Cushion Feedback with Report & Photos

[boxster]

I have this cushion on hold and would like to get some feedback. I haven''t seen it in person yet, but I have the option to get it shipped. I ran it through the HCA, but I am not sure the HCA works properly with this cut, but that is my uneducated guess, so I could be wrong.

What are the expert''s opinions and why? I am trying to learn how to interpret and read all of this data.

 

[boxster]

Idealscope

 

[boxster]

ASET

 

[boxster]

And Finally a Picture...

GIA Stats

6.49 x 6.46 x 4.23mm
1.29 Carat
Color: J
Clarirty: VS2
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent

 

[Ellen]

Hi boxter,

I don't know, personally, I'd like to see more red in the ASET.... What does Brian say about it?

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/6/2009 10:10:41 AM
Author: Ellen
Hi boxter,

I don''t know, personally, I''d like to see more red in the ASET.... What does Brian say about it?

Ditto, I would also be interested in Brian''s opinion?

 

[boxster]

I have spoken to Brian at length on this stone. He speaks very highly of it, and said up front that the ASET would show more green based on the cut design.

I am on the edge, planning on speaking with him again today.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/6/2009 10:16:30 AM
Author: boxster
I have spoken to Brian at length on this stone. He speaks very highly of it, and said up front that the ASET would show more green based on the cut design.

I am on the edge, planning on speaking with him again today.

Brian''s eye is unrivalled so if he rates this diamond highly then to me thats very reassuring.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/6/2009 10:16:30 AM
Author: boxster
I have spoken to Brian at length on this stone. He speaks very highly of it, and said up front that the ASET would show more green based on the cut design.

I am on the edge, planning on speaking with him again today.

Well that says something for sure.

I''d ask yourself what it is you want in a stone, and then ask Brian if this is it, or could you do better. Then go with what he says, as I know he will be honest.

 

[DiamondFlame]

I'm no expert, I'm just one of those cushion cut lovers who won't judge a cushion by a single ASET image alone. Green isn't as bad as white, just not as bright as red. Here's the thing though, an ALL-red ASET won't necessarily represent a beautiful cushion. You need the contrast between bright and dark. I like the light patterns and the proportions of this one, even before reading that BG thinks highly of it. BUT what's more important is how you feel about it? I don't doubt there are other cushions with larger red areas in their ASET photos but I'm sure they have their own individual personalities.

If you are uncertain, my advice to you is to allow yourself more time to scout around and look at more cushions. Btw, does Brian Gavin do videos?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 8/6/2009 10:10:41 AM
Author: Ellen
Hi boxter,

I don't know, personally, I'd like to see more red in the ASET.... What does Brian say about it?

In the case of Modern Cushion Brilliants the Idealscope AND ASET should be used for determining the light performance. Similar to princess cuts green on an ASET is not necessarily an indication of poor light return. The idealscope images show very little leakage except in the corners and this is more accurate reflection of the light performance.

These are BGD new signature 8 main modern cushion brilliants and I just had to call Brian to find out more.
These pictures were a little premature as the line is just being developed and we are looking at a prototype and there aren't many available yet.
I am quite interested to see a video, but from looking at a better picture of these stones I was quite impressed.

There is no doubt the optical symmetry is very appealing in these stones, excellent polish,Excellent symmetry, perfect squares, significant contrast zones, you can see a smaller cross in the middle and arrows on the outside and definite bright areas and other areas of contrast.

In terms of look they are similar to http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6118/ but with greater optical precision and symmetry.
I would reserve judgement on light performance until I see a video, but I would think that these will be nice bright stones.













These stones have significant contrast zones and I suspect

 

[Ellen]

Actually CCL, I've found no expert on this board that prefers an IS over ASET for assessing fancies and their light return. And I never said green indicates "poor" light return, it doesn't! But it does indicate less intense light return than red.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/6/2009 12:53:58 PM
Author: Ellen
Actually CCL, I''ve found no expert on this board that prefers an IS over ASET for assessing fancies and their light return. And I never said green indicates ''poor'' light return, it doesn''t! But it does indicate less intense light return than red.

