Searching for 2.5-3 ct cushion

[Acrata]

I have spoken to CCL's recommended vendors directly, but I realized I should probably start a thread to get more input.

Budget: $25,000
Color: J or better
Clarity: SI2 or better (Prefer eye clean)
Carat Weight: 2.5 ct or bigger, goal is 3 ct
LW Ratio: 1 - 1.05 (I want square)
Cut: Any modern cut, as long as it is well-cut. She does not like crushed ice.

If I had to rank, I would say LW ratio is most important, followed by weight, cut, color, and finally clarity. The cut style is less important than the cut quality; I'd rather have a well-cut antique than a poor modern cut. What thoughts are there? What should I be doing besides talking to the vendors CCL recommends?

Thanks!

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I have spoken to CCL's recommended vendors directly, but I realized I should probably start a thread to get more input.

Budget: $25,000
Color: J or better
Clarity: SI2 or better (Prefer eye clean)
Carat Weight: 2.5 ct or bigger, goal is 3 ct
LW Ratio: 1 - 1.05 (I want square)
Cut: Any modern cut, as long as it is well-cut. She does not like crushed ice.

If I had to rank, I would say LW ratio is most important, followed by weight, cut, color, and finally clarity. The cut style is less important than the cut quality; I'd rather have a well-cut antique than a poor modern cut. What thoughts are there? What should I be doing besides talking to the vendors CCL recommends?

Thanks!

Dear Acrata,

Good start on nailing down what you like. However I'm not sure what you mean by well cut or modern cut.
Take a look at this video any preferences?

http://www.vimeo.com/15185665

These choices are the best available in your specs in terms of light performance in their respective cutting styles:

1) http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/7611/ Square cushion HA #4 in the video.
2) http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/7699/ AVC #1 in the video (LW=1.07 so maybe a little more rectangular than you wanted)

You really have to nail down a particular style preference or preference(s) so those vendors know what to propose to you.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Hi Acrata,
I'd say that looking at a variety of vendors- and cushions- is going to help you feel more comfortable making a selection.
Different cutters will produce different looks in a cushion- much like different artists produce different renderings of the same scene.
There are many different looks in well cut, non crushed ice cushions.
Looking at a variety of different vendors may allow you to see many different styles.

Without a doubt you should be able to find a square cushion in your range.
With a little luck you should be able to find a 3ct J/Si2, that is eye clean, and quite a bit less than your budget.

 

[Acrata]

Thanks for the video. I liked 4, 5, and 8. 6 seemed good but she wants square. I had a hard time choosing between 4, 5, and 8, and honestly I have a hard time in person saying one stone looks better than another. She is even less discerning with her eyes than me, but she likes the idea of having a H&A (and of course size matters). So I am conflicted, but I think the best choice will eventually be a 3 ct stone with good but not superb LP.

When I say well-cut, I mean good LP, independent of the style. When I say modern, I mean "not vintage", with more little flashes, but not crushed ice.

That SC H&A you linked is really nice and meets all my requirements. Of course 3 ct is important to her, but this stone would still be a good fit. I have an important question about H&A though. I spoke to a vendor whom a friend referred me to and said I could trust (not one of CCL's favorites). He was very negative about H&A and ASET images. He specifically said he thought H&A stones were cut to specific imaging requirements but could have better LP if cut just to be beautiful, regardless of imaging. Who besides GOG would be a good source of H&A cushions, if I go that route?

Thanks everyone!

 

[athenaworth]

I know that this is a bit over your budget, but I've always been madly in love with this one: http://goodoldgold.com/diamond/7145/ It's so hefty, almost perfectly square, and to me the color in it is divine. Just some food for thought.

Sorry, I'm not an expert at anything else, just what I love and wish I had.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Thanks for the video. I liked 4, 5, and 8. 6 seemed good but she wants square. I had a hard time choosing between 4, 5, and 8, and honestly I have a hard time in person saying one stone looks better than another. She is even less discerning with her eyes than me, but she likes the idea of having a H&A (and of course size matters). So I am conflicted, but I think the best choice will eventually be a 3 ct stone with good but not superb LP.

When I say well-cut, I mean good LP, independent of the style. When I say modern, I mean "not vintage", with more little flashes, but not crushed ice.

