3 Antique Rectangular Cushions Which Would You Choose?

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 2/2/2010 10:44:27 AM
Author: ericad
CCL, it may have to do with the old cuts you chose to represent true antique cushions. May I ask where you got the pics? If I had to choose between only the 3 stones you posted, I may not choose the old cut either because the ones you selected are, well...not to my taste. So as an old cut lover, I might decide not to answer or I may actually choose one of the modern stones (if you're holding a gun to my head and FORCING me to

)

You may get a better response if you used nicer examples of antique cushions along with your best examples of newly cut antique-style cushions. If you wish to contact me privately, I'd be happy to help you find something with nicer make for this experiment

Ericad,

I know you share a love of Antique cuts and that this is the focus of your business. We spoke on the phone once when I started my cushion search.

However there is not great consistency in choosing a true antique and from reading the comments, light performance seems to be secondary. I know you could show me some assymetrical beauties with slightly rounded shapes, large culets with unique qualities. I challenge you to find an antique stone that does not show any obstruction of the virtual facets that sit on the 3,6,9,12 mains.

The focus of this thread was illustrating the three types of vintage cushion cuts with a particular emphasis on light return under the table. I chose the three extremes of appearances under the table:

i) Fully Obstructed Cross ii) Bowtie Cross partially obstructed and iii) No Obstruction

The results are very even because the Antique stone lovers took over the thread and it became an antique versus modern choice also because it is very difficult to judge light performance from a photograph. I wish I had left out my commentary and only posted the three square stones.

I carefully chose these diamonds in this thread to illustrate three types of appearances:

I) Fully dark and obstructed Maltese Cross under the table. (This was extremely hard to find in a rectangular stone as you don't see symmetrical optics in these old stones very often and especailly not in rectangular shaped stones.)
The rectangular one was a picture from Adam at OldWorldDiamonds, the square one was provided by Diagem and posted on PS in 2005. Many would find it quite beautiful even from a light performance standpoint as it exhibits an extremely strong and vibrant kozibe effect, really nice optical symmetry and not withstanding the darkness exhibited from the steep and deep crown and pavillion.

II) Your average recently cut antique cushions exhibit optics the same or worse than the rectangular and square examples of these. The pavillion and crown angle combination isn't perfected and the more rectangular ones almost always show a very pronounced bowtie, the more square ones have less of a bowtie but they all show obstruction under the four pavillion mains. I chose the nicest stones of this type from GOG's inventory with the largest virtual facets but still showing the dark bowtie which is very representative of most vintage style cushions cut today.

III) The GOG AVC cushions, carefully designed for 4 equally bright leaves under the table. Stones that have any obstruction in the 3,6,9,12 positions or that don't gather light effectively from overhead position are not eligible to be called an AVC. The light performance on these is very symmetrical and optimized for fire and brightness. I chose one with as similar as possible LW ratio as the other examples not the one with the best optics.

Ultimately this thread really didn't illustrate my point, perhaps in future a vendor(maybe you

) will source an excellent antique stone and compare it to the best modern ones, however I suspect even the new video comparison will come down to how the viewer feels about the LW Ratio, Size, Shape Outline and particular optical symmetry of the candidates used for the comparison.

Regards,
CCl

 

[Ara Ann]

I must be too easy to please, because I like all of them! Honestly. I appreciate the hand cut look and uniqueness of the old diamonds, but I also really like the GOG cushions too....even the warm ones...both shapes appeal to me too. Ugh.


But if I had to choose one from all of these, it would be the one Erica posted as an example of an antique cut elongated cushion. Yum.

 

[ericad]

All due respect, CCL, but in your original post it wasn't clear that the basis of your experiment was to show examples of light return under the table or that you were intentionally choosing 3 extreme examples including a fully obstructed cushion (the antique), nor did your poll choices mention light return as a basis of preference. You just asked for opinions on the 3 stones pictured, and you know what they say about opinions...everybody has one

I never claimed that antique cushions won't show some obstruction under the table, just that the examples you chose showed a very strong/extreme dark maltese cross and that not all antique stones look like this. Plus the elongated one is quite unusual looking and not like any antique cushion I've seen before, so not a good representation of what an antique cushion should be.

I don't know if our photo style will be conducive to your experiment, but I can dig around and find additional examples of cushions with less obstruction, in addition to the one I already posted above, if you would find it helpful.

 

[diagem]

Date: 2/8/2010 5:40:39 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 2/2/2010 10:44:27 AM
Author: ericad
CCL, it may have to do with the old cuts you chose to represent true antique cushions. May I ask where you got the pics? If I had to choose between only the 3 stones you posted, I may not choose the old cut either because the ones you selected are, well...not to my taste. So as an old cut lover, I might decide not to answer or I may actually choose one of the modern stones (if you''re holding a gun to my head and FORCING me to

)

You may get a better response if you used nicer examples of antique cushions along with your best examples of newly cut antique-style cushions. If you wish to contact me privately, I''d be happy to help you find something with nicer make for this experiment

Ericad,

I know you share a love of Antique cuts and that this is the focus of your business. We spoke on the phone once when I started my cushion search.

However there is not great consistency in choosing a true antique and from reading the comments, light performance seems to be secondary. I know you could show me some assymetrical beauties with slightly rounded shapes, large culets with unique qualities. I challenge you to find an antique stone that does not show any obstruction of the virtual facets that sit on the 3,6,9,12 mains.

The focus of this thread was illustrating the three types of vintage cushion cuts with a particular emphasis on light return under the table. I chose the three extremes of appearances under the table:

i) Fully Obstructed Cross ii) Bowtie Cross partially obstructed and iii) No Obstruction

The results are very even because the Antique stone lovers took over the thread and it became an antique versus modern choice also because it is very difficult to judge light performance from a photograph. I wish I had left out my commentary and only posted the three square stones.

