My colleagues say that I''''m nut...

[belle]

it is set in rose gold

 

[Maxine]

Thanks, Belle....love that ring....!!!

 

[Stephan]

Wow!
A lot happened while I was sleeping!
Thank you all for your answers!
Thank you Belle for posting my asscher ring.
No, it isn't tension set, it is a half-bezel setting.

Date: 8/30/2005 7:12:55 PM
Author: Thegroom
Size is obviously a major difference, but does JohnQuixote or anyone else have a comment on the significant difference in crown height/angle between the two stones (14.7/34.1 vs. 15.7/34.9) and how that may effect their appearances?

It's funny to see people think that with a higher crown you will have more fire.
It isn't that easy.
We also have to know the table size, the pavilion depth and the minor facets.
And, more fire, but in what kind of lighting?
I have a little 0.64ct that kills my 1.15ct H&A (Millenium diamond) under direct lighting.
From a distance, it even looks bigger and has a faster scintiliation.
The diamond is HRD certed: Depth 59.5% Table 58% Pav 43% Crown 14%.
I can't find the arrow pattern (they are thin) but the heart pattern is almost perfect.
The Millenium diamond is a perfect H&A and look awesome, but if we talk about fire under direct lighting, it isn't as good as the 0.64ct and it look darker under halogene.

I'm very curious to see a new line ACA and to know if I like them or if I prefer a classic one.
It's certain that under diffuse lighting, they are KILLERS.
Look at Mara's diamond (Expert Selection but it really looks like a perfect new line ACA).
Her pictures in diffuse lighting tell us the beauty of a new line ACA.

What's also funny with this new line: how does Whiteflash achieve to create so shallow diamonds?
Am I wrong by saying that a classic one with the same P/C angles than a new line would be deeper (total depth)?

 

[Stephan]

In matter of fire, I think the most of us prefer a lot of intense blue.
I really don''t like diamonds with a lot of orange and even white fire.

 

[belle]

Date: 8/31/2005 1:51:13 AM
Author: QueenMum
I''m very curious to see a new line ACA and to know if I like them or if I prefer a classic one.
It''s certain that under diffuse lighting, they are KILLERS.
Look at Mara''s diamond (Expert Selection but it really looks like a perfect new line ACA).
Her pictures in diffuse lighting tell us the beauty of a new line ACA.

What''s also funny with this new line: how does Whiteflash achieve to create so shallow diamonds?
Am I wrong by saying that a classic one with the same P/C angles than a new line would be deeper (total depth)?

interesting questions...i hope that when you are in houston you will have a chance to discuss these things with brian and that you will return to tell us of your observations and preferences. i would love to hear all about it!

 

[Stephan]

Here is another candidate, but it I''m not sure I''ll see it because I don''t know if Whiteflash will have it on Monday, and if it''s correct to buy that one because this purchase is an upgrade and this diamond doesn''t belong to WF.
Whatever here are the stats:
GIA VG/VG 2.01ct I-VVS1
Girdle TN-M fac.
No culet, fluorescence and no comments.
Sarin :
Diameter 8.32mm (8.31-8.34)
Depth 4.84mm (58.1%)
Table 4.83mm (58.1%) funny hey?
Crown 31.9° (31.8°-32.0° (13.1%))
Pavilion 40.4° (40.1°-40.7° (42.3%))
Culet 0.5% Very Small
Girdle 1.6% (or 1.5%?) (1.0%-1.9%)
No minor facet information, but this stone should be a ''medium'' performer under diffuse light,
but it could also be a winner under halogene in matter of fire.
It would be cool if I also can see this one!
I didn''t know that 3 September was Labor Day, but Brian will meet me!

The Whiteflash team is a class act!

 

[Diamonds4Me]

Hmm..I could have sworn I posted to this earlier this morning.

Anyway, I chose number 2. The reason being..and this is just me..there is something about the way the IS image on the second one speaks to me. Its as if it has a tighter pattern in it. More uniform or organized (

). I really can''t describe it because I don''t know enough about it so I''m just using my eyes. But if it were me and I were choosing sight unseen I would go with that one first. Then it would be all about how it looks in person.

Sorry if this makes no sense...I''m just now gathering the courage to peek over into this area of the forum

 

[Stephan]

Thank you Diamonds4Me!
The IS of nr 2 has something magic, I agree...

 

[Stephan]

Date: 8/31/2005 1:19:23 PM
Author: QueenMum
Here is another candidate, but it I'm not sure I'll see it because I don't know if Whiteflash will have it on Monday, and if it's correct to buy that one because this purchase is an upgrade and this diamond doesn't belong to WF.
Whatever here are the stats:
GIA VG/VG 2.01ct I-VVS1
Girdle TN-M fac.
No culet, fluorescence and no comments.
Sarin :
Diameter 8.32mm (8.31-8.34)
Depth 4.84mm (58.1%)
Table 4.83mm (58.1%) funny hey?
Crown 31.9° (31.8°-32.0° (13.1%))
Pavilion 40.4° (40.1°-40.7° (42.3%))
Culet 0.5% Very Small
Girdle 1.6% (or 1.5%?) (1.0%-1.9%)
No minor facet information, but this stone should be a 'medium' performer under diffuse light,
but it could also be a winner under halogene in matter of fire.
It would be cool if I also can see this one!
I didn't know that 3 September was Labor Day, but Brian will meet me!