That SC H&A you linked is really nice and meets all my requirements. Of course 3 ct is important to her, but this stone would still be a good fit. I have an important question about H&A though. I spoke to a vendor whom a friend referred me to and said I could trust (not one of CCL's favorites). He was very negative about H&A and ASET images.

Traditional vendors don't select diamonds based on their light performance and will use subjective terms like "beautiful" so that you can't make a comparison of what they are pushing to stones you can find from other vendors. Really whether they know it or not they are hiding the fact that their "beautiful" stones are actually cut preserving more weight and should be cheaper per carat. When you remove light performance and the tools that measure them, its very easy for vendors and dealers to "sell" you on what they think you should find beautiful, until you have educated your eyes you may be blissfully unaware of how brilliant a top performing cushion really is.

Diamond trade often talk about brand premium , an even greater factor is weight premium. Hearts and arrows rounds are one of the least efficient ways of cutting the rough to preserve weight, consequently, they are the most expensive.

The SCHA is cut very similarly to a round and is one of the most expensive cushions per carat. Not only is a lot of rough cut away to make those exact proportions but the girdle has to be made square which involves additional weight loss.

He specifically said he thought H&A stones were cut to specific imaging requirements but could have better LP if cut just to be beautiful, regardless of imaging. Who besides GOG would be a good source of H&A cushions, if I go that route?

Thanks everyone!

At this time #4 the SCHA is readily available at GOG, WF, Geoffrey's in California and Jogia diamonds in Australia.
#5 is hard to find these days although ERD, GOG or WF might be able to find one.
#6 ERD had some recently, but if you want square I don't suggest this as a viable option.
#8 In a near square outline is very difficult to find especially with top optics but if anyone could find one I would suggest Jon at GOG.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Thanks for the video. I liked 4, 5, and 8. 6 seemed good but she wants square. I had a hard time choosing between 4, 5, and 8, and honestly I have a hard time in person saying one stone looks better than another. She is even less discerning with her eyes than me, but she likes the idea of having a H&A (and of course size matters). So I am conflicted, but I think the best choice will eventually be a 3 ct stone with good but not superb LP.

When I say well-cut, I mean good LP, independent of the style. When I say modern, I mean "not vintage", with more little flashes, but not crushed ice.

That SC H&A you linked is really nice and meets all my requirements. Of course 3 ct is important to her, but this stone would still be a good fit. I have an important question about H&A though. I spoke to a vendor whom a friend referred me to and said I could trust (not one of CCL's favorites). He was very negative about H&A and ASET images. He specifically said he thought H&A stones were cut to specific imaging requirements but could have better LP if cut just to be beautiful, regardless of imaging. Who besides GOG would be a good source of H&A cushions, if I go that route?

Thanks everyone!

Interesting statement Acrata. It makes sense that if a seller is selecting specifically for H&A patterning, that might outweigh other factors that some people might find more beautiful

One thing to keep in mind is that what is described as "Light Performance" is only an opinion. There is no industry accepted "standard" for light performance in in cushion diamonds.
by all means, if one wants H&A, go for it- but it's not a given that such stones are "better" than other stones which do not exhibit such patterning.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Thanks for the video. I liked 4, 5, and 8. 6 seemed good but she wants square. I had a hard time choosing between 4, 5, and 8, and honestly I have a hard time in person saying one stone looks better than another. She is even less discerning with her eyes than me, but she likes the idea of having a H&A (and of course size matters). So I am conflicted, but I think the best choice will eventually be a 3 ct stone with good but not superb LP.

When I say well-cut, I mean good LP, independent of the style. When I say modern, I mean "not vintage", with more little flashes, but not crushed ice.

That SC H&A you linked is really nice and meets all my requirements. Of course 3 ct is important to her, but this stone would still be a good fit. I have an important question about H&A though. I spoke to a vendor whom a friend referred me to and said I could trust (not one of CCL's favorites). He was very negative about H&A and ASET images. He specifically said he thought H&A stones were cut to specific imaging requirements but could have better LP if cut just to be beautiful, regardless of imaging. Who besides GOG would be a good source of H&A cushions, if I go that route?

Thanks everyone!

There are no sellers of rounds or cushions who select specifically for high standards in HA patterning and not light performance that is asinine.

There are also no cutters today who only cut for HA pattern and ignore ideal tolk proportions.

Usually these arguments are made by trade who don't sell H&A diamonds to try to misdirect consumers to what they sell.