Absolutely....

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 8/6/2009 12:53:58 PM
Author: Ellen
Actually CCL, I've found no expert on this board that prefers an IS over ASET for assessing fancies and their light return. And I never said green indicates 'poor' light return, it doesn't! But it does indicate less intense light return than red.

Great!! so I'm sure Brian would love it that you rate cushions by the amount of RED versus green in the ASET and are evaluating his new signature cut and casting negative comments based on the green in the ASET.
The idealscope shows where there is leakage and contrast is in the stone and is concrete in showing there is very little leakage. The ASET is telling us the contrast in light return but cannot quantify this and cannot be used in comparison to another different cut stone with more red zones. Further, in black background ASET it is difficult to see leakage and also without an optimized and controlled lense setup the intensity of the colours can vary greatly.

You really want to get into a quantitative discussion of ASET GREEN versus ASET RED in two different cuts of cushion and how this is not a quantitative measurement nor should it be properly used to evaluate CUT GRADES or which one is "Best"????

Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or can I assume you just regurgitate the same information over and over again posted by who you think is an "expert"? Any idiot who reads these forums regularly is aware that myself and others continue to request ASET images for cushions and IS is a secondary test or not used at all. This is done to compare a particular cushion cut "WITH ITS PEERS".
In the case of these 8 main Modern Cushion Brilliants the ASET doesn't do these stones justice and they look far better in person. Since you don't seem to respect what I post as I'm not an "expert" to you, ask Brian about this cut or Jon at GOG or Mark at ERD about these modern 8 main cushions so you can educate yourself a little more.

Brian will be submitting one of this line to AGS to see what they say about light performance, I am also interested in seeing what they come back with it certainly won't be based exclusviely on ASET light return.

Congratulations you have just proven to me conclusively why some vendors are irritated by so called "prosumers" and misleading and unsupported opinions.

 

[Ellen]

Wow CCL, you are one rude, arrogant dude. And good at twisting words. I have to walk out the door right now, I will address your post later.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/6/2009 2:11:42 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 8/6/2009 12:53:58 PM
Author: Ellen
Actually CCL, I''ve found no expert on this board that prefers an IS over ASET for assessing fancies and their light return. And I never said green indicates ''poor'' light return, it doesn''t! But it does indicate less intense light return than red.

Great!! so I''m sure Brian would love it that you rate cushions by the amount of RED versus green in the ASET and are evaluating his new signature cut and casting negative comments based on the green in the ASET.
The idealscope shows where there is leakage and contrast is in the stone and is concrete in showing there is very little leakage. The ASET is telling us the contrast in light return but cannot quantify this and cannot be used in comparison to another different cut stone with more red zones. Further, in black background ASET it is difficult to see leakage and also without an optimized and controlled lense setup the intensity of the colours can vary greatly.

You really want to get into a quantitative discussion of ASET GREEN versus ASET RED in two different cuts of cushion and how this is not a quantitative measurement nor should it be properly used to evaluate CUT GRADES or which one is ''Best''????

Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or can I assume you just regurgitate the same information over and over again posted by who you think is an ''expert''? Any idiot who reads these forums regularly is aware that myself and others continue to request ASET images for cushions and IS is a secondary test or not used at all. This is done to compare a particular cushion cut ''WITH ITS PEERS''.
In the case of these 8 main Modern Cushion Brilliants the ASET doesn''t do these stones justice and they look far better in person. Since you don''t seem to respect what I post as I''m not an ''expert'' to you, ask Brian about this cut or Jon at GOG or Mark at ERD about these modern 8 main cushions so you can educate yourself a little more.

Brian will be submitting one of this line to AGS to see what they say about light performance, I am also interested in seeing what they come back with it certainly won''t be based exclusviely on ASET light return.

Congratulations you have just proven to me conclusively why some vendors are irritated by so called ''prosumers'' and misleading and unsupported opinions.

