Cushion Question for Cehrabehra and Others

[Cehrabehra]

Jeff I haven''t read *anything* but just looking at these pics I like the one on the right better.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/13/2007 4:06:33 PM
Author: boston_jeff
On the Left:

2.64 I/SI1 (8.32 x 7.80 x 5.31) [L/W= 1.067]
Pol/Sym: VG/G
68.1% depth
60% table
slightly large culet
no flour
girdle: medium to very thick, faceted

On the Right: 2.20 H/VS2 (8.23 x 7.47 x 5.01) [L/W=1.10]
Pol/Sym: G/VG
67.1% depth
53% table
slightly large culet
SB flour(!!!)
girdle: medium to thick, faceted

Honest opinions, please, not only on the pictures but also the specs. I actually think one of these may be the one, but I look forward to your opinions before I say which one. Obviously the two face-on pictures do not really tell the story re: light return, so I am most interested in what people have to say about the overall look of the facet structure, the 4Cs, etc...


Oh, and obviously ''neither'' is an acceptable answer... don''t just pick the one you like better... make sure to let me know whether you think it is beautiful!

after reading this - definitely the one on the right I''d rather have the VG sym over pol, MUCH like the smaller table, not just in theory but in appearance!! The fluor just rocks it! I chose it because it was the more handsome, aligned stone and I like the larger crown facerts/smaller table.

 

[boston_jeff]

I would hope so, CB-- it''s certed as an Old Mine Brilliant, and the specs are certainly more consistent with your taste! I was so excited to find an OMB cert with a small table and SB flour, that I was dying to tell you...

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/13/2007 4:34:46 PM
Author: Gothgrrl
Well...blown away...not quite, almost. LOL. I do really like it. Just need a few more pics.

ditto!!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/13/2007 5:42:38 PM
Author: boston_jeff
I would hope so, CB-- it''s certed as an Old Mine Brilliant, and the specs are certainly more consistent with your taste! I was so excited to find an OMB cert with a small table and SB flour, that I was dying to tell you...

bahahahaha!!!!!!

 

[boston_jeff]

Well, since many of you now know who I am working with, it may be a little bit of a struggle to get more pics... I will probably have to take them myself/with an appraiser.

Keep the opinions coming!!! You guys are awesome.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/13/2007 5:52:22 PM
Author: boston_jeff
Well, since many of you now know who I am working with, it may be a little bit of a struggle to get more pics... I will probably have to take them myself/with an appraiser.

Keep the opinions coming!!! You guys are awesome.

I didn''t know you were confirmed working with him LOL

The #1 reason I went to the stone on the right is because it had clearer looking pav facets - the one on the right looks muddled somehow.... that was the ONLY reason I put when I first chose #2. But reason after reason points to that one... I have not one reason to point to the left. The VS clarity and SB flu just totally push it WAY over beyond anything that the cut does

 

[Gothgrrl]

My cushion has a table of 55.

 

[boston_jeff]

A few things:

I noticed the "muddled" thing as well... I think it might be the result of the Good symmetry, combined with the location of a few of the inclusions when magnified.

I think that the stone on the left has smaller facets, and likely more pinfire and a slightly less antique look; I have been told it is a very brilliant stone, but I think that may come with some sacrifices I am not entirely comfortable with.

I can see the color in the ''I'' color stone face-up, and I agree with what CB and others have said about not going into the warm range unless you affirmatively like it and are willing to commit to it, rather than think of it as a sacrifice... I actually would have wanted it to be lower color since it does not face up completely white-- I guess I don''t like the ''tweener...

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 3/13/2007 5:55:56 PM
Author: Cehrabehra


I didn''t know you were confirmed working with him LOL


The #1 reason I went to the stone on the right is because it had clearer looking pav facets - the one on the right looks muddled somehow.... that was the ONLY reason I put when I first chose #2. But reason after reason points to that one... I have not one reason to point to the left. The VS clarity and SB flu just totally push it WAY over beyond anything that the cut does

Personally, I think the stone on the right has a lot of potential-- I am hoping that in person it really comes to life.

So, who votes that I arrange for the stone on the right to be sent to an independent appraiser...?