I challenge any trademember to show me a cushion or round which passes the hearts and arrows optical standards set by HRD Lab Antwerp that doesn't also have near tolk proportions and excellent light performance. They just don't exist, cutters are too smart to sacrifice weight to go for one and not the other.

A very good comparison of the two types of cushions, one optimized for brightness and fire (SCHA) versus an 8 main with the same pavilion design structure but where more weight was preserved and symmetry and light performance wasn't as as perfect can be found below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vh0ad6dsDRk&fmt=22 (SCHA Bottom Left, 8 Main Thin Bottom Right).
http://www.vimeo.com/9188543 (1st diamond on left 8 main thin, 2nd diamond on left SCHA)

SCHA are all sent to American Gem Society Laboratory(AGSL) a top tier lab for light performance grading and are the only cushion that gets the highest AGS 0 grading.

As a consumer if you like the appearance of SCHA I would see one in person beside another cushion and judge for yourself if the price premium is justified, but I would ignore self serving dealers who pretend these are not cut to maximize light performance and beauty.

I will trust grading laboratories like HRD and AGSL over any self serving diamond dealer everytime.

 

[Acrata]

I appreciate the input. I too seek objective cut quality measures such as AGS grading and ASET, but it's difficult because not everybody agrees to them.

I spoke to the traditional dealer again. He has presented a 3 ct I SI2 for $25k (stone only). I think it'll be impossible to get a 3 ct SCHA for less than $30k. I believe that SCHA will outperform any other cushion, but I am willing to trade some LP for size. The dealer showed me the stone in person, but I don't have a good eye for LP. What should I do to evaluate? Send it to an appraiser who can take an ASET image? Or send it and a SCHA to one appraiser whom I can visit in person to compare side by side? What other options are there?

Also, any other advice about whether I should buy the 3 ct I saw? I believe the traditional dealer is honest, but he has never even heard of SCHA before. That doesn't mean it's definitely a bad diamond though.

 

[slg47]

perhaps you can order a SCHA to be sent to you to see if you like it, and then take it to your local guy and compare?

Or you can try watching some of the videos that CCL posted to help narrow down your preferences a bit?

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

I appreciate the input. I too seek objective cut quality measures such as AGS grading and ASET, but it's difficult because not everybody agrees to them.

I spoke to the traditional dealer again. He has presented a 3 ct I SI2 for $25k (stone only). I think it'll be impossible to get a 3 ct SCHA for less than $30k.

Post the GIA certificate number and exact weight and I can look it up.
Carat weight is not as useful as actual faceup dimensions.
A 3CT SI2 may not be eye clean and you should definitely check it out up close in a variety of lighting (low, outside, natural, indoor etc) to make sure both the color and clarity are acceptable to you).

I believe that SCHA will outperform any other cushion, but I am willing to trade some LP for size.

Alternative to top performance that are good middle of the road, would be the vintage 8 main generic, 8 main thin and 4 main CB. They will all be significantly cheaper than a SCHA but are a a little harder to find. You really need to work with a vendor who is well versed in different types of cushions if you want to select one with decent LP

The dealer showed me the stone in person, but I don't have a good eye for LP. What should I do to evaluate? Send it to an appraiser who can take an ASET image? Or send it and a SCHA to one appraiser whom I can visit in person to compare side by side? What other options are there?

I think the side by side in person is the best option. But alternative to that purchasing an ASET for yourself is an option, or sending it to an appraisor who has one will be helpful. If your vendor has access to a sarin machine they could get a .srn file for us and I can generate an ASET for you from the scan.

Also, any other advice about whether I should buy the 3 ct I saw? I believe the traditional dealer is honest, but he has never even heard of SCHA before. That doesn't mean it's definitely a bad diamond though.

Can you get out to Geoffrey's in Santa Monica? They have SCHAs.
The real key here is educating your eyes, you never know, maybe the standard crushed ice in a larger faceup size is preferable to you , seeing stones in person is crucial to making an informed decision. While your dealer may be honest he just doesn't seem like a good fit for someone with potentially more descriminating and informed tastes than theirs.

 

[Acrata]

GIA 5121450685. 8.41 x 7.99 mm. Faces up pretty large.

I saw a crushed ice stone when I was there, and I didn't like it in person. He may be selecting good LP or he may not. It is hard to tell. He had not heard of SCHA at all, but he had heard of H&A rounds. Is there a consensus that H&A rounds outperform all other rounds? Or is there some controversy? He was explicitly negative about H&A rounds.