These are the fine people I got my info from, that I so recklessly "regurgitate" from.

When I say "expert", I mean expert.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/Technologies/ReflectorTechnologies/WhatdoReflectorsTeachUs/


"Green = Light entering from the horizon which in most cases is light reflected off of walls as opposed to direct light sources from above. In most circumstances these are the weakest sources of light input. Therefore minimal greens are a desirable feature to see in an ASET image''



https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-we-prefer-aset-to-ideal-scope-with-fancy-shapes.73949/

"As you see, what''s “all-red” in Ideal-scope is broken down into red and green in ASET... Green is not bad - it’s just less intense - but it''s important to see this difference. Light return in fancy shapes is not as efficient as it is in rounds (again this is not bad, it’s just physics) so there will naturally be more green in fancies than rounds. Knowing this, we are definitely interested in what areas appear red vs what appears green, so the importance of the ASET image becomes obvious"



http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=education-performance

"GREEN is Reflected Light (drawn from 0-45 degrees). Green has less intensity. It is light reflected from walls, the environment, etc."



So please take note, I did NOT make a "negative" comment about this stone. I simply said I personally would like to see more red. And I would. Not all red, just a bit more, and a more even distribution. That is my personal opinion, am I allowed to have one? I guess since you''ve bought a cushion, you are now able to chastize all the rest of us? Including a REAL fancy diamond cutter??

Maybe they do look better in person, maybe not. That remains to be seen. But to act like I was out of line for saying what I did, was wrong C. And mowing over posters is not the way to win around here. You may indeed have something to say/add to the cushion conversations, learning how to say it would behoove you.

 

[Rhino]

Hi CCL,

If I may jump in for a bit.

Forget about what any expert says for a moment beyond the data given from AGS and try to understand where Ellen and Lorelei are coming from. The nomenclature vis AGS cautions when too much green is present and presents it as a negative. To any layman reading AGS'' nomenclature and sees an ASET with excess greens this throws up a red flag. This is the reason for them saying "I''d like to see more red".

This is a logical statement based on the information that has been released by AGS. Ellen and Lorelei''s learning however extends beyond AGS nomenclature. As you know, hanging around these boards and learning from folks who work daily with these technologies and correlate their data to human observation can teach that reflectors are not always end-all/be-all solutions.

Also, while this may not be widespread knowledge there is already a cushion that attains AGS Ideal and a positive identification has been made of its ASET. If you compare the ASET of an already known AGS Ideal cushion with any particular diamond you can pretty easily get an idea if it''ll attain "ideal" light performance or not. That particular cushion is the Square Cushion Hearts & Arrows. A cursory exam of the amount of reds, blues, greens will give the layman an indictor how a diamond may or may not perform. If a claim is made contrary to what the reflector is suggesting I pose that the gemologist, seller, salesman show objective information that demonstrates the claim. I wouldn''t attempt to judge Brian''s diamond since a. I''m not allowed but b. even if I were would not do so short of a side by side comparison in multiple lighting environments.

Just trying to help you see where ellen and Lorelei are coming from because I understand why they are making the statements they are. They are not trying to dis Brian''s product but raising questions/concerns any healthy skeptic would.

Peace,

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/6/2009 6:27:03 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi CCL,

If I may jump in for a bit.

Forget about what any expert says for a moment beyond the data given from AGS and try to understand where Ellen and Lorelei are coming from. The nomenclature vis AGS cautions when too much green is present and presents it as a negative. To any layman reading AGS'' nomenclature and sees an ASET with excess greens this throws up a red flag. This is the reason for them saying ''I''d like to see more red''.

This is a logical statement based on the information that has been released by AGS. Ellen and Lorelei''s learning however extends beyond AGS nomenclature. As you know, hanging around these boards and learning from folks who work daily with these technologies and correlate their data to human observation can teach that reflectors are not always end-all/be-all solutions.

