Help: Perfect Pear Dimensions???

[boyce89976]

Hi all, new to the forum... wish I''''d known about it 9 years ago when I got married!

My wife''''s original diamond was "lost" about 3 months ago, and I''''m working on a replacement through the insurance company. The company I have to use is a long way away, so seeing the stones in person is out of the question.

Her original stone was .71c, D color, VS1 clarity, I don''''t know the dimensions off-hand, but I know it was cut shallow so it looked more like a .9 - 1.0c stone.

I don''''t want a short/fat stone, or a long/skinny stone but want one that fits somewhere in between. What length to width ratio''''s should I be looking for? Also, how important is depth?

The two stones in question are:

10.11 X 5.95 with a depth of 49.4%
8.08 X 5.60 with a depth of 68.9%

Both are 1.01 - 1.02c in size.

Would either of these be acceptable shapes, close to optimum for a pear?

Thanks in advance!

 

[aphisiglovessae]

You might want to post this in Rocky Talky. You''ll probably get a lot more responses there.

 

[FireGoddess]

Stone 1 has a l to w of 1.69. The stone will be more elongated, but still within trade preference. The depth is WAY too shallow.

Stone 2 has a l to w of 1.44. This pear will be chunky - more short and fat - outside of trade preference range starting at l to w of 1.5 and the depth is pretty deep (more than preferred).

I will attach the gemappraisers.com chart to help you with numbers - you also want to avoid a prominent bowtie which will give you a dark region in the middle of the stone. You need to see the stones to see this - I can''t predict by numbers alone whether the stone will have prominent bowtie or not.

 

[FireGoddess]

Here ya go. BTW, the l to w on my stone is about 1.5. Diamondlil''s stone (do a quick search for her name and the word pear - you''ll see her threads) l to w is 1.67 - longer/thinner ratio than mine.

 

[boyce89976]

Thanks for the help, Firegoddess! When you say "stone 1 is WAY too shallow", what role does the depth of a stone play? What would I be giving up going with that stone?

Thanks again!

 

[websailor]

Also check out cflutist''s pear....shouldn''t be too hard to find...

Some people think it''s got a nice shape

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/31/2006 3:51:39 PM
Author: boyce89976


Thanks for the help, Firegoddess! When you say ''stone 1 is WAY too shallow'', what role does the depth of a stone play? What would I be giving up going with that stone?

It would be rather dull and darker if set in anything but a very open setting (thing a dangling earring rather than ring).

Sure enough, some of these shallow cut diamonds look better than other, but I doubt you would not find it a tad disappointing compared to a brighter one with more traditional proportions.

On the other hand, the other is quite deep ... which means it would be a tad smaller than other of comparable weight. And shorter pears look somewhat smaller too - double whammy.


Strange pair you''ve got to choose from - one extremely long and thin, the other extremely short and deep. You could have hardly found two more different!

Not sure what I''d choose if these were the only two options for some reason. By all means, I''d want to see them first. Even if the numbers would be the most ''perfect'' by any chart

If having them in front is not possible, good pictures and IdealScope or ASET images would do it for me as well

 

[FireGoddess]

Ditto to what Ana said. I too would be hard pressed to choose one of the above without seeing them...the shallow one could be rather lifeless or could look good and have great spread. The deeper one could face up small for its carat weight but be quite lively. Hard to say without seeing them.

cflutist hasn''t been around as much lately but her pear not only has a nice outline - it''s stunning.

 

[boyce89976]

Thanks for the help, everyone! I''ll try to get more info.

I also have the option of a G, VS2 with nearly perfect dimensions, but we were hoping for a D.

 

[FireGoddess]

If the G has all the numbers and things you''re looking for except for the fact that it''s a G instead of a D, it''s worth a look. I have a D, but I''d go down to a G, especially if it''s got any blue fluor. It''s worth a look. You''re still at the top end of near colorless.