliance of #1 being better could have something to do with the depth being greater, but since #2 isn't too shallow either I would guess it is attributable to the way the stones are cut.

incidentally by my calculations the measurements of the top stone are BIGGER than those of the bottom stone, not smaller. (the numbers appear smaller at first glance but that's because the stone is more square, if that makes any sense.) if you multiply the L times the W for each to get a rough "surface area" figure, you'll see what i mean. #1 should appear larger. does it not in person?

 

[diamondgirl777]

to tell you the truth, i have not seen number 2 in person. i have seen a picture that was e mailed to me because it is out of state. i am in a really bad predicament. basically, my husband and i already agreed to buy stone number 1 from a close family friend of ours who happens to be a jeweler. i just had some reservations about the SI1 grading and really had not seen too many other stones that i liked at all. out of maybe 12 stones, this was the only one that i loved. so we agreed to buy it and she is just waiting for my husband to give her the check. earlier today, i was browsing this website when i found another site that posts loose diamonds that is where i saw diamond #2 and they sent me photos of the actual stone. i think i am really driving myself crazy for no reason. i mean, the decision seems obvious that we should just take the 1st stone, but i am just scared because it is an enormous purchase, and i just want to be certain that we are making the best decision. stone number one i have gone back to see 4 or 5 times and each time i fall in love with it, i just keep thinking that if i would have given myself more of a chance i could have found something better, but my husband and all of my friends keep telling me to stop looking for other stones now that we have pretty much made up our minds. i guess i just needed someone who knows about diamonds on particular cushions to tell me that i am making the right decision. i mean, from my experience, in general it is very hard to find a beautiful and well made cushion cut. what do you think of all this nonsense. do you think i am just having cold feet? or should i try to get the other stone to new york somehow to see it in person. do youthink the measurements of stone #1 fit what should be of a stone that size? HELP!!!!

 

[reena]

wow that's a toughie.

OK: first of all there's no need to fear an eyeclean SI1, so do not worry about that at all. and you're right that a well-cut cushion that looks right is hard to find--forget one in the 6c range!!! if you've been back to see it a number of times and you love it, you're going to love it if you buy it. (i would really consider having your purchase contingent on appraisal though--if it's awkward you can always say it's necessary for insurance. it's just too much $$$ to fool around.)

i know exactly how you feel because i ended up buying one of the very first cushions i saw . . . i loved the stone from the first and kept coming back to it, but i was paranoid because i thought it was "too soon" and that i needed to look around until i was 100% sure it was the best possible one out there. eventually i realized that there would always be "another stone" out there to look at and analyze and compare.

i knew i loved the stone, and that i always would regardless of what else might be lurking out there, so we went with it.

haven't regretted it since.

so i feel your pain . . but it is totally a personal decision. i don't know how many stones you've seen or how long you've been looking, but if you feel that you need to see this new stone, then you should do it. (#2 also looks really good to me!) but honestly, you obviously love the other stone, so if anything, seeing #2 will probably just make you more sure of your choice. (i did that too.) as i said before: it's a lot of money you're dealing with here! perhaps the vendor for #2 can arrange for you to see it locally this week . . . you wouldn't even have to tell the other vendor anything at all (unless you decided you liked #2 better!)

but as for #1, all the specs look good to me (as long as the culet doesn't bother you), the depth is fine as i said so i'm sure you're not losing more size than you should be there . . . girdle could be thinner, so you may be losing a little there, but honestly your stone is going to be HUGE regardless (it really should look bigger to the eye than #2) and PLUS it's so tough to find one that is well-cut and speaks to you that i wouldn't let that small thing be a dealbreaker. plus. a D!

i bet it's just to die for.

i wish you the absolute best of luck, please keep me posted as to what you decide to do. and you MUST promise to post pics of that baby!!!!

 

[reena]

----------------
On 9/8/2004 10:18:33 PM diamondgirl726 wrote:

as far as the seeting goes, i am going to do a thin delicate pave band and also have tiny diamonds in the basket. what do you think?----------------

what do i think!?!?! i think with that setting it's going to be to. die. for.

sounds very similar to what i'm getting for my cushion.

 

[diamondgirl777]

i will definitely post some pictures as soon as i get the ring made!

thanks again for your advice and thoughts.

 

[reena]

something like THIS?

 

[diamondgirl777]

oh my gosh yes!! where did you find those pictures? is there a website that you know of that shows detailed pictures like that of mountings? that is incredible.

 

[reena]

oh, i can read minds! just kidding. i think we just have identical taste.

i have searched high and low for settings like that--haven't seen many at all. that photo is of a ring (it's now sold) that was done by an antique dealer in NYC. the website is www.estatediamondjewelery.com. not sure if they do settings when you don't buy the stone from them, but you could check.

the people there (i went into the store) told me that the setting for that ring is based on ashley judd's e-ring, which also has a large cushion cut diamond in it. ashley judd's ring was by martin katz, but my understanding is that leon mege at www.artofplatinum.com actually made the setting itself. (leon told me that himself.) check it out--his stuff is amazing. there's nothing identical to that ring on his site (there's one very similar but with pave surrounding the stone as well, which is my setting-to-be!

) but when i went into leon's studio he showed me amazing pictures of settings just like that one (he calls the style the "ashley judd"). it's definitely worth giving him a call if you're looking for something around those lines, cause i haven't seen anything similar anywhere else. (and he's fairly reasonably priced--definitely compared to martin katz!)

glad to know there's someone out there who shares my taste in rings! now you REALLY have to promise to post a picture of the completed project!

 

[diamondgirl777]

that is so funny - actually looked at a stone at martin katz. it was a beautiful 5.33 cushion F SI1 that they said was almost identical to ashley judd's. the only problem with their stone is that i could see the inclusions with my eye and they were splat in the middle of the table. (not good) but the lady who works there gave me photos of ashley judd's ring and told me that they could do the mounting for me even if i bought the stone elsewhere, but wanted to charge upwards of $10,000. (crazy) this guys leon mage - is he very difficult to set up an appointment with? what do you think he would charge for a mounting like the one we like?? how long do you think it would take to do?

 

[reena]

hey:

can only respond quickly cause my BF is about to kill me but i can write more tomorrow:

not hard at all to set up an appointment with leon, he's in NYC and very nice. hard to say for price cause of the size of your stone--just as a barometer i'm paying a little less than $4500 for a 2c size 4.5, but mine also has the pave around the stone.

also i should say that leon never actually came out and said that he did work for m katz, he doesnt really talk about his jeweler clients, just said that he did ashley judd's e-ring setting. but i assume that it had to have been for MK then, cause MK did her ring.

i can give more details tomorrow if you would like.