Also, while this may not be widespread knowledge there is already a cushion that attains AGS Ideal and a positive identification has been made of its ASET. If you compare the ASET of an already known AGS Ideal cushion with any particular diamond you can pretty easily get an idea if it''ll attain ''ideal'' light performance or not. That particular cushion is the Square Cushion Hearts & Arrows. A cursory exam of the amount of reds, blues, greens will give the layman an indictor how a diamond may or may not perform. If a claim is made contrary to what the reflector is suggesting I pose that the gemologist, seller, salesman show objective information that demonstrates the claim. I wouldn''t attempt to judge Brian''s diamond since a. I''m not allowed but b. even if I were would not do so short of a side by side comparison in multiple lighting environments.

Just trying to help you see where ellen and Lorelei are coming from because I understand why they are making the statements they are. They are not trying to dis Brian''s product but raising questions/concerns any healthy skeptic would.

Peace,

I appreciate this entire post Jon, and in particular, the highlight. Thank you.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/6/2009 6:34:05 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/6/2009 6:27:03 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi CCL,


Just trying to help you see where ellen and Lorelei are coming from because I understand why they are making the statements they are. They are not trying to dis Brian''s product but raising questions/concerns any healthy skeptic would.

Peace,

I appreciate this entire post Jon, and in particular, the highlight. Thank you.

Ditto, I thank you too Jon.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 8/6/2009 6:12:43 PM
Author: Ellen

Maybe they do look better in person, maybe not. That remains to be seen. But to act like I was out of line for saying what I did, was wrong C. And mowing over posters is not the way to win around here. You may indeed have something to say/add to the cushion conversations, learning how to say it would behoove you.

And ditto this too. I would respectfully suggest it takes a long time to build respect, credibility and gain the ear of the audience here, calmly stating what you have to say without being rude to other posters is the way to proceed and get along on Pricescope.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 8/6/2009 6:12:43 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 8/6/2009 2:11:42 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 8/6/2009 12:53:58 PM
Author: Ellen
Actually CCL, I've found no expert on this board that prefers an IS over ASET for assessing fancies and their light return. And I never said green indicates 'poor' light return, it doesn't! But it does indicate less intense light return than red.

Great!! so I'm sure Brian would love it that you rate cushions by the amount of RED versus green in the ASET and are evaluating his new signature cut and casting negative comments based on the green in the ASET.
The idealscope shows where there is leakage and contrast is in the stone and is concrete in showing there is very little leakage. The ASET is telling us the contrast in light return but cannot quantify this and cannot be used in comparison to another different cut stone with more red zones. Further, in black background ASET it is difficult to see leakage and also without an optimized and controlled lense setup the intensity of the colours can vary greatly.

You really want to get into a quantitative discussion of ASET GREEN versus ASET RED in two different cuts of cushion and how this is not a quantitative measurement nor should it be properly used to evaluate CUT GRADES or which one is 'Best'????

Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or can I assume you just regurgitate the same information over and over again posted by who you think is an 'expert'? Any idiot who reads these forums regularly is aware that myself and others continue to request ASET images for cushions and IS is a secondary test or not used at all. This is done to compare a particular cushion cut 'WITH ITS PEERS'.
In the case of these 8 main Modern Cushion Brilliants the ASET doesn't do these stones justice and they look far better in person. Since you don't seem to respect what I post as I'm not an 'expert' to you, ask Brian about this cut or Jon at GOG or Mark at ERD about these modern 8 main cushions so you can educate yourself a little more.

Brian will be submitting one of this line to AGS to see what they say about light performance, I am also interested in seeing what they come back with it certainly won't be based exclusviely on ASET light return.

Congratulations you have just proven to me conclusively why some vendors are irritated by so called 'prosumers' and misleading and unsupported opinions.

These are the fine people I got my info from, that I so recklessly 'regurgitate' from.

