3 Antique Rectangular Cushions Which Would You Choose?

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Is has been noted in many threads over the years that choosing a cushion is a matter of personal perference. So I'd like to get some opinoins from all the Antique style cushion lovers on these three diamonds. Which would you choose based on their cut? (Although these images come from stones of different color, price and weight, please assume they have the same 4 Cs, faceup size and price.)

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Pictures of the 3 types.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Same types with more square outlines.

 

[elle_chris]

I prefer the facet structure of the type II in the frist pic. Don't love the way AV's look in rectangular shapes. Also, I know you said to ignore the color, but the yellow in the AV jumped out at me and I can't get past it. If I saw type II and 3 in person, I'd rule 3 out right away based on the color.

In the second pic, it becomes a little harder to decide. Because of the square shape the facets on the AV look nice. Again, the color (or the pic) of the type II is the first thing that jumped out at me, but I like the facet structure alot. Would really need to see them side by side to decide.

Type I rectangular and square=bleh


eta: just wanted to add, with fancy shapes I don't think performance is everything. I need to love the way the stone looks (it's facet structure) all the time- because let's face it, there will be plenty of times when the lighting just sucks. And even those fancies cut for premium light return will look crappy.

 

[clgwli]

Date: 2/1/2010 7:37:39 AM
Author: elle_chris

eta: just wanted to add, with fancy shapes I don''t think performance is everything. I need to love the way the stone looks (it''s facet structure) all the time- because let''s face it, there will be plenty of times when the lighting just sucks. And even those fancies cut for premium light return will look crappy.

I so agree with this statement! I really go more with what my eye likes in person or a video more than I do performance. Facet structure is very important to me.

I picked type II. I do like the square AV cushions but I honestly do not enjoy them in a rectangular shape. The type II I do appreciate in both square and rectangular in general. For type I it would have to be a very well cut stone for me to like so while I love a lot of them, I do prefer a bit more symmetry than a lot of them have to offer. I seem to be drawn to stones that were produced in the early 1900s when tools became more sophisticated for diamond cutting.

One thing I like about antique stones is that they have different personalities to them. That''s one of my issues with the AV cushion. It is pretty but it kind of lacks a personality to it. So I guess for me some personality is more important than just performance for me. For instance I prefer pretty much all Daussi cut cushions to the AV. Not to knock the AV because it is beautiful and I would wear one, but if you made me choose that is what I would go for with currently cut cushions.

 

[Bella_mezzo]

I prefer the type II in the top column also, but I prefer the AVC in the bottom...

 

[ericad]

I would take an old cut any day of the week, although I have to note that the two specimens you used for antiques do not really encompass all that an antique cushion can be (especially the elongated one - it's really different from any elongated antique cushion I've ever seen) - they won't always show the dark maltese cross in the center, though many people love the look. No two antique cushions are alike, so it's really hard to compare them to modern cuts, which are repeated and always look the same.

 

[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).

 

[ericad]

Same stone, different environment, also a crummy old photo (sorry!)

 

[CharmyPoo]

As Erica mentioned, no two antique stones are alike. This is one of my favorite antique stones - I still regret walking away and not buying it. These photos don''t capture the true beauty - it was like a sparkling flower in real life! I know I will never find another one like it.

 

[Hest88]

Like Erica, I almost always see the kind of elongated antique cushion stone she showed, as opposed to the one you have in the example. I chose II for the elongated version--because it''s closer to what I like, and I in the square examples as well.

I like large, round culets. I like chunky, asymmetrical facets that look like some old artisan cut them with a chisel. I think the AVCs are attractive, but they really don''t speak to me. They''re too symmetrical, the culets too small.

 

[spoogenet]

I went with Type III and loving the big bright mirrors under the table. I like square.

I''ve never seen any of these style cushions in person, but after watching enough GOG videos of the AV Cushions I''m in love. Of course that''s not what I picked for the e-ring, but someday I will be getting one of those for some other purpose.

It really is a spectacular cut with the fire equivalent of a battleship plus a couple machine guns.

b

 

[CharmyPoo]

Date: 2/1/2010 12:34:15 PM
Author: Hest88

I like large, round culets. I like chunky, asymmetrical facets that look like some old artisan cut them with a chisel. I think the AVCs are attractive, but they really don''t speak to me. They''re too symmetrical, the culets too small.

This is exactly why cushions are a matter of preference. The reasons why HEST dislikes the AVCs are the same reason why I love them. I love symmetry and smaller culets. I also like stones with some history and less perfect BUT not for my e-ring. I am not willing to pay the big bucks for assymmetrical facets and outline - I would certainly love to buy and own one as a right hand ring.

 

[beaujolais]

I own both a Type 1 (well cut, very nice performance, - see avitar photo) and a Type III (AV GOG). The Type III performance wise (fire, white light, scint.) blows the Type 1 Out Of The Water. The AV is by far the better performer and supposedly my antique cushion (Type 1) is a nice one, too.

I love the history and romance with a real antique stone but all the technology, care and skill that has been put into the GOG AVs has made an incredible, incredible cut.

I think Type 1s look much cooler in those big blown up photos than they really do when set, also.

No offense to those old stones, though. I also love them.

