IGI report LG816616362

1.50 ct Cushion Laboratory-Grown Diamond

87/100 · Refined

A strong candidate on paper; confirm its light pattern in imagery.

What reads well

A 1.46:1 length-to-width ratio is outside the classic cushion range; the outline will look more elongated than typical.
Screening only: for this cushion, check images or video of the exact stone for the facet pattern (bold, chunky flashes or finer "crushed ice") and any dark areas under the table.

Table · Ideal: At 63%, the table sits within the typical 56–66% range for a cushion, balancing brightness with fire.
Total depth · Closer look: 70.2% is deeper than typical for a cushion (61–69%). Extra depth holds weight below the girdle, so the stone can face up smaller than its carat weight suggests.
Length-to-width · Favorable: A 1.46:1 outline is longer and slimmer than the classic 1–1.35:1 range for a cushion — a matter of taste, but worth seeing in person.
Polish · Ideal: Excellent polish is the top finish grade — facets are cleanly executed with nothing that would soften sparkle.
Symmetry · Ideal: Excellent symmetry is the top finish grade — facets are cleanly executed with nothing that would soften sparkle.
Girdle · Ideal: Medium to thick (faceted): a durable girdle thickness that doesn't hide meaningful weight.
Culet · Ideal: Pointed: no visible culet facet when viewed face-up.
Color · Ideal: D is in the colorless range and faces up white in any metal.
Clarity · Ideal: Flawless (FL): inclusions, if any, are only visible under magnification.
Fluorescence · Ideal: None: no meaningful effect on appearance.

With 70.2% depth, does this stone face up smaller than a typical 1.50 ct cushion?
Does this cushion produce broad, chunky flashes or small needle-like crushed-ice sparkle?
Does this HPHT-grown diamond look neutral white beside another stone in daylight, with no gray or blue cast?
Can you show me the inscribed report number under a loupe before it is set?