When I say 'expert', I mean expert.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/Technologies/ReflectorTechnologies/WhatdoReflectorsTeachUs/


'Green = Light entering from the horizon which in most cases is light reflected off of walls as opposed to direct light sources from above. In most circumstances these are the weakest sources of light input. Therefore minimal greens are a desirable feature to see in an ASET image'



https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/why-we-prefer-aset-to-ideal-scope-with-fancy-shapes.73949/

'As you see, what's “all-red” in Ideal-scope is broken down into red and green in ASET... Green is not bad - it’s just less intense - but it's important to see this difference. Light return in fancy shapes is not as efficient as it is in rounds (again this is not bad, it’s just physics) so there will naturally be more green in fancies than rounds. Knowing this, we are definitely interested in what areas appear red vs what appears green, so the importance of the ASET image becomes obvious'



http://www.highperformancediamonds.com/index.php?page=education-performance

'GREEN is Reflected Light (drawn from 0-45 degrees). Green has less intensity. It is light reflected from walls, the environment, etc.'



So please take note, I did NOT make a 'negative' comment about this stone. I simply said I personally would like to see more red. And I would. Not all red, just a bit more, and a more even distribution. That is my personal opinion, am I allowed to have one? I guess since you've bought a cushion, you are now able to chastize all the rest of us? Including a REAL fancy diamond cutter??

Maybe they do look better in person, maybe not. That remains to be seen. But to act like I was out of line for saying what I did, was wrong C. And mowing over posters is not the way to win around here. You may indeed have something to say/add to the cushion conversations, learning how to say it would behoove you.

1) I did not feel the need to comment on your negative opinion "I would prefer more red" as its trivial the poster is already aware of this later on in the thread.

2) You however lose my respect when you correct any of my posts without backing up your opinion or putting it into context with content, a one liner not even stating your opinion but repeating that of the "experts" really does very little for me except warrant a negative response from me and a "prove it".

3) I find it in rather bad taste that you attempt to cheapen my arguments by assuming I have purchased one of these stones. To date I have purchased exactly two diamonds in my lifetime and they are both OECs for earrings from Adam at Old World Diamonds. I have however personally studied these recently due to my Fiance's pereferences and considering this thread of Diana's stone. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diannas-2-28ct-cushion-halo-by-mark-turnowski-erd.116187/ which is quite similar. I am firmly in the Chunky Cushion (GOG OMC Lover) camp (gee I thought you would have inferred that from my nickname) but I can certainly appreciate the preference for a more modern looking stone that doesn't look like a round or princess.

4) Specifically my comment about the IS being a better indicator of the light performance(leakage and obscuration) is a valid one, black ASETs do not show leakage well. In addition ASETs especially in this case can be misleading especially in interpreting green and blue in the ASET. But I am most interested in your expertise in interpreting ASETs and light return ,perhaps we can discuss here a greater depth than the basic links and posts you have referred me to. (I've read them a few times before!).

Ellen and Lorelei I am most interested in what you think of these 6 ASETs they are all from Modern Cut Cushion Brilliants. I have numbered them 1 to 6 so you can easily identify them in your replies.
Please tell me "If you would prefer more red" in any of them and if another novice poster came along close to purchasing one, what you might say about them?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Date: 8/6/2009 6:27:03 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi CCL,

If I may jump in for a bit.

Forget about what any expert says for a moment beyond the data given from AGS and try to understand where Ellen and Lorelei are coming from. The nomenclature vis AGS cautions when too much green is present and presents it as a negative. To any layman reading AGS'' nomenclature and sees an ASET with excess greens this throws up a red flag. This is the reason for them saying ''I''d like to see more red''.

This is a logical statement based on the information that has been released by AGS. Ellen and Lorelei''s learning however extends beyond AGS nomenclature. As you know, hanging around these boards and learning from folks who work daily with these technologies and correlate their data to human observation can teach that reflectors are not always end-all/be-all solutions.