The Whiteflash team is a class act!

It would be nice to have some pro input on this last one...
Garry?

 

[Mara]

Stephan that last stone is not my favorite...I don''t like the shallowness of the crown angle and the pav angle seems shallow too? Just not my preference!

 

[Stephan]

Hi Mara!
It just reminds me my shallow 0.64ct that under direct lighting looks much better then all the H&A''s I''ve seen.
Just saw aljdewey''s pendant - really great fire too!

 

[Mara]

I love the slightly more shallow stones but not too much more...

My J stone now is 55 and 60.5% depth with 40.7 and 34.8 I think. Perfect stats for me. Too much more shallow and not sure I''d be lovin'' it as much.

See if WF can call that stone in?

 

[Stephan]

If Whiteflash can call it in, I hope I''ll prefer one of the 2 ACA''s.
I would feel bad to upgrade with a diamond that doesn''t belong to them.
But I also would feel bad if I don''t have the proof that ACA''s perform better than this one under halogene.

 

[Stephan]

By the way, 40.7 and 34.8 isn''t shallow.
The 60.5% depth is because your diamond is cut like a New Line I guess?

 

[Mara]

the depth is a bit shallow...crown and pav are just sweet.

 

[fire&ice]

I''m usually a size gal - but I voted #2. Something about that stone speaks to me. And, I like the I/SI parameters better in a stone this large. It''s cheaper to boot!

Either one looks great! If you prefer warmer stones, maybe the J will be in order. In the end when you see them, one will speak to you.

 

[Stephan]

Thank you all !
More votes for the number 2 now.
I''m curious if Whiteflash will call the 3rd one in.

 

[yellowfan]

Can''t wait to see your choice!

 

[moremoremore]

I chose #2. They both look like beautiful stones. I would go smaller for the higher color grade...

 

[Demelza]

I also chose #2. I was interested in that stone when I was considering an upgrade. I don't have very good reasons for picking it other than I like that the depth is less than 61%, I prefer a slightly smaller table, and the IS image looks really impressive. At the same time, the extra 1/2 carat is really nice and so is the VS1. It's a tough call. I'd be interested to hear if there is any appreciable difference in color between the I and the J.

 

[Stephan]

Date: 9/1/2005 11:13:57 AM
Author: Demelza
I also chose #2. I was interested in that stone when I was considering an upgrade. I don''t have very good reasons for picking it other than I like that the depth is less than 61%, I prefer a slightly smaller table, and the IS image looks really impressive. At the same time, the extra 1/2 carat is really nice and so is the VS1. It''s a tough call. I''d be interested to hear if there is any appreciable difference in color between the I and the J.

Number 2 should look whiter, also because of the New Line cut which gives an almost total light return.
I''m waiting a mail of Denise to know if I''ll be able to see number 3.
I''m so excited!

 

[Stephan]

I''ll beg

Whiteflash to have this setting made in
white gold without sidestones and with 4 prongs only.

 

[Stephan]

After mailing with Denise, I said her that Whiteflash doesn''t have to call number 3 in.
It makes me feel better, an ACA is certainly more valuable than this last one and I really want to buy something crafted by Whiteflash.
What do you think of this setting?
The more I look, the more I love it.

 

[belle]

ohmygosh!
stephan, that would be absolutely spectacular!

i agree, having a wf created stone would be awesome....
you might as well do it right!

can i be your court diamond oogler?

 

[Stephan]

Hehe...

Wow Belle, is it yours?
Do you have a link to the thread?
I found it in the gallery.
Is it a New Line?

 

[belle]

Date: 9/1/2005 5:35:48 PM
Author: QueenMum
Hehe...
Wow Belle, is it yours?
Do you have a link to the thread?
I found it in the gallery.
Is it a New Line?

no, no...i am just auntie belle to this one

but we are very close and i visit often.

(don't make me get out the photo album!)
here's the idealscope image....
(are you good, or what!?)

 

[valeria101]

Date: 9/1/2005 5:23:28 PM
Author: QueenMum

What do you think of this setting?

That''s precisely the sort I like and the particular... just great. You go for it!

 

[Stephan]

Thanks, Ana!

Something modern, but antique too...

Just the way to go!

 

[Maxine]

I agree re: the new setting...very elegant.....(but I do love the rose gold one, too!!)

 

[Stephan]

Wow, it''s so hot in Houston.
I have to take a shower every hour!