I carefully chose these diamonds in this thread to illustrate three types of appearances:

I) Fully dark and obstructed Maltese Cross under the table. (This was extremely hard to find in a rectangular stone as you don''t see symmetrical optics in these old stones very often and especailly not in rectangular shaped stones.)
The rectangular one was a picture from Adam at OldWorldDiamonds, the square one was provided by Diagem and posted on PS in 2005. Many would find it quite beautiful even from a light performance standpoint as it exhibits an extremely strong and vibrant kozibe effect, really nice optical symmetry and not withstanding the darkness exhibited from the steep and deep crown and pavillion.

Thank you for the compliment..., it sure was a gorgeous loose OMC

, although we must remember a picture is simply a ''snap'' shot of a supposedly lively object called a Diamond (let alone a face-up snap). I also feel the need to remind readers of this thread that there is nothing wrong with obstruction..., when a diamond moves (which it usually does) obstruction turns to light flashes as naturaly appear and happen in round brilliants with significant obstructed ''arrows'' appearance.

II) Your average recently cut antique cushions exhibit optics the same or worse than the rectangular and square examples of these. The pavillion and crown angle combination isn''t perfected and the more rectangular ones almost always show a very pronounced bowtie, the more square ones have less of a bowtie but they all show obstruction under the four pavillion mains. I chose the nicest stones of this type from GOG''s inventory with the largest virtual facets but still showing the dark bowtie which is very representative of most vintage style cushions cut today.

III) The GOG AVC cushions, carefully designed for 4 equally bright leaves under the table. Stones that have any obstruction in the 3,6,9,12 positions or that don''t gather light effectively from overhead position are not eligible to be called an AVC. The light performance on these is very symmetrical and optimized for fire and brightness. I chose one with as similar as possible LW ratio as the other examples not the one with the best optics.

Ultimately this thread really didn''t illustrate my point, perhaps in future a vendor(maybe you

) will source an excellent antique stone and compare it to the best modern ones, however I suspect even the new video comparison will come down to how the viewer feels about the LW Ratio, Size, Shape Outline and particular optical symmetry of the candidates used for the comparison.

Regards,
CCl

 

[yssie]

Well I certainly don''t have a sophisticated cushion palate, but I prefer III in all lxw ratios.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 2/8/2010 7:12:27 PM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 2/8/2010 5:40:39 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover



I) Fully dark and obstructed Maltese Cross under the table. (This was extremely hard to find in a rectangular stone as you don't see symmetrical optics in these old stones very often and especailly not in rectangular shaped stones.)
The rectangular one was a picture from Adam at OldWorldDiamonds, the square one was provided by Diagem and posted on PS in 2005. Many would find it quite beautiful even from a light performance standpoint as it exhibits an extremely strong and vibrant kozibe effect, really nice optical symmetry and not withstanding the darkness exhibited from the steep and deep crown and pavillion.

Thank you for the compliment..., it sure was a gorgeous loose OMC

, although we must remember a picture is simply a 'snap' shot of a supposedly lively object called a Diamond (let alone a face-up snap). I also feel the need to remind readers of this thread that there is nothing wrong with obstruction..., when a diamond moves (which it usually does) obstruction turns to light flashes as naturaly appear and happen in round brilliants with significant obstructed 'arrows' appearance.

I think that stone is a real piece of art (it shouldn't technically even be in the antique category but looks so much like them I was fooled

) I pulled the specs from the thread where you posted it:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/modern-cushion-vs-antique-cushion.23890/page-2

2.03 cts.
7.00x7.09 mm.
78% total depht
52% table
Crown height 25%
Pavilion angle 46%
V. Thin Girdle
culet: Large
F- VS1

What were the crown and pavillion angles for the stone (i hope maybe you recall roughly?)?

I would guess the pavillion angle would be really steep if the depth was 46% (44- 47 Degrees ???) and the crown angle pretty steep too with a 25% crown. If you tilted the stone 5-10 degrees in either direction would those mains still remain dark?

I guess the problem I see with obstruction and bowties in cushions is that they stick around over a much larger range of tilt angles than the arrows in a round which can flash on and off with slight tilting.
One day I'll purchase a copy of DiamCalc and run some simulations on some cushions in ASET lighting over a range of tilt agnled, but can't justify spending 2900 Euros on a purely academic pursuit at this time.

Regards,
CCL

 

[Cehrabehra]

I would take type 1 in the 2nd set of pictures hands *down* over any of the others. I''ve spent a lot of time obsessing over these facets and shapes over the years and I''m not sure I feel you''ve got an apples to apples, apples to oranges sort of comparison going here. I didn''t vote.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 2/1/2010 10:12:56 AM
Author: ericad
Here''s what I consider a better example of an elongated antique cushion and is more similar in appearance to the modern cushions you posted, thus makes a better comparison, though I confess the image is not very good. I just wanted to point out that one can get an antique cut with a similar look to the AV and other newly cut antique-style cushions if getting an antique is important to them, versus optics, etc. and they are willing to wait for the right stone to come along (can take awhile to find one that''s just right).

Erica - that is a gorgeous stone!!!

 

[Cehrabehra]

I also want to point out that while type 1 in the 2nd set is my fav, type 1 in the first set is my least fav - that table is huge and it''s blocky - it''s not a nice stone IMO.

Maybe you should get a diamcalc and use some tighter parameters?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Okay I see that pretty much everything I''ve said has been said already lol - but I do want to say there is a much cheaper version of diamcalc for the hobbyist.