Jump to content

Found a 1.42 cushion cut vs Emeral cut 1.4


JHT
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Background: planning to propose, gfs said in the past she likes cushion,

but also likes emerald (but only if its big coz it's nothing special when it's small - 1.5 at least?)

 

i understand its two completly different diamonds, one has a lot of bling, the other is subtle...but she's crazy and Moody like that haha! (Aren't they all)

 

I've looked quite a bit of options of both styles and I think I am more or less set with either of these two.  

I am am really torn between the two, so I want to get other people's feedback and comment 

 

 

DIAMOND 1: CUSHION MODIFIED BRILLIANT (hybrid)- G VS2

new question: any comments on the fire and brilliance 

 

03F6C845-5651-47E0-9D05-B3EAD1CC2C2A.png.d12fe96b18bb93093d657420d26e9bbf.pngEDAF9AD9-F493-43B3-8986-97E541FBA5AF.png.e0b11e26c2d75524e4153d9bb566d2bd.pngiE6781EEE-1329-4B80-A39C-1D73BD0CD07E.png.933d40a51da4b80d6cca2a5c18721205.png85793366-872C-44A2-BE36-35606EB631DC.jpeg.34642807691b22cb3f96d0feaacc2534.jpeg

 

 

DIAMOND 2: 

EMERALD 1.4 F VS2

not exactly a 1.5 but do you guys think it's okay enough for a size 5 finger?

F4AEFD61-09C2-42EE-94D2-7EC179D02ED6.jpeg.95e3371893666e471461bbb3cf8d4d5f.jpegC5137282-3666-4A2D-B381-7C510EC172AF.jpeg.b603c02c8ae7096080298b1c72706617.jpeg

Edited by JHT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JHT said:

So I found a cushion cut (hybrid) during my travel and want

to check what you guys think about it?

1)strangely enough, it seems a bit yellow on the video but doesn't look too bad in real life  

2) given the specs do you think it's a good buy for 8500 USD?

3) I prefer Squarish types, that have larger facets, not a fan of the crushed ice look.  

compared to the others I have seen, this seems to have a larger facet, considering it is a modified brilliant.

any comments on this? Or anything I need to look out for?

1) More than anything, in a couple of photos it seems not well cleaned - which is a lot easier to sort out than anything else to do with colour. I couldn't find any video attached.

2) It's a fair chunk of money. You can certainly pay less to get something that is equivalent on paper; as you are probably finding out, however, shopping for a cushion cut "on paper" is a very thankless task.

https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=1&fShape=Cush&fCaratLo=1.40&fCaratHi=1.45&fColorLo=G&fColorHi=G&fClarityLo=VS2&fClarityHi=VS2&fCutLo=&fCutHi=poor&fDepthLo=0.0&fDepthHi=100.0&fTableLo=0.0&fTableHi=100.0&fSymLo=&fSymHi=poor&fPolLo=&fPolHi=poor&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=&fFlrHi=vstrong&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=1000000&adv=1

3) It fits your description and you like it, so it's fine.

BTW - the "modified" part means the pavilion mains do not go all the way to the girdle, but "modified brilliant" isn't a shortcut for "crushed ice", nor is the reverse true. It may be academic at this point, if you think you have found the right one, but if you are still searching unfortunately you cannot discard a stone purely on the basis of "modified" (or even of the faceting diagram).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, davidelevi said:

1) More than anything, in a couple of photos it seems not well cleaned - which is a lot easier to sort out than anything else to do with colour. I couldn't find any video attached.

2) It's a fair chunk of money. You can certainly pay less to get something that is equivalent on paper; as you are probably finding out, however, shopping for a cushion cut "on paper" is a very thankless task.

https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=1&fShape=Cush&fCaratLo=1.40&fCaratHi=1.45&fColorLo=G&fColorHi=G&fClarityLo=VS2&fClarityHi=VS2&fCutLo=&fCutHi=poor&fDepthLo=0.0&fDepthHi=100.0&fTableLo=0.0&fTableHi=100.0&fSymLo=&fSymHi=poor&fPolLo=&fPolHi=poor&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=&fFlrHi=vstrong&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=1000000&adv=1

3) It fits your description and you like it, so it's fine.

BTW - the "modified" part means the pavilion mains do not go all the way to the girdle, but "modified brilliant" isn't a shortcut for "crushed ice", nor is the reverse true. It may be academic at this point, if you think you have found the right one, but if you are still searching unfortunately you cannot discard a stone purely on the basis of "modified" (or even of the faceting diagram).