I am in Silicon Valley, so I think it comes down to Carole Richbourg and Nancy Stacy... any opinions?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/13/2007 6:22:40 PM
Author: boston_jeff

Date: 3/13/2007 5:55:56 PM
Author: Cehrabehra


I didn''t know you were confirmed working with him LOL


The #1 reason I went to the stone on the right is because it had clearer looking pav facets - the one on the right looks muddled somehow.... that was the ONLY reason I put when I first chose #2. But reason after reason points to that one... I have not one reason to point to the left. The VS clarity and SB flu just totally push it WAY over beyond anything that the cut does

Personally, I think the stone on the right has a lot of potential-- I am hoping that in person it really comes to life.

So, who votes that I arrange for the stone on the right to be sent to an independent appraiser...?

I am in Silicon Valley, so I think it comes down to Carole Richbourg and Nancy Stacy... any opinions?

see if you can have two stones sent.... ?? having a choice is nice not these two though.... def the one on the right. I''d call in the one on the right for sure, I''m just thinking a choice would be awesome.

 

[fatafelice]

Date: 3/13/2007 6:22:40 PM
Author: boston_jeff


Personally, I think the stone on the right has a lot of potential-- I am hoping that in person it really comes to life.

So, who votes that I arrange for the stone on the right to be sent to an independent appraiser...?

I am in Silicon Valley, so I think it comes down to Carole Richbourg and Nancy Stacy... any opinions?

I vote YES!

 

[boston_jeff]

So, I will be viewing the diamond with Nancy Stacy on Friday afternoon.

I am already stressing about something, which I am hoping people could help me with...

I got the price on the stone, and it is good. I am worried that it is too good, based on stones I have seen of comparable size/color/clarity... for instance, I found a 2.20 H/VS2 with the same facet plot on BN, rated "Good" cut by BN, that was listed for several thousand dollars more than I was quoted...

I have read so many times on PS that "you get what you pay for," so I am concerned that there is something wrong with the stone. And yes, I know that is why I am seeing it in person, and I am not obligated to buy it, but I do want this stone to be THE ONE, as as far as specs go it is a needle in a haystack...

So, I guess my basic question is, is it possible that this is a great stone despite a relatively good price?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/14/2007 4:37:45 PM
Author: boston_jeff
So, I will be viewing the diamond with Nancy Stacy on Friday afternoon.

I am already stressing about something, which I am hoping people could help me with...

I got the price on the stone, and it is good. I am worried that it is too good, based on stones I have seen of comparable size/color/clarity... for instance, I found a 2.20 H/VS2 with the same facet plot on BN, rated ''Good'' cut by BN, that was listed for several thousand dollars more than I was quoted...

I have read so many times on PS that ''you get what you pay for,'' so I am concerned that there is something wrong with the stone. And yes, I know that is why I am seeing it in person, and I am not obligated to buy it, but I do want this stone to be THE ONE, as as far as specs go it is a needle in a haystack...

So, I guess my basic question is, is it possible that this is a great stone despite a relatively good price?

Yes - cushions are really a whacko grouping and some are priced way higher than others... and there''s no reason for it. I think "old mine brilliant" might be a lower price - mine if you recall was 15k and I can''t find anything like it in that range, but of course they''re cushion brilliants and not OMB. when I do searches it scares me to think I can''t replace my diamond for less than 20k but the fact that you found an OMB and it is lower in price actually relieves me. I feel like I got mine for an absolute *steal*.

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 3/14/2007 6:20:29 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Yes - cushions are really a whacko grouping and some are priced way higher than others... and there''s no reason for it. I think ''old mine brilliant'' might be a lower price - mine if you recall was 15k and I can''t find anything like it in that range, but of course they''re cushion brilliants and not OMB. when I do searches it scares me to think I can''t replace my diamond for less than 20k but the fact that you found an OMB and it is lower in price actually relieves me. I feel like I got mine for an absolute *steal*.

Honestly Cehra, I know you are always honest, but I would appreciate it even if you were just saying that to make me feel better! (it worked, at least temporarily). If the stone checks out on inspection by me and an appraiser, I don''t see any reason to freak out about the price. If I can save some money based on the OMB cert, fantastic!