I am in NY, NY, so I cannot visit Geoffrey's. Any other ideas? GOG is a bit far away in Long Island.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

GIA 5121450685. 8.41 x 7.99 mm. Faces up pretty large.

I saw a crushed ice stone when I was there, and I didn't like it in person. He may be selecting good LP or he may not. It is hard to tell. He had not heard of SCHA at all, but he had heard of H&A rounds. Is there a consensus that H&A rounds outperform all other rounds? Or is there some controversy? He was explicitly negative about H&A rounds.

I am in NY, NY, so I cannot visit Geoffrey's. Any other ideas? GOG is a bit far away in Long Island.

ERD in Manhattan, Leon Mege/Perry In Manhattan and GOG is a train ride out to long island, for a 25k purchase I think it would be better to explore your options. Call them all beforehand to give them your specs so they will have stones ready for you.

Honestly I'm surprised that stone you listed isn't of the crushed ice appearance, it doesn't faceup large for its weight nor do I find it is priced well either. I think you can do better and certainly should educate your eyes a little first.

 

[Acrata]

Thanks CCL. I already visited ERD, but his selection doesn't fit my needs very well. He had a decent vintage cut, but I am going more for modern cut now.

Does anybody else have an opinion about this 3 ct stone? Would everyone agree that it's not a good choice? (I believe you are knowledgeable, CCL, but part of why I posted on the forum was to get multiple opinions.)

Edit: I have another question for you, CCL, if you don't mind. Would your opinion on this 3 ct be different if ERD were presenting it to me? Thanks!

 

[Rhino]

Hey CCL,

Just a note on this comment.

There are also no cutters today who only cut for HA pattern and ignore ideal tolk proportions.

There is actually. There are cutting facilities who do have very talented cutters when it comes to craftsmanship but the cheif/head cutter, while caring about craftsmanship also cares about maintaining weight when they can. Depending on the inventories you browse among PS vendors there are those of us who do weed out the leakers and for the most part the consumers here do not see them but they are certainly out there. In fact even facilities cutting branded H&A have their share of leakers.

It doesn't seem to make sense that they'd shoot for one goal and not the other but there are still people who don't understand that craftsmanship and light performance are two seperate issues.

Regards,

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Hey CCL,

Just a note on this comment.

There are also no cutters today who only cut for HA pattern and ignore ideal tolk proportions.

There is actually. There are cutting facilities who do have very talented cutters when it comes to craftsmanship but the cheif/head cutter, while caring about craftsmanship also cares about maintaining weight when they can. Depending on the inventories you browse among PS vendors there are those of us who do weed out the leakers and for the most part the consumers here do not see them but they are certainly out there. In fact even facilities cutting branded H&A have their share of leakers.

It doesn't seem to make sense that they'd shoot for one goal and not the other but there are still people who don't understand that craftsmanship and light performance are two seperate issues.

Regards,

Rhino,

Nice to see you back in the threads my friend I think it really improves the quality of content when you are here.
As you are fond of saying please prove it with an example. We are in agreement that not all passable H&A round diamonds are created equal but that is a whole other discussion that really focusses on rounds not fancy shapes.

Due to the rules changes here you are able to post photographs and images more easily, just don't make any references to a for sale item.
I think you will agree with me when I say hearts and arrows by the strict definition of HRD and BG's article requires almost near tolk parameters to begin with. HRD Guidelines

First LGF can only be in the 75 - 83% range.
The Crown angles cannot be much more than 35 degrees and the pavilion cannot be steeper than about 41 degrees to satisfy the requirements in the first place.

It is in "Near H&A" not selected by a strict vendor for their brand or graded by HRD with some assymetry where this can happen but then again I don't even consider those cutting for the pattern because it doesn't fit the strict standards. When I reccomend you as a vendor it is precisely because you can demonstrate the seperation of the real SCHA from the "Fakers" using videos and reflector technology.

But feel free to prove me wrong, please show me a stone with passable hearts and arrows in your opinion that deviates substantially from near tolk proportions or one with passable HA but with poor optical performance.

The gauntlet has been thrown down and I hope it is answered with vigor.

 

[Rockdiamond]

GIA 5121450685. 8.41 x 7.99 mm. Faces up pretty large.