Thank you so much! I think I will go for it!

just wondering, what do you mean by not cleaned, 

Like eye clean? it just has some dirt that needs to be wiped  

 

Im trying to find a way to upload a video as I want to get some inputs 

on the brilliance and fire  (Or is it possible to tell from the pic)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C84A1E7D-F932-4EC6-8BBE-A94522DF0E24.jpeg

Edited by JHT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JHT said:

Thank you so much! I think I will go for it!

just wondering, what do you mean by not cleaned, 

Like eye clean? it just has some dirt that needs to be wiped  

Im trying to find a way to upload a video as I want to get some inputs 

on the brilliance and fire  (Or is it possible to tell from the pic)

By "not cleaned" I mean that it literally seems to need a good clean with steam and/or ultrasound. Nothing to do with eye clean, though dirt on the pavilion often makes inclusions more visible.

There is no way anyone can tell you much on brilliance, fire or brightness from individual photos - a video may be better, but don't expect miracles, particularly when it's not comparative against a known/reference stone. In the end, trust your eyes/brain: if they (you) don't like it, then no amount of chatter here or on other internet sites should make a bit of difference!

BTW - it's a completely different beast, but that emerald cut does look quite nice - and I personally prefer that to pretty much any modern cushion.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have seen these stones and like both of them, the biggest test has been passed.  If these picture are being sent to you by the vendor and you have seen neither live and in person, I would recommend asking the vendor to put both stones side by side and send you a video of the comparison.  The video will show how brilliant they are relative to each other when moving.  I like to do this with the stones sitting on my fingers as it allows me to gently rock them to see how the light plays off the stones and gives my customer an excellent idea of what the stone will actually look like relative to each other.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2018 at 6:07 PM, JHT said:

 

Background: planning to propose, gfs said in the past she likes cushion,

but also likes emerald (but only if its big coz it's nothing special when it's small - 1.5 at least?)

 

i understand its two completly different diamonds, one has a lot of bling, the other is subtle...

I've looked quite a bit of options of both styles and I think I am more or less set with either of these two.  

 

 

I am am really torn between the two, so I want to get other people's feedback and comment 

 

 

DIAMOND 1: CUSHION MODIFIED BRILLIANT (hybrid)- G VS2

new question: any comments on the fire and brilliance 

 

03F6C845-5651-47E0-9D05-B3EAD1CC2C2A.png.d12fe96b18bb93093d657420d26e9bbf.pngEDAF9AD9-F493-43B3-8986-97E541FBA5AF.png.e0b11e26c2d75524e4153d9bb566d2bd.pngiE6781EEE-1329-4B80-A39C-1D73BD0CD07E.png.933d40a51da4b80d6cca2a5c18721205.png85793366-872C-44A2-BE36-35606EB631DC.jpeg.34642807691b22cb3f96d0feaacc2534.jpeg

 

 

DIAMOND 2: 

EMERALD 1.4 F VS2

not exactly a 1.5 but do you guys think it's okay enough for a size 5 finger?

F4AEFD61-09C2-42EE-94D2-7EC179D02ED6.jpeg.95e3371893666e471461bbb3cf8d4d5f.jpegC5137282-3666-4A2D-B381-7C510EC172AF.jpeg.b603c02c8ae7096080298b1c72706617.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, LaurentGeorge said:

If you have seen these stones and like both of them, the biggest test has been passed.  If these picture are being sent to you by the vendor and you have seen neither live and in person, I would recommend asking the vendor to put both stones side by side and send you a video of the comparison.  The video will show how brilliant they are relative to each other when moving.  I like to do this with the stones sitting on my fingers as it allows me to gently rock them to see how the light plays off the stones and gives my customer an excellent idea of what the stone will actually look like relative to each other.

 

Hi laurent

So good to hear from you again and thank you for once again helping me out. 

I did much much more research now and understand things a little more. 

 

I personally went to the store and they both passed.

 

That made it harder to choose between ththe two because both were great in their own different way. 

 

Its really a matter of what I think she would like more. 

 

I guess i just just need to see both one more time before choosing anything. 

Based on what's on paper when pice, would you have any comments though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, davidelevi said:

1) More than anything, in a couple of photos it seems not well cleaned - which is a lot easier to sort out than anything else to do with colour. I couldn't find any video attached.

2) It's a fair chunk of money. You can certainly pay less to get something that is equivalent on paper; as you are probably finding out, however, shopping for a cushion cut "on paper" is a very thankless task.

https://www.diamondreview.com/diamonds?sortOrder=price&sortDesc=1&fShape=Cush&fCaratLo=1.40&fCaratHi=1.45&fColorLo=G&fColorHi=G&fClarityLo=VS2&fClarityHi=VS2&fCutLo=&fCutHi=poor&fDepthLo=0.0&fDepthHi=100.0&fTableLo=0.0&fTableHi=100.0&fSymLo=&fSymHi=poor&fPolLo=&fPolHi=poor&fCulLo=&fCulHi=vlarge&fFlrLo=&fFlrHi=vstrong&fPriceLo=0&fPriceHi=1000000&adv=1

3) It fits your description and you like it, so it's fine.