On a side note, I cannot believe that a miser like me is basically complaining that the stone does not cost enough. The GF would absolutely flip if she read that... oh, PS, what are you doing to me?!?!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/14/2007 6:50:35 PM
Author: boston_jeff

Date: 3/14/2007 6:20:29 PM
Author: Cehrabehra

Yes - cushions are really a whacko grouping and some are priced way higher than others... and there''s no reason for it. I think ''old mine brilliant'' might be a lower price - mine if you recall was 15k and I can''t find anything like it in that range, but of course they''re cushion brilliants and not OMB. when I do searches it scares me to think I can''t replace my diamond for less than 20k but the fact that you found an OMB and it is lower in price actually relieves me. I feel like I got mine for an absolute *steal*.

Honestly Cehra, I know you are always honest, but I would appreciate it even if you were just saying that to make me feel better! (it worked, at least temporarily). If the stone checks out on inspection by me and an appraiser, I don''t see any reason to freak out about the price. If I can save some money based on the OMB cert, fantastic!

On a side note, I cannot believe that a miser like me is basically complaining that the stone does not cost enough. The GF would absolutely flip if she read that... oh, PS, what are you doing to me?!?!

well, how much did it cost? LOL I have this weird love/hate thing about saying the cost of mine... because on the one hand I want to brag that I got a good deal, and on the other why let anyone know? hehehe

see if you can compare the stone to an ideal round brilliant... if you can love the stone next to one of those, you KNOW you have a winner

 

[moremoremore]

I don't know if you're still looking for opinions??? I like the shape of #2. I don't love strong flour b/c I'm paranoid about glowing which is really silly but it's just a thing I have...#2 looks like it has better symmetry but looks a little darker than #1. It also looks like a more antique look...Gosh. Ok. I'm sorry. I have to say neither b/c you asked...But it's not for ME! Like you say, pix are really hard to judge...and this is ONLY going off of the pix....

For me, the thing is, if you're not BLOWN AWAY, then keep looking and I'm getting that feeling from you....

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 3/14/2007 7:49:08 PM
Author: moremoremore
I don''t know if you''re still looking for opinions??? I like the shape of #2. I don''t love strong flour b/c I''m paranoid about glowing which is really silly but it''s just a thing I have...#2 looks like it has better symmetry but looks a little darker than #1. It also looks like a more antique look...Gosh. Ok. I''m sorry. I have to say neither b/c you asked...But it''s not for ME! Like you say, pix are really hard to judge...and this is ONLY going off of the pix....


For me, the thing is, if you''re not BLOWN AWAY, then keep looking and I''m getting that feeling from you....

hi moremoremore... as far as the strong flour, you mean you don''t want the stone to glow when under blacklights? I can''t see that being much of an issue for my GF... and it has been cleared for any haziness, etc...

and since I am looking for a more antique look, the fact that #2 looks antique is a good thing for me

I agree that #2 looks a little darker on the picture, but I think/hope that is a result of taking a still photograph from one particular angle, but it will be something I look closely at on Friday...

 

[moremoremore]

cool. i really like its shape...seeing it in person is so much better....and it has a nice spread...it also looks like it has nice fire....so best of luck!

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/14/2007 8:00:19 PM
Author: boston_jeff

Date: 3/14/2007 7:49:08 PM
Author: moremoremore
I don''t know if you''re still looking for opinions??? I like the shape of #2. I don''t love strong flour b/c I''m paranoid about glowing which is really silly but it''s just a thing I have...#2 looks like it has better symmetry but looks a little darker than #1. It also looks like a more antique look...Gosh. Ok. I''m sorry. I have to say neither b/c you asked...But it''s not for ME! Like you say, pix are really hard to judge...and this is ONLY going off of the pix....


