Am I picking the right 2 ct. Cushion?! HELP!!!

[Rock_of_Love]

Wow! It looks like you picked a winner!! Beautiful! Congrats!!!

Do we get more pics? Maybe in SMTR? Soon???

 

[tyty333]

Wow, if that doesnt do it justice, I would love to see it in real life! More pics when you can!

 

[soycoffee]

That is really stunning! Congrats (drooling!)

 

[Rockdiamond]

Date: 4/5/2009 5:42:06 PM
Author: MajorlyChic
My boyfriend and I have chosen stone #1 for a few reasons:
1) The color and clarity are terrific. I am VERY curious to see if it gets appraised as an F color since every other G we saw were signifcantly ''warmer.''
Even if it does, that won''t change the fact that the stone has a GIA grade. It''s pretty much accpted that that is the last word. Put another way: If an appraiser grades a diamond differently that GIA, no dealer will accept the appraisers grade over GIA.
2) The cut, oddly enough with it''s weird proportions, is really amazing. It looks like the more modern cushion in the GOG video that Dmitri placed a link to. It is neither super chunky nor crushed. Somehow the large table is working for this stone...espically since the clarity is so terrific.
3) The spread and ratio are exactly to my specifications
4) The light leakage is something I am simply not finding when I see it in different lighting?! Had I not seen the lightscope for it, I would never even have mentioned this earlier.
This part kind of proves my point- if a diamond is fantastic in person, but does not perform well on an IS, what then? I believe that this is not an uncommon occurrence- especially if we''re discussing fancy shapes.

Yes, stone #2 was a stunning cut. Interestingly, although technically it was a ''modified brilliant'' it was actually more chunky yet not quite antique (since there was no culet) than the other cushion. But the fact that I could spot the inclusion really was a deal breaker....I could have gotten over the small spread issue.

I will with out a double post photos of the ring when my boyfriend proposes, but I have no clue how many weeks it will be since it needs at least 4 weeks with Leon for the setting.

Thanks again for taking the time to try and help!

Best,
Tracy

Congratulations on an amazing diamond- I''m very glad you went with your eyes, and heart.

 

[mrscushion]

Looks beautiful! Congratulations!

 

[DiamondFlame]

I can see why you''d love the stone.

The cushion is AWESOME! Goes to show that you can''t pick a cushion based on numbers.

Pls post more shots in the Show Me The Ring forum.

 

[MajorlyChic]

Thank you to everyone for all the kind words!!! I hope you don't all feel like you have to comment on my diamond just because you know I have already purchased it

I am planning on getting an insurance policy under Chubb. The rep that I spoke to actually said that the GIA is not as significant as the appraisal, and that if I were to need the ring replaced they would either reimburse me for the appraised amount, or replace it with any ring of my choice for that amount. Is it possible that they would say this but then not stand by it? I feel like this policy doesn't fall in line with much of what I have read here on the forums...

Thanks,
Tracy

 

[Rockdiamond]

The two documents serve different purposes.
The GIA report does not assign a value. I seriously doubt Chubb would use the grade on an appraisal over one issued by GIA....but who knows!

I would also seriously doubt what the Chubb rep told you- but I'm a diamond guy, not an insurance agent.....I can't say for sure.
I know that many people have had a quite different experience- where they've insured something at a high value only to find out the insurance company wanted to replace the item, as opposed to giving them the money to buy it themselves....

 

[MrsChil]

What a gorgeous cushion!!! I love it!!!

As far as the insurance, I have heard that Chubb can issue a check for replacement (appraisal value) if something should happen to your ring as opposed to just having it replaced. You can do a search on here for Chubb and I''m sure you will find the answer you''re looking for. I think they''re one of the few that actually do that.

 

[mrscushion]

Date: 4/6/2009 6:04:57 PM
Author: MajorlyChic
I am planning on getting an insurance policy under Chubb. The rep that I spoke to actually said that the GIA is not as significant as the appraisal, and that if I were to need the ring replaced they would either reimburse me for the appraised amount, or replace it with any ring of my choice for that amount. Is it possible that they would say this but then not stand by it? I feel like this policy doesn''t fall in line with much of what I have read here on the forums...

I think it depends on which policy it is. If you choose to go with a cash policy (i.e. in case of loss, they give you the cash amount that''s equal to the replacement value you insured it for), then yes, the appraisal is the more important document, because it''s the one with the $$ amount on it. If it''s a like-kind replacement policy, where the insurance company replaces your ring for you, then the GIA report and a detailed appraisal with lots of information on the setting and the stone both matter a lot because you want to make sure that you''re replacing like with like.