I saw a crushed ice stone when I was there, and I didn't like it in person. He may be selecting good LP or he may not. It is hard to tell. He had not heard of SCHA at all, but he had heard of H&A rounds. Is there a consensus that H&A rounds outperform all other rounds? Or is there some controversy? He was explicitly negative about H&A rounds.

I am in NY, NY, so I cannot visit Geoffrey's. Any other ideas? GOG is a bit far away in Long Island.

Hi Arcata,
the consensus is that H&A can not be described as "better" than non H&A for that reason alone.
This statement is true for fancy shapes, as well as rounds.
A fair percentage of diamond lovers don't like the H&A patterning.
Having said that, if you're a lover of the patterning, negative comments about H&A made by a seller are misplaced IMO

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

GIA 5121450685. 8.41 x 7.99 mm. Faces up pretty large.

I saw a crushed ice stone when I was there, and I didn't like it in person. He may be selecting good LP or he may not. It is hard to tell. He had not heard of SCHA at all, but he had heard of H&A rounds. Is there a consensus that H&A rounds outperform all other rounds? Or is there some controversy? He was explicitly negative about H&A rounds.

I am in NY, NY, so I cannot visit Geoffrey's. Any other ideas? GOG is a bit far away in Long Island.

Hi Arcata,
the consensus is that H&A can not be described as "better" than non H&A for that reason alone.

No Rockdiamond that is not a consensus on Pricescope at all. There is rallying support(still far from consensus) for the theory that a round with Ideal tolk proportions that doesn't satisfy Hearts and Arrows optical symmetry but may be close can be just as beautiful as one that does. This theory explicitly assumes that both have ideal tolk or very near ideal tolk proportions. Yssie is a strong supporter of this theory along with a few others.

You are the only trade member I have read, who still claims that rounds with no patterning or selection for proportions are equal in light performance or beauty to ideal tolk HA diamonds. It is a tough position to support and you have made little headway in your crusade because the market does not price the stones you like (60/60 without descriminating further on proportions) as compared to the HA stones. The exact opposite it true, the stones you like and their varying standards can be bought wholesale for significantly cheaper than branded HA stones or AGS 0 ideal stones.

This statement is true for fancy shapes, as well as rounds.

The problem with the statement on Fancy shapes is that you can't back it up with a comparison of top performing SCHA versus top performing non patterned nor can this OPs vendor, while other vendors can.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Unless I'm mistaken ccl, the op asked for a range of opinions.

Arcata-

GIA 5121450685. 8.41 x 7.99 mm. Faces up pretty large.

I saw a crushed ice stone when I was there, and I didn't like it in person. He may be selecting good LP or he may not. It is hard to tell. He had not heard of SCHA at all, but he had heard of H&A rounds. Is there a consensus that H&A rounds outperform all other rounds? Or is there some controversy? He was explicitly negative about H&A rounds.

I am in NY, NY, so I cannot visit Geoffrey's. Any other ideas? GOG is a bit far away in Long Island.

Hi Arcata,
the trade consensus is that H&A can not be described as "better" than non H&A for that reason alone.
This statement is true for fancy shapes, as well as rounds.
A fair percentage of diamond lovers don't like the H&A patterning.
Having said that, if you're a lover of the patterning, negative comments about H&A made by a seller are misplaced IMO

I will add one word to my statement ( the italicized word "trade")

 

[Rhino]

haha... well if its H&A cut with no greater than 35/41 then there should be minimal suffering in the dept of light performance. My point was that there are H&A diamonds on the market that do not have what I would consider top tier performance. Your statement was a blanket statement and absolute and not considering genuine H&A that are overtly painted or dug.

 

[Rhino]

GIA 5121450685. 8.41 x 7.99 mm. Faces up pretty large.

I saw a crushed ice stone when I was there, and I didn't like it in person. He may be selecting good LP or he may not. It is hard to tell. He had not heard of SCHA at all, but he had heard of H&A rounds. Is there a consensus that H&A rounds outperform all other rounds? Or is there some controversy? He was explicitly negative about H&A rounds.

I am in NY, NY, so I cannot visit Geoffrey's. Any other ideas? GOG is a bit far away in Long Island.