For me, the thing is, if you''re not BLOWN AWAY, then keep looking and I''m getting that feeling from you....

hi moremoremore... as far as the strong flour, you mean you don''t want the stone to glow when under blacklights? I can''t see that being much of an issue for my GF... and it has been cleared for any haziness, etc...

and since I am looking for a more antique look, the fact that #2 looks antique is a good thing for me

I agree that #2 looks a little darker on the picture, but I think/hope that is a result of taking a still photograph from one particular angle, but it will be something I look closely at on Friday...

the darkness just looks like bowtie - which in a more square cushion looks like a cross and is a quality I absolutely *adore*... I''ve spent many sessions teasing a cross out of my stone which is much more difficult in a long stone. So the darkness is just relative to what it is reflecting. When I wear a black shirt I see it much more... wink goes on and on about how dark haired or big headed (or both) people have different needs in a diamond... I''m a fair blonde pinhead so the colors that reflect back at me when I oogle my stone are pinks and peaches and beiges. I wonder how much that really plays a role.

I can''t wait until tomorrow afternoon to see what you''re thinking!

 

[belle]

i love the antique-y look too. chunky facets....big(ish!) culet....
#2 seems to have more of the look that i would gravitate to.
i really can''t wait to hear what you think! it''s like anything else, when you see it....you WILL know.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Okay Jeff..... what''s the news???

And while I am filling up space I thought I''d share this with you, found on the GOG site...
http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2503/
this IS one of those 4pav mains!!!

I like the one you posted from MT the other day and I''m hoping you''ll let us know what you think of it soon!!

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 3/16/2007 10:41:44 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
Okay Jeff..... what''s the news???


And while I am filling up space I thought I''d share this with you, found on the GOG site...

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2503/

this IS one of those 4pav mains!!!


I like the one you posted from MT the other day and I''m hoping you''ll let us know what you think of it soon!!

OK... the search is OVER!!!

I spent a good amount of time with Nancy Stacy and we both loved the stone... (well, I shouldn''t speak for her, but she did seem impressed). The pictures really do not do the stone justice at all, as it has much more life. Nancy said that for an antique-style cushion it is very well made (I think the VG symmetry helps alot compared to some of the Good stones I was looking at). It was great to have an independent appraiser "ooooh" when she took the stone out of the package and tell me that I have a very unique, well-performing stone.

As expected, it has a tremendous amount of fire. It is certainly less brilliant than a lot of other stones (think modern cushions or ideal rounds), but it is brilliant relative to other chunky facet antique-style cushions.

I got to play with the stone alot under dark field, and that was the clincher. The stone has a very pretty facet structure and seems to reflect a lot of internal rainbows.

Nancy told me that the stone is more like a high Medium Blue than a strong blue, but it does help the stone face up as a very high H/low G. It looked very white to me.

Unfortunately, I made it all the way out to Nancy only to realize that I had left my camera at home, and I immediately thought about the beating i was going to take from you guys for making you wait for pictures! I am picking up the stone sometime next week, and maybe Nancy will let me take a photo or two before it gets sent to the setter.

 

[boston_jeff]

Date: 3/16/2007 10:41:44 PM
Author: Cehrabehra
Okay Jeff..... what''s the news???


And while I am filling up space I thought I''d share this with you, found on the GOG site...

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/2503/

this IS one of those 4pav mains!!!


I like the one you posted from MT the other day and I''m hoping you''ll let us know what you think of it soon!!

Thanks for posting the 4pav, CB... that one really shows off the mains (almost like a 4-arrow square H&A with lots of contrast), which looks different than some of the other 4pav pictures I have seen on James Allen. Pretty good IS, too. Not for me, but I am surprised that it is still available on GOG, since it seems pretty (maybe it is not eye-clean)

 

[Gothgrrl]

YAY! Now for some pics please.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/17/2007 2:25:32 PM
Author: boston_jeff


OK... the search is OVER!!!

I spent a good amount of time with Nancy Stacy and we both loved the stone... (well, I shouldn''t speak for her, but she did seem impressed). The pictures really do not do the stone justice at all, as it has much more life. Nancy said that for an antique-style cushion it is very well made (I think the VG symmetry helps alot compared to some of the Good stones I was looking at). It was great to have an independent appraiser ''ooooh'' when she took the stone out of the package and tell me that I have a very unique, well-performing stone.

As expected, it has a tremendous amount of fire. It is certainly less brilliant than a lot of other stones (think modern cushions or ideal rounds), but it is brilliant relative to other chunky facet antique-style cushions.

