How important is girdle thickness for a tension set ring?
Click to view full-size image.
Related topics
- Is girdle thickness really important?
- Is Girdle thickness that important?
- How important is girdle thickness?
- Bob’s Flashes - Girdle Thickness – how important is it?
- Asscher Girdle Thickness - How important is it??
- thickness of tension settings
- girdle thickness
- Girdle Thickness
- Girdle thickness
- Girdle thickness
|
|
|
|
by Garry H (Cut Nut) » October 24th, 2006, 2:47 pm
I would prefer slightly thick - and even thick can look very nice from the side - and sometimes there are some Thicks that are bargains.
Medium is not very thick from a damage point of view. SI''s that have spread out rather than concentrated inclusions can be OK from the side view
Garry Holloway FGAA DipDT
HCA and Ideal-scope developer http://www.ideal-scope.com and http://www.HollowayDiamonds.com.au |
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Gary. The issue for me seems to be that it''s tough to find a medium to slightly thick or slightly thick girdle given the other specs I''m looking for in the stone. When I search limiting to my other ideal specs, I seem to be able to find more stones in the range of thin/slightly thin to medium - perhaps about 10 times as many of those as of the medium to slightly thick variety. I''m beginning to wonder whether what I''m looking for in other aspects of the diamond may be in conflict with what is a preferred girdle thickness for a tension set ring. How I''ve been searching:
1. Round, limitiing candidates to AGS000 or GIA equivalent 2. VS2 or VS1, preference for VS2 for budget reasons 3. GHI, preference for H since that fits within budget 4. 1.2-1.3 carats; this is where the most "wiggle" room is 5. Using HCA (thank you!) to ensure <2 for consideration When I search using the above, the majority of what I find are in the thing/slightly thin to medium range. Are these absolute no-go''s in terms of a tension setting? Any further thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks... |
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Julie. I''ve seen the one in the link above in my searching (I''ve been all over places like niceice, whiteflash, uniondiamond, goodoldgold, etc.), and the G takes it out of my price range. I''m looking at trying to keep it to 8K or under. If it was an H, and ideally a little bit bigger (1.25-1.3), it might do the trick.
I don''t mean to imply that stones with the specs I laid out above don''t exist, since I have found a few - but none that truly "spoke" to me - at least not yet. It just seems that when I search, a large majority of the ones I find end up being on the thinner side of girdle size rather than thicker. And apparently, this is a no-go in terms of tension-set rings (unless someone can say otherwise here?). Absolute ideal stone, at least in terms of specs prior to evaluating it with my eyes: AGS000 or GIA equivalent, incluing ideal polish, symmetry, no flourescence HCA near 1, at least <2 H color VS2 clarity with no surface inclusions/weaknesses higher 1.2''s in terms of size medium or slightly thick girdle <$8K There is one from whiteflash that I''ve had "bookmarked" for a bit, here: http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-78304.htm# It seems to fit all my specs, except it''s not listed as an ACA stone, but as a "regular" 4-star ideal cut, and I''m not sure why since it seems to fit in all other respects. "Ideally" - no pun intended, of course :) -, I don''t want to sacrifice on the cut, so I''ve been wary of pursuing this. Anyone have any ideas? |