Hi Arcata,
the consensus is that H&A can not be described as "better" than non H&A for that reason alone.
This statement is true for fancy shapes, as well as rounds.
A fair percentage of diamond lovers don't like the H&A patterning.
Having said that, if you're a lover of the patterning, negative comments about H&A made by a seller are misplaced IMO

Hi Dave,

While I would agree wiith you that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, "better" is a word that can be used for H&A in a definite sense and from a purely mathematical standpoint. Ie. H&A diamonds, even if you weren't observing the perfection of their optical symmetry under an H&A viewer (visible in less than 1% of diamonds) but looking strictly at a Report showing the numerical details of the cut (ie. every facet angle, deviation like on a Helium Report) H&A's show demonstrateably superior precision over non H&A diamonds and in that sense are cut to much "better" precision. H&A demonstrates that better precision and the numbers confirm it.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

haha... well if its H&A cut with no greater than 35/41 then there should be minimal suffering in the dept of light performance. My point was that there are H&A diamonds on the market that do not have what I would consider top tier performance. Your statement was a blanket statement and absolute and not considering genuine H&A that are overtly painted or dug.

I know you archive material like this no examples?
Other than Eighstar which does not satisfy HA (LGF 70%) I know of no brand with consistant optical symmetry standards( generic or branded) with overtly painted or dug out girdles that also satisfies strict HA pattern standards. Do you?

It should be noted as well that painted or dug out girdles affect the pattern (ie shoulder of the hearts) so if too severe they would not by definition satisfy the HA pattern criteria. See HRD guidelines.

 

[Rhino]

Here you go.

This picture perfect H&A neither makes GIA Ex or AGS Ideal light performance and falls precisely within the tolerances you mention.

 

[Rhino]

haha... well if its H&A cut with no greater than 35/41 then there should be minimal suffering in the dept of light performance. My point was that there are H&A diamonds on the market that do not have what I would consider top tier performance. Your statement was a blanket statement and absolute and not considering genuine H&A that are overtly painted or dug.

I know you archive material like this no examples?
Other than Eighstar which does not satisfy HA (LGF 70%) I know of no brand with consistant optical symmetry standards( generic or branded) with overtly painted or dug out girdles that also satisfies strict HA pattern standards. Do you?

It should be noted as well that painted or dug out girdles affect the pattern (ie shoulder of the hearts) so if too severe they would not by definition satisfy the HA pattern criteria. See HRD guidelines.

99% of the time I don't spend the time of day with them really except for the occasional one we'll scan for learning purposes like the example above. Of course H&A images, an IdealScope and a Sarin aren't enough to see what is wrong with the above diamond. This helps though.

 

[sillyberry]

This thread seems like a good one to "break off" as the discussion has turned far away from helping the OP find a cushion...

 

[Rhino]

definitely silly. My apologies as this should have been taken into another thread. We'll blame CCL.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Rhino,

The example you posted is from here http://www.goodoldgold.com/Painting/ you posted that quite a while ago was that even before the AGS-PGS grading system?

In any case the dugout example was deliberately done to save weight(probably near a carat of half carat boundary) before it would be penalized by GIA. Now that it would, cutters no longer do that deliberately to save weight as losing the cut grade makes as big a difference as the weight gained.

That is still near tolk proportions except for the dugout crown and pavilion!

As for HA not perfect hearts and arrows:

1) Cleft in some hearts
2) Non uniform coloration
3) Assymetrical heart points
4) Non uniform distance from heart and v
5) Variation in shoulder width at 6 o’clock

The hearts would possibly be accepted those are all minor deductions.

The arrows would would be rejected. Clustering (the white part) in between arrows is too dense and bright HRD would most likely reject in that one category or heavily penalize enough that any minor deductions would lead to overall reject.

This diamond does not satisfy HA, but it is near tolk in proportions.

Anyway lets stick to Fancy shape discussion and help the OP.

 

[ChunkyCushionLover]

Thanks CCL. I already visited ERD, but his selection doesn't fit my needs very well. He had a decent vintage cut, but I am going more for modern cut now.

Does anybody else have an opinion about this 3 ct stone? Would everyone agree that it's not a good choice? (I believe you are knowledgeable, CCL, but part of why I posted on the forum was to get multiple opinions.)

Edit: I have another question for you, CCL, if you don't mind. Would your opinion on this 3 ct be different if ERD were presenting it to me? Thanks!

I don't make subjective judgements based on the vendor I prefer objective tests like the grading report and ASET images upon which to give advice about the LP and cut quality of a stone. If you want a modern cushion brilliant with medium sized virtual facets and flashes tell the vendors this so that they can pull in stones that are most likely to be what you are seeking. All the vendors I mentioned have been known to sell customers modern cushion brilliants as well.