I got to play with the stone alot under dark field, and that was the clincher. The stone has a very pretty facet structure and seems to reflect a lot of internal rainbows.

Nancy told me that the stone is more like a high Medium Blue than a strong blue, but it does help the stone face up as a very high H/low G. It looked very white to me.

Unfortunately, I made it all the way out to Nancy only to realize that I had left my camera at home, and I immediately thought about the beating i was going to take from you guys for making you wait for pictures! I am picking up the stone sometime next week, and maybe Nancy will let me take a photo or two before it gets sent to the setter.

Yay!!!! and Boo!!!! LOL Yay you found THE stone!!! Boo you forgot your camera!!!

It sounds a lot like my stone I wish you''d get aset and idealscope and sarin info on it before you set it... I''d really love to add that to my stockpile so that the next person who comes along (I can only hope you''ll stick around!) I can say look at this one and look at that one - there''s two old mine brilliants!!! whooooo sistahstones!!!! How are you setting it?

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/17/2007 2:25:32 PM
Author: boston_jeff

I got to play with the stone alot under dark field, and that was the clincher. The stone has a very pretty facet structure and seems to reflect a lot of internal rainbows.

what does dark field mean???

 

[boston_jeff]

I am sure the experts could add a lot more Cehra, but the main idea is that with darkfield (as opposed to brightfield) magnification, the stone is placed on top of a black background under the microscope, and it gives you a ton of contrast. Based on the brief description from GOG, it seems to be used a lot to help spot inclusions:

"When pictures are taken of diamonds under the microscope the pictures are taken in what''s called "darkfield illumination". Darkfield illumination means that the diamond is placed at the top of a cylindrical source of high intensity light with the bottom of the "well" being covered by a flat black baffle. The light is concentrated onto the pavilion facets which in turn "lights up" the inclusions on the interior of the stone. For the critical analysis of diamonds this is extremely important to properly determine a diamonds clarity grade. The darkfield illumination is lighting up the tiny feather at 3:00 which helps us identify this VS1 clarity diamond."

I just found it to be a great way to see the facet structure of the stone and give you an idea as to how some of the angles might interact, at least from an intuitive point of view.

Sorry about the pictures (or lack thereof), everyone. I will try my best to snap a few on Friday.

 

[Cehrabehra]

Date: 3/18/2007 12:44:24 AM
Author: boston_jeff
I am sure the experts could add a lot more Cehra, but the main idea is that with darkfield (as opposed to brightfield) magnification, the stone is placed on top of a black background under the microscope, and it gives you a ton of contrast. Based on the brief description from GOG, it seems to be used a lot to help spot inclusions:

''When pictures are taken of diamonds under the microscope the pictures are taken in what''s called ''darkfield illumination''. Darkfield illumination means that the diamond is placed at the top of a cylindrical source of high intensity light with the bottom of the ''well'' being covered by a flat black baffle. The light is concentrated onto the pavilion facets which in turn ''lights up'' the inclusions on the interior of the stone. For the critical analysis of diamonds this is extremely important to properly determine a diamonds clarity grade. The darkfield illumination is lighting up the tiny feather at 3:00 which helps us identify this VS1 clarity diamond.''

I just found it to be a great way to see the facet structure of the stone and give you an idea as to how some of the angles might interact, at least from an intuitive point of view.

Sorry about the pictures (or lack thereof), everyone. I will try my best to snap a few on Friday.

wow, all this time, never heard about this stuff LOL I didn''t want to deal with inclusions so I went higher in clarity and just used a loupe (and could never see it anyway lol) Dude... friday is a whole week away!!! lol Does she do aset images?

 

[boston_jeff]

My stone is a VS2 as well; Nancy said the inclusions were somewhat easy to see under 10x, but I could not see them (one is under the table). Easy for a professional, maybe.

I do not think she does ASET images. She had the basic IS and ASET scopes, but did not seem to have a set up to take pictures of either. It was hard to look at my stone under IS after seeing all the solid-red ideal rounds, but that was to be expected...

I will try to get as much information as possible before I set the stone, but now that the deadline is in sight and the stone has to get out to Leon to be set by early May, there is a sense of urgency....

You think Friday is far away for you?

as far as the setting goes....