Your Thoughts on this Chunky Cushion

[txagkg]

I have been lurking on the forums for a while trying to gather information and there is definitely a wealth of it here - thanks. I have been on the hunt for the perfect chunky cushion and have been looking at both the August Vintage and other vintage cuts in the 1.5 - 2 ct. H-I VS2-SI1 range. This one here seems to fit the bill pretty well although it is slightly on the small side of what I am looking for. Also, I have no idea how to tell what the optics are and how they compare to say, an AVC. Thoughts?

Thanks.

 

[txagkg]

ASET Image

 

[txagkg]

GIA Report (It is a 1.50 Old Mine Brilliant H VS2)

 

[CharmyPoo]

That ASET looks all wrong to me - wrong lighting conditions etc. Please ask the vendor to retake it accurately.

GIA cert is a bit small - do you mind typing out what the data says?

Before I comment, what do you think of the picture you received?

 

[txagkg]

I myself thought that the ASET looked strange compared to others I have seen, but I haven't been looking at these long enough to know any different. I will ask them to retake it, thanks.

On first glance, my opinion of the first photo is that there seems to be a lot of "dead space" or dark areas of the stone, but I don't know if that picture is even good enough to conclude that.

Here is the report info:

Old Mine Brilliant
6.66 x 6.51 x 4.49 mm
1.50 carat
H
VS2
Polish - Very Good
Symmetry - Very Good
Flour - None
Comments: Crown angles are greater than 40 degrees

Thin - Very thick girdle
52% Table
Slightly Large Culet
Height 68.9%

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I myself thought that the ASET looked strange compared to others I have seen, but I haven't been looking at these long enough to know any different. I will ask them to retake it, thanks.

On first glance, my opinion of the first photo is that there seems to be a lot of "dead space" or dark areas of the stone, but I don't know if that picture is even good enough to conclude that.

Some vendors are not well versed in the nuances of photography and on using optical technology like an ASET. This is the case here and it is not an accurate reflection of the diamond's qualities.

I see no red flags at all from the certificate data or the photograph and this will likely be a well cut diamond.
That being said, this is not close to an AVC in terms of brightness and size of flashes underneath the table.

 

[txagkg]

That being said, this is not close to an AVC in terms of brightness and size of flashes underneath the table.

This is my main concern. After watching the comparison videos between the AVC and other chunky cushions, there are probably only two stones that I have seen on there that appeal to me as much as the AVC does.

Here is one: http://www.vimeo.com/7540295

 

[Love Street]

I see no red flags at all from the certificate data or the photograph and this will likely be a well cut diamond.
That being said, this is not close to an AVC in terms of brightness and size of flashes underneath the table.

Speaking as another person who has been trying to learn about cushions for the past year or so (and I've read all the cushion threads/debates...), I'm just wondering: Can you/one tell at all whether the Txagkg's potential cushion here would perform like the "virtual needle in the haystack" that is on the video OP posted here http://www.vimeo.com/7540295 ? Is there something you can see immediately in the facets that says it won't perform like the non-AVC in that video? (Though it sounds like you are comparing it to the more predictable AVCs - is that a correct understanding?) Would a video from the vendor help determine whether it has the bright flashes under the table like the non-AVC in this video? (I'm considering working with this vendor in the future as well...)

 

[CharmyPoo]

Nothing is per say wrong with this diamond which is why I asked how you like it. Personally, I am not loving the appearance of how all the virtual facets are working together. I like very crisp and clean lines and shapes. This diamond reminds me of two diamonds I passed on earlier in my search - to this day, I am very grateful I decided to wait.

 

[txagkg]

Well, I decided that I am really not going to be able to tell how it looks from pictures, etc. so I am having it shipped to me to look at in person. That being said, I have also never seen an AVC in person so it may be difficult to compare what I am looking at in hand to an AVC in a video.

This video is a great example of a non-AVC chunky cushion that I find to be just as appealing as the AVC. Is there any way to tell if this OMC above will have optical properties and light return that is as good as the chunky in the video?

http://www.vimeo.com/10265431

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I see no red flags at all from the certificate data or the photograph and this will likely be a well cut diamond.
That being said, this is not close to an AVC in terms of brightness and size of flashes underneath the table.

Speaking as another person who has been trying to learn about cushions for the past year or so (and I've read all the cushion threads/debates...), I'm just wondering: Can you/one tell at all whether the Txagkg's potential cushion here would perform like the "virtual needle in the haystack" that is on the video OP posted here http://www.vimeo.com/7540295 ? Is there something you can see immediately in the facets that says it won't perform like the non-AVC in that video? (Though it sounds like you are comparing it to the more predictable AVCs - is that a correct understanding?) Would a video from the vendor help determine whether it has the bright flashes under the table like the non-AVC in this video? (I'm considering working with this vendor in the future as well...)

Three things would help:

1)A video by the vendor might if they have a good macro lense(for closeups) and can control the lighting.
2) A sarin scan would help as well if the poster can attach the .srn file and if its a decent scan I can simulate its optics and create a video from using Diamcalc which I can post or take snapshots of.
3) A properly taken ASET image will give me a clue.

The problem with your question is your are now talking in a very subjective area, I know this stone will not have optics like an AVC, the reason why these stones are cheaper is less rough is cut away in the pavilion so the optics cannot be the same.

What Rhino calls a generic "a needle in a haystack" is subjective, his standards are very high but still you need an objective way to compare your potential choices. The diamond dock that he shoots his videos in is a good static environment for comparing the performance of two stones to see which one will be better, but it does not represent what the diamond will look like set in a ring. Most consumers find that videos and photographs never do justice to the dynamic properties of a diamond.

Smart vendors just send one stone to a consumer, well cut stones are beautiful and it is rare that a customer is going to reject a stone if they have nothing better to compare it to.