 

[D&T]

visually I like the type II from the rectangular sample, But I like both type II and type III in the square sample. Its personal, But if I had seen it in person, maybe my thoughts will change

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 2/1/2010 10:25:31 AM
Author: CharmyPoo
As Erica mentioned, no two antique stones are alike. This is one of my favorite antique stones - I still regret walking away and not buying it. These photos don''t capture the true beauty - it was like a sparkling flower in real life! I know I will never find another one like it.

Charympoo,

If you liked that one you would probably appreciate this flower pattern cushion. Breaks all the rules 64% table 61.8% depth and a modern not antique, negligible culet what do you think?

Enjoy,
CCl

 

[Brown.Eyed.Girl]

For the rectangular cushions I prefer Type II though I wish it didn''t have a bowtie. For the square cushions, I prefer the AV - Type III

 

[Dreamer_D]

I like both 2 and 3, and maybe feel the same way CharmyPoo does about when I would buy which one.

 

[packrat]

Date: 2/1/2010 5:17:37 PM
Author: D&T
visually I like the type II from the rectangular sample, But I like both type II and type III in the square sample. Its personal, But if I had seen it in person, maybe my thoughts will change

This

 

[CharmyPoo]

CCL - I think that stone is super adorable. Got more information?

 

[CharmyPoo]

I don''t know if this will sway people''s decision on the rectangular AV. Below is the comparison of which I believe is the actual original porportion L:W of the AV stone. I think the image above has the AVC stretched to reflect the L:W of the others.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 2/1/2010 11:10:06 PM
Author: CharmyPoo
I don't know if this will sway people's decision on the rectangular AV. Below is the comparison of which I believe is the actual original porportion L:W of the AV stone. I think the image above has the AVC stretched to reflect the L:W of the others.

Something went wrong when i resized that image for this thread the GOG cushion got stretched so it looks more rectangular than it is. Thanks Charmypoo for fixing it.

I fully expected true antique cushion lovers to have strong presence in this thread as the "old world charm" and individual uniqueness of each genuinely old OMC is quite popular here. What I didn't expect was mixed opinions on Type II and III which I can only guess has to do with how I accidentily stretched the images and gave the AVC a longer LW ratio and this was unintentional.

The facet structures of types II and III are identical, they are both 8 main chunky antique brilliants cut with modern cutting techniques although they have slightly different outlines and LW ratios. The main difference is the AVCs have carefully constructed crown and pavillion depths and angles so that you don't see obstruction (a dark cross (type I)) or a bowtie (type II)) from an overly deep crown, or a shallow pavillion. I would advise people to ignore the rectangular photos and focus on the square ones as they are a better representation of the three types of appearances.

But based on some of the comments about light performance being secondary, outline shape and LW ratio being important, and the presence of color (which is just an artifact of the photo lighting) as they are all colorless diamonds, I would say this poll would be a lot more accurate if the examples were done in a video. I'll keep that in mind for next time.

Thank-you everyone who participated it is interesting to note what balanced and diverse tastes the many posters on PS have regarding these antique cushions.

CCL

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 2/1/2010 10:43:23 PM
Author: CharmyPoo
CCL - I think that stone is super adorable. Got more information?

Unfortunately no the thread where it came from was here https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/modern-cushion-vs-antique-cushion.23890/ and there is not much other information available.

 

[hihowareyou]

Based on the rectangle images I prefer the GOG stone. It just easier to look at, more aesthetically pleasing, simple to the eye, etc.

Based on the square images I really like #1 and the GOG for different reasons. I love the reflections in #1 but also like the GOG stone for the same reasons that I like the rectangular one.

 

[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]

Date: 2/1/2010 5:02:20 PM
Author: sonomacounty
I think Type 1s look much cooler in those big blown up photos than they really do when set, also.

I don''t agree with this. If a person adores antique cushions, the new ones just can''t hold a candle to them, via blown up pics and in person. I''ve worked with many buyers who have seen the newly cut stones and prefer an antique, even those with rustic "imperfections". Comparing an antique diamond to a performance cut antique-style cushion is really apples to oranges - kind of like comparing a classic car to a modern sports car, or an antique work of art to something out of MOMA. Sorry, analogies (or are those similes?) are not my greatest strength!

Antique diamond lovers/collectors don''t seek max light return. For antique-style cut lovers who do want this feature, the AV and ERD (etc.) lines of antique-style cushions are a fantastic option. But a true antique stone will never be a GOG AV cushion and most buyers understand the difference and trade offs when choosing one over another. It''s just a matter of preference and the target market for modern and old stones is just not the same.

 

[Hest88]

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.

Right. In the elongated cushion pictures there was no way I would choose #1 but in the more squarish pictures the OMC made me want to reach out into the screen and give it big ole hug. The more elongated antique cushions I tend to see look more like the squarish version--round culet included--only stretched out a tad more.

 

[rosetta]

type II in the rectangular (minus the big bowtie)

type III in the square

 

[AprilBaby]

Agree with the above. II in the rectangular, III in the square.

 

[elmo]

Date: 2/2/2010 10:57:16 AM
Author: ericad
I don''t agree with this.

+1

Everything has to be seen in person to be fully appreciated. The glamor shots aren''t what you see in person.