This is the stone http://www2.gia.edu/reportcheck/ind...tVerification&reportno=5121450685&weight=3.01 you are considering. (pasted so that other can comment)

It has has many red flags and doesn't show promise from the grading report. That doesn't mean someone won't find it beautiful but if the emphasis is on LP I see this stone for what it is, cut much more to preserve weight than to maximize light performance and beauty.

1) It is a Cushion Modified Brilliant, with smaller pavilion facets that lead to smaller flashes of light. Stones of this type often exhibit a crushed ice look.
2) It has thick to extremely thick girdle which can hurt light performance and from the dimensions it has reduced its faceup size.
3) It has a large table(69%) and short crown which is not optimal for returning overhead light to the viewer.
4) It is an I SI2 and I have seen similary priced more promising stones I VS2 http://www.bluenile.ca/diamond-sear...ead#certViewer_cert_pid=LD01661495|cert_num=1 which lead me to beleive it is simply not a good deal even for what it is.

 

[Acrata]

CCL, thanks for the detailed commentary on the certificate. Do other people agree with the assessment that it is unlikely to have good (or even decent) LP?

I don't mind the discussion about H&A rounds, since I asked if there was a consensus about them. How about SCHA? Is there any consensus about whether they consistently outperform other cushions? SCHA "fakers" were mentioned. Are they labeled as SCHA or not? Do I need to be concerned that some SCHAs are poorly cut?

I don't demand a patterned look, but I don't dislike it. I don't like crushed ice because it looks chaotic to me and the flashes are too small. The diamond we've discussed did not look like crushed ice to me. I believe there are stones that are neither obviously patterned nor crushed ice, and these would be fine for my needs. Do these diamonds exist, or am I confused?

 

[Rockdiamond]

GIA 5121450685. 8.41 x 7.99 mm. Faces up pretty large.

I saw a crushed ice stone when I was there, and I didn't like it in person. He may be selecting good LP or he may not. It is hard to tell. He had not heard of SCHA at all, but he had heard of H&A rounds. Is there a consensus that H&A rounds outperform all other rounds? Or is there some controversy? He was explicitly negative about H&A rounds.

I am in NY, NY, so I cannot visit Geoffrey's. Any other ideas? GOG is a bit far away in Long Island.

Hi Arcata,
the consensus is that H&A can not be described as "better" than non H&A for that reason alone.
This statement is true for fancy shapes, as well as rounds.
A fair percentage of diamond lovers don't like the H&A patterning.
Having said that, if you're a lover of the patterning, negative comments about H&A made by a seller are misplaced IMO

Hi Dave,

While I would agree wiith you that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, "better" is a word that can be used for H&A in a definite sense and from a purely mathematical standpoint. Ie. H&A diamonds, even if you weren't observing the perfection of their optical symmetry under an H&A viewer (visible in less than 1% of diamonds) but looking strictly at a Report showing the numerical details of the cut (ie. every facet angle, deviation like on a Helium Report) H&A's show demonstrateably superior precision over non H&A diamonds and in that sense are cut to much "better" precision. H&A demonstrates that better precision and the numbers confirm it.

Hi Jon,
As I've already mentioned, sellers who degrade H&A because it does not match what they like best are stepping over a line IMO, I'm sure you'd agree
If one is not looking for patterns- or specifically, looking for lack of patterns, then H&A stones may be mathematically superior, yet less desirable.
There's a lot of consumers, as well as knowledgeable diamond cutters and graders who also feel this way.
This thread is supposed to be about cushions- and GIA does not grade the cut of cushions.
However they do grade the cut of rounds, and stones with no patterning are graded "EX" making them as well cut ( in the eyes of GIA) as stones exhibiting H&A.
GIA is the most widely respected and widely accepted body in gemology- again, I'm sure you'll agree with that.
Your point about being able to show optical symmetry is mathematically "better" is well taken though.

Arcata- yes- there are stones in between. That is to say, show larger flashes, and yet not H&A
From my perspective, the term "performance" in this context, can only be subjective.
For example some people will feel that a stone's surface area is more important as a matter of performance- IOW, if we look at two stones of equal weight, one having "perfect optical symmetry", one not- but the one without the H&A may have a larger spread ( looks bigger) and will be seen to "outperform" the H&A stone- especially if one is not looking for that particular pattern