Also, while this may not be widespread knowledge there is already a cushion that attains AGS Ideal and a positive identification has been made of its ASET. If you compare the ASET of an already known AGS Ideal cushion with any particular diamond you can pretty easily get an idea if it''ll attain ''ideal'' light performance or not. That particular cushion is the Square Cushion Hearts & Arrows. A cursory exam of the amount of reds, blues, greens will give the layman an indictor how a diamond may or may not perform. If a claim is made contrary to what the reflector is suggesting I pose that the gemologist, seller, salesman show objective information that demonstrates the claim. I wouldn''t attempt to judge Brian''s diamond since a. I''m not allowed but b. even if I were would not do so short of a side by side comparison in multiple lighting environments.

Just trying to help you see where ellen and Lorelei are coming from because I understand why they are making the statements they are. They are not trying to dis Brian''s product but raising questions/concerns any healthy skeptic would.

Peace,

Hey Jon,

Thanks for stopping by I always appreciate your educated perspective in these threads. I think I was the first to ask Brian for a video and I don''t really think any more can be said here until we see it. I am very much in favour of the developement of modern cushions using precision cutting techniques, they will give people the opportunity to have greater diversity of choice over the classic options.

I really like DiamondFlame''s post here in this thread and would prefer an optimistic view until we see the proof. There is no need to discourage new designs for fear they don''t have ideal light performance that is a standard most stones will never reach.

Nice plug about the square cushion hearts and arrows GOG sells in a thread about a BGD diamond! Your GOG signature cushions are not AGS ideal, nor are any others except the one mentioned above so holding these and other cushions to that standard seems inappropriate. The knock on the square cushion HA is that they look too much like rounds, put 4 prongs on the corners of a Square Cushion HA and you get this http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/sqhastuds/.

Best Regards,
CCL

 

[strmrdr]

AGS would ding this stone for the large edge patches of green.
One of the things AGS expects from fancies is edge to edge brightness.
It is possible to cut a cushion with RB like brightness but often they will be a brilliant style look.
It is very possible to get AGS0 princess level brightness from the older style cushions.
This one will not hit that level because of the large green areas.
Why large green patches around the edges are not that good is evident in the picture shown here:

There are large dark zones where the lack of side lighting is evident.
In some lighting such a stone can be stunning but it is not an all around performer.
In this case both the regular picture and the ASET show that there are better combinations possible.

I am not liking the rudeness shown in this thread.
PS is better than that and has community standards both written and unwritten that it is not acceptable behavior.
If you want to have a technical discussion about the merits of ASET kewl but don''t attack people trying to help.
That is totally unacceptable and any point you may be trying to make will be lost.

 

[VRBeauty]

Date: 8/6/2009 12:41:45 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

In terms of look they are similar to http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/6118/ but with greater optical precision and symmetry.

I would reserve judgement on light performance until I see a video, but I would think that these will be nice bright stones.

Speaking strictly as an amateur... those two stones are similar primarily in shape ... and in the fact that both stones are offered by diamond vendors who have excellent reputations for both quality and artistry. Because of differences in the shape of the table and facets, each of these diamonds have a very different "feel" and would likely appeal to different people for different uses. I'd be happy to eat crow if corrected by a real expert, but the statement that one has "greater optical precision and symmetry," in the context of comparing these two stones, sounds to me like like empty blather.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 8/7/2009 5:20:00 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover

Date: 8/6/2009 6:27:03 PM
Author: Rhino
Hi CCL,

If I may jump in for a bit.

Forget about what any expert says for a moment beyond the data given from AGS and try to understand where Ellen and Lorelei are coming from. The nomenclature vis AGS cautions when too much green is present and presents it as a negative. To any layman reading AGS' nomenclature and sees an ASET with excess greens this throws up a red flag. This is the reason for them saying 'I'd like to see more red'.

This is a logical statement based on the information that has been released by AGS. Ellen and Lorelei's learning however extends beyond AGS nomenclature. As you know, hanging around these boards and learning from folks who work daily with these technologies and correlate their data to human observation can teach that reflectors are not always end-all/be-all solutions.