 

[MajorlyChic]

So here is the latest and I could really use all of your opinons as tomorrow at noon is my deadline...
I decided that before my boyfriend pay for the diamond, we bring it in to David Wolf today to have it appraised. Below are his findings, and I am wondering if it should make me reconsider my decision to move forward with it:

Color: G-H
Clarity: VS1 (moving towards VVS2 because he couldn''t find the larger of the two feather inclusions on the plot!)
Girdle: Med-Thick faceted
Polish: EX
Symmetry:VG
Flour: Negligible (but not "none")
Table: 62.1%
Depth: 58.3%
Crown Height:18.5%
No culet

Versus the GIA cert:
Color: G
Clarity: VS1
Girlde: Med-Very Thick
Polish: VG
Symmetry:G
Flour: None
No Culet

Basically, the difference is that it does have some (albeit very little) flourescence, and it is a bad G as opposed to a good G. In the store it looked great, I thought it might even be appraised as an F, but next to the testers today it looked more like an H to me...Prior to this diamond I had only been looking at E and F colored stones because I don''t like seeing any warmth. I am not sure how to factor in this new vision. I also don''t know how happy I am that my stone would have any flourscence... Lastly, it came to my attention that since my stone is top heavy with a crown angle of 43%, it might make it impossible to set my stone the way I want. I personally am not a fan of diamonds that pop out of the halo, I want my halo to sit as close to flush with the top of the diamond as possible.

I HATE giving my diamond consultant the run around, but I can''t let my boyfriend who is a teacher spend this much money if it is not going to turn out an A+. I am certainly not convinced that this is the wrong stone to go with, but I do need to make up my mind by noon tomorrow.

Please help!!!!

 

[Rockdiamond]

Just one clarification: "negligible" means none- from AGS

As of 2003, the ''inert'' and/or ''faint'' fluorescence designations (lower left corner of document) have been replaced by a single term ''negligible,'' meaning "not significant or important enough to be worth considering."

I''m not saying you should buy the diamond, but there''s no fluorescence

 

[MajorlyChic]

Thanks David. That is great info.

I just really need help determining if it is possible to set my ring the way I want to or not, because this and the issue of how the G/H color will look with a Platinum band are probably the most significant factors then...

This is really tough!!!

 

[its lydia]

TEST! I can't post anywhere!

EDIT: Okay, I can post, I just can't make a new topic..

 

[soycoffee]

Just MHO, but, you should be able to just pick the stone you like, not pick the stone to fit the setting. If you can''t get the setting through your jewelery, you could surely get a custom made one to fit your stone. As far as I know, people do that all the time!

 

[peaches]

Wow, that cushion looks GORGEOUS!! Even more so in a Leon setting. ::

I'm no cushion expert [or diamond expert for that matter] but that stone would definitely catch MY eye...and temporarily blind it.

 

[MajorlyChic]

Actually I was planning on having Leon do a handmade custom setting, but even then, I think the halo is supposed to fall at the girlde, which means that since this diamond is top heavy it will "pop" out of the halo more than I desire...Can someone correct me if I am wrong

 

[peaches]

Whoops! Got a little confused about the setting thing. Beautiful stone either way!

 

[CharmyPoo]

David Wolf has been said to be a little tougher with his color gradings than other appraisers. From my experience, he rated my diamond exactly the same as the GIA certificate for the color. He rated the polish and symmetry higher than the certificate. Looks like the same experience you have.

To be honest, I wouldn''t worry about the neglible florensence. It''s not a big deal at all.

 

[DiamondFlame]

Date: 4/7/2009 8:30:19 PM
Author: MajorlyChic
Actually I was planning on having Leon do a handmade custom setting, but even then, I think the halo is supposed to fall at the girlde, which means that since this diamond is top heavy it will ''pop'' out of the halo more than I desire...Can someone correct me if I am wrong

With a crown height of 18.5% I wouldn''t worry if I were you. You wouldn''t want it in a ''sunken'' setting with the table sitting flushed with the setting, would you? And if you''re going with Leon, much has been said about his temperament...giving him too many restrictions may be counterproductive.

 

[MajorlyChic]

I went back in this morning to have David Wolf check out the other stone. It came out exactly as the GIA cert said it would, but he did say that he thought it was a really good "F."

Then we did something interesting: we "dirtied up" the stone to see how it would perform in "normal conditions" and while the brilliance was still VERY good, the inclusion that was nearly impossible to see when the stone was clean, was very EASY to see when the stone was dirty. This sealed the deal for me. I think I could have handled knowing where the inclusion was so long as no one looking at my ring could see it, but this test proved that I would not be the only one able to spot it.

The I went back to ID Jewelry to look at my G VS1 where I dirtied up that stone to see how it effected its brilliance, and fankly I thought it made the facets stand out more when they were a bit more dull, and so it really brought out the chunky nature of a 4 pavillion cushion brilliant, and it actually made me like the stone more!

Funny how things work out, but I am definitely moving forward with the G VS1 now

I''ll be meeting with Leon to see what his thoughts are. Hopefully we will jive and he will be able to create the setting, but if not, I have a great second choice. I''ll keep you guys posted