BTW - the "modified" part means the pavilion mains do not go all the way to the girdle, but "modified brilliant" isn't a shortcut for "crushed ice", nor is the reverse true. It may be academic at this point, if you think you have found the right one, but if you are still searching unfortunately you cannot discard a stone purely on the basis of "modified" (or even of the faceting diagram).

Thank you so much David! 

 

I found the emerald really really good too! 

 

Only thing Ong holding me back is the size. 

 

Would you say it is of decent size size for an emerald? (Though I know size is very subjective haha)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is very little proportion information on the fancy shape grading reports, but the profile outlines give some hint as to relative proportions.  I like the layout of the EC very much.  The cushion, on the other hand, looks to have the majority of its mass in the pavilion, according to the image of the grading report you sent.  The image shows a very shallow crown which is not what my customers typically like as it tends to show a darker center in some lighting conditions.  I would not stress on the slightly smaller weight of the EC.  All else being equal, if I were choosing which of these two stones to buy, I would choose the better proportioned, whiter stone with EX EX rather than the VG VG with questionable proportions.

BUT....you are asking us to second guess without seeing what you have already seen. 

Edited by LaurentGeorge
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JHT said:

Thank you so much David! 

I found the emerald really really good too! 

Only thing Ong holding me back is the size. 

Would you say it is of decent size size for an emerald? (Though I know size is very subjective haha)

Size-wise, it's normal for a well cut 1.4x, and larger than a poorly cut 1.50. "Decent size" - well, it all depends on what you compare it to, but it certainly isn't invisible; more or less same visual size as the cushion, I'd say. For comparison, here is a round 0.92 (around 6 mm diameter, plus halo it gets it to ~8 x 8) on a 6.75 finger:

P1000488.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank yOu so much everyone

im 80% set on the emerald.  Largely due to the vote 

of confidence regarding it. 

 

Just one one last thing before I make the decision 

here is the video of the cushion... 

 

do

lef me know your comments positive and negative  

 

 

Edited by JHT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, davidelevi said:

Hi JHT, the video shows up as "unavailable". Possibly marked private on youtube?

Rep points: just mark them as liked/thank you (the ones you did like!) in the lower right hand corner of each post (heart icon).

Should work now hehe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It works. As you mention, resolution (and focus) aren't the best, but...

I think Laurent's expectations of a fairly dark centre are confirmed. I was always a fan of the emerald cut; the video does nothing to change my mind, but again it's important to say that no amount of video, reflector images, 3D scans or whatever else on paper trumps a pair of eyes and an active brain looking at a stone. If you (she) prefer the cushion, go for that one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

This is the setting I plan to use

 

1) I think it's called under halo? 

Will the diamonds at the bottom/side help

make diamond look bigger/ better? It seems like the underhalo can't be seen from the top so I was just wondering why some would prefer the halo to be under  

EB26FC22-4900-4402-9B61-FB91161CFCCA.jpeg.06d3775b4015740c76e3025461261e25.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JHT said:

This is the setting I plan to use

1) I think it's called under halo? 

Will the diamonds at the bottom/side help make diamond look bigger/ better? It seems like the underhalo can't be seen from the top so I was just wondering why some would prefer the halo to be under  

No, they won't help the diamond look better or even bigger - except maybe from some very unusual observation angles. On the other hand, they will make the diamond go much higher and snag/bump into things... so I'm very much wondering the same thing as you! ;)

The only reasons I could think for using such a design are 1) if one has a huge stone it might provide some relief/interest to the side views that otherwise would be just the pavilion of the main stone, or 2) if one has a stone with inclusions highly visible from the side. Otherwise, I can't see the sense of it: you don't see it, it increases cost, and it increases the likelihood of damage.

Edited by davidelevi
Added second para.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Davide has provided a very utilitarian view and one I espouse frequently enough, but when it comes to settings, just like art, it's all about what is aesthetically pleasing to you.  There is no right or wrong choice but there are certainly considerations.  Having such a heavy halo under the stone does effectively raise the stone higher off the finger, increasing the chances of bumping the ring into everyday obstacles, like a doorjamb, a table or cabinet.  It does not so much affect the top view as the more traditional halo might, but it does add a sparkling perspective when the ring is viewed from an angle.  This may be more pleasing than the simple basket setting.  It does add both labor and diamond cost to the setting, but you and only you can decide if this trade-off is worth the extra look.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...