Also, while this may not be widespread knowledge there is already a cushion that attains AGS Ideal and a positive identification has been made of its ASET. If you compare the ASET of an already known AGS Ideal cushion with any particular diamond you can pretty easily get an idea if it'll attain 'ideal' light performance or not. That particular cushion is the Square Cushion Hearts & Arrows. A cursory exam of the amount of reds, blues, greens will give the layman an indictor how a diamond may or may not perform. If a claim is made contrary to what the reflector is suggesting I pose that the gemologist, seller, salesman show objective information that demonstrates the claim. I wouldn't attempt to judge Brian's diamond since a. I'm not allowed but b. even if I were would not do so short of a side by side comparison in multiple lighting environments.

Just trying to help you see where ellen and Lorelei are coming from because I understand why they are making the statements they are. They are not trying to dis Brian's product but raising questions/concerns any healthy skeptic would.

Peace,

Hey Jon,

Thanks for stopping by I always appreciate your educated perspective in these threads. I think I was the first to ask Brian for a video and I don't really think any more can be said here until we see it. I am very much in favour of the developement of modern cushions using precision cutting techniques, they will give people the opportunity to have greater diversity of choice over the classic options.

I really like DiamondFlame's post here in this thread and would prefer an optimistic view until we see the proof. There is no need to discourage new designs for fear they don't have ideal light performance that is a standard most stones will never reach.

Nice plug about the square cushion hearts and arrows GOG sells in a thread about a BGD diamond! Your GOG signature cushions are not AGS ideal, nor are any others except the one mentioned above so holding these and other cushions to that standard seems inappropriate. The knock on the square cushion HA is that they look too much like rounds, put 4 prongs on the corners of a Square Cushion HA and you get this http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/sqhastuds/.

Best Regards,
CCL

CCL,

My commentary about the Sq Cush HA was strictly in the spirit of education since you had brought up what might be considered ideal by AGS standards in way of cushions. I shared that information in the spirit of helping you to understand what that standard was. I'm sorry you view my commentary otherwise. I'll refrain from teaching or sharing in this thread if my commentary will be viewed as an advertisement. Sincerely that is not my intent.

Regards,

 

[Ellen]

Date: 8/7/2009 4:14:02 PM
Author: ChunkyCushionLover



1) I did not feel the need to comment on your negative opinion ''I would prefer more red'' as its trivial the poster is already aware of this later on in the thread.

Um, actually you did feel the need to comment on my opinion, that''s what started this whole exchange C.



2) You however lose my respect when you correct any of my posts without backing up your opinion or putting it into context with content, a one liner not even stating your opinion but repeating that of the ''experts'' really does very little for me except warrant a negative response from me and a ''prove it''.

I actually did back up my opinion, with the three links I posted. They served two purposes. One, they showed you where I had gotten my info (though they are not the only places), and two, they clearly pointed out, in descriptions, and pics, the fact I stated about green in an ASET, and what it represents. I thought they might make more of an impression on you in proving my point. Apparently not. While you may have seen those links, you still do not seem to understand what they/I''m saying. (Jon and Karl do, and have tried to help you understand)

And as for you losing respect for me? Your interactions have shown me you never had any, for me, or anyone else...



3) I find it in rather bad taste that you attempt to cheapen my arguments by assuming I have purchased one of these stones. To date I have purchased exactly two diamonds in my lifetime and they are both OECs for earrings from Adam at Old World Diamonds. I have however personally studied these recently due to my Fiance''s pereferences and considering this thread of Diana''s stone. https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/diannas-2-28ct-cushion-halo-by-mark-turnowski-erd.116187/ which is quite similar. I am firmly in the Chunky Cushion (GOG OMC Lover) camp (gee I thought you would have inferred that from my nickname) but I can certainly appreciate the preference for a more modern looking stone that doesn''t look like a round or princess.

Wow, your imagination is running wild here C. I wasn''t trying to cheapen (?) anything. And I did not insinuate you had bought one of these stones. If I had actually thought that, I would have said so. No, I got my "assumption" that you had purchased a cushion from https://www.pricescope.com/communit...to-my-fiance-which-one-would-you-pick.121154/. Call me crazy, but it sure looked like you were buying a cushion in here! But then, you never did come back and let everyone who so thoughtfully weighed in know the final selection. So, maybe not.



4) Specifically my comment about the IS being a better indicator of the light performance(leakage and obscuration) is a valid one, black ASETs do not show leakage well. In addition ASETs especially in this case can be misleading especially in interpreting green and blue in the ASET. But I am most interested in your expertise in interpreting ASETs and light return ,perhaps we can discuss here a greater depth than the basic links and posts you have referred me to. (I''ve read them a few times before!).

Ellen and Lorelei I am most interested in what you think of these 6 ASETs they are all from Modern Cut Cushion Brilliants. I have numbered them 1 to 6 so you can easily identify them in your replies.
Please tell me ''If you would prefer more red'' in any of them and if another novice poster came along close to purchasing one, what you might say about them?

I am not addressing the rest of your post. My points have been made, and my intial point has been backed up. I''m not playing the "cushion game". We''re not talking about any other cushions here, just this one. And that conversation is over. I am now finished with this thread, and I apologize to boxter for this unfortunate interruption.

 

[joelly]

Hi boxster, I am no expert but I can see the darkness in the stone before the experts point them out. Is this the first stone you see? If it is, then you should try looking at more stones.

 

[Gypsy]

Well, I've been holding off posting on this thread. My cousin is engagement ring shopping and I'm known as the 'diamond person' in my family... so she asked me where she should shop if she wanted to go with an online jeweler... and as she had only been to Tiffany's really I told her to browse some websites and gave her some links and then told her that she needs to see things on her hand (standard PS advice). She was torn between a three stone with a round center and pear sides or a novo style ring or maybe an emerald cut with baguettes (you know, since those are all similar).

Well, she's an impetious child (probably shouldn't call her a child anymore-- hard not to though)... next thing I know she's calling me and telling me that she was having a cushion sent in from one of the vendors I had sent her links to. Then she told me the vendor was BGD and I was REALLY surprised as I had NO IDEA that they carried cushions, and had really assumed it was GOG that she was talking about (lots of links sent to her from GOG's diamond information pages). But apparently she had called BGD and talked to Lesley and Brian and I guess one thing lead to another. SO I called Brian and Lesley and they told me that they wanted me to see the diamond without knowing anything about it except that it's their new cut. (Then I saw this thread, and thought...HMMM... interesting).

I saw the cushion last night and it's beautiful. I didn't know anything about it, in terms of color or clarity or size. When I saw the cert I was suprised that it was so spready and a surprised at the color. It was a really is a bright as heck stone- and my mom's house isn't great on the diamond lighting. I did beg my cousin's permission to take it with me tomorrow to the GTG (I'm planning on duct taping the package it's in on me...lol) and am picking it up from her late tonight (HAHAHA!

), so someone will be posting pics that that are taken at the GTG (I have no camera and she couldn't manage to get anything other than a blur in natural light) and I'll tell you what we think cause while we have to be really careful (it's in one of those tweezer things) I know we'll want to see it in different lighting. And it's going to be a lot of fun to have an unset stone at a GTG.

My cousin is still thinking about it and she still has some time to evaluate it but she's fallen pretty hard for cushions now from the sound of it. But she thinks she wants a larger stone (even though in spread the cushion is .5mm bigger than mine on all sides

)... But that's between her and her fiance's pocket book

. LOL. I told her a halo is always an option, but she's not a fan. She prefers three stones and solitaires.

SO... long story short... T minus 1.5 hours till I have one of these in my mitts and then tomorrow there will probably be some real life pics of the stone taken with some 'real' Pser rings. Just for fun.


ETA: Ditto storm on the tone of some of the posts in this thread... not cool. And really not nice to the OP, Boxster. Who apparently has been scared off by the in fighting.

 

[strmrdr]

kewl Gypsy, overhead office type lighting is where the green areas would most likely show.

 

[Gypsy]

Got it Storm, thanks for the advice

. Will try to find similar light (though my dining room has that). Must put sparkly away now for GTG and get that duct tape.