shape
carat
color
clarity

Need help with this diamond urgently!

kmoro

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 13, 2018
Messages
1,081
Ok think it's btw platinum vs palladium now.

Now my question is with the 6 prongs on the setting... round or clawed? I think clawed looks better but which one is more secure?

What do you guys prefer and why?

I thought that I preferred claw prongs - loved them on a setting that I had in October. For the setting I have now, I was going to ask for claw prongs, but then I thought it would be fun to see the prongs as intended by the designer, since they looked quite small ... I don’t regret it. The prongs are very tiny with a rounded end; they are very subtle and I like them as much as the claws. That experience showed me that I actually like all prongs as long as they are tiny and, as someone else mentioned, allow the diamond to be the star of the show.

One thing though: the longer that I have my current setting, the more that I’m bored with it. I thought that I wanted a solitaire with no other diamonds viewable from the top. However, the prongs are so tiny and unnoticeable that the diamond looks kinda plain sitting there in a perfect circle above a very thin band. No one can say there is anything about the setting that doesn’t make the diamond the star of the show, but I’ve come to realize that the prongs could have had some pizazz. For example, not prongs that blend into the sillouette of the round diamond, but ones that stick out a little along the parameter - like the Tiffany style settings.

My next setting is sort of a pseudo halo (never thought that I would go for such a style but I fell in love with it), and it just happens to have the claw prongs.

Not sure if that helps .... I just think that those big blob prongs are out, lol.
 

kal2021

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
585
I thought that I preferred claw prongs - loved them on a setting that I had in October. For the setting I have now, I was going to ask for claw prongs, but then I thought it would be fun to see the prongs as intended by the designer, since they looked quite small ... I don’t regret it. The prongs are very tiny with a rounded end; they are very subtle and I like them as much as the claws. That experience showed me that I actually like all prongs as long as they are tiny and, as someone else mentioned, allow the diamond to be the star of the show.

One thing though: the longer that I have my current setting, the more that I’m bored with it. I thought that I wanted a solitaire with no other diamonds viewable from the top. However, the prongs are so tiny and unnoticeable that the diamond looks kinda plain sitting there in a perfect circle above a very thin band. No one can say there is anything about the setting that doesn’t make the diamond the star of the show, but I’ve come to realize that the prongs could have had some pizazz. For example, not prongs that blend into the sillouette of the round diamond, but ones that stick out a little along the parameter - like the Tiffany style settings.

My next setting is sort of a pseudo halo (never thought that I would go for such a style but I fell in love with it), and it just happens to have the claw prongs.

Not sure if that helps .... I just think that those big blob prongs are out, lol.

This makes a lot of sense. While I also always loved claw prongs my current setting has the Tiffany like prongs and I love them because they don’t totally blend in.
 

blueMA

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
1,257
Lol! I thought I mentioned it earlier in the thread. Platinum contemporary setting (1463 WF) with 6 claw prongs. :lol:
I don't like the contemporary's bulky prongs as is but with the claw prongs customization, I think it'll look striking. I can't wait to see the result! :appl:
 

kal2021

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 21, 2010
Messages
585
Congrats! Your ring is beautiful!=)2

Thank you! I am actually going to trade the stone in for an H though. The I Color is bothering me! But the setting is perfection and the stone sparkles like crazy!
 

ACA Dia

Rough_Rock
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
16
@1amaN00b Hi, do you mind posting the pictures of 1.6 I stone along with the stone that you decided to go with? I want to see how yellow that I stone looks compared to G. Currently I'm torn between I and H stones and I am interested in that I stone.
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791
Good choices. :cool2:

In regards to the price of mens bands, I too feel they are over priced. Bulk of them is plain and round with nothing overly unique. I was looking at some that had a German finish in platinum and was $3k with no diamonds!

It always goes back to the amount of metal. I have large fingers at 12.5. Most bands I look at are 7.5 to 9mm wide. I prefer thickness in the 2.1+ range.

That's a considerable more amount of volume than a typical ladies band that is size 7 or less and usually 2.5mm or less in width and most the time 2mm max thickness.

Now consider platinum is 95% pure, where 14k is 58.3% pure (14k/24k) or that 18k is 75% pure (18k/24k). The remaining is alloyed with other metals rather that be iridium, nickel, palladium, etc. So with platinum you have less "fillers" than 14k or 18k gold.

The second element you have to consider is the density of each metal type. Ever eat a piece of cake that was light and fluffy? Or one that was more moist and heavy? This is density. The first cake weighs less than the second cake although they occupy the same size, or volume.

Platinum has a slightly higher density than gold. But when you consider the junk/fillers added to 14k and 18k variants the difference grows as generally speaking those fillers weigh considerably less than gold or platinum.

In pure form, platinum has a density of 21.4 and gold (24k) of 19.3. Not a huge variance but platinum is still heavier. But as noted earlier, 14k and 18k has fillers so 14k gold by itself has a density of 11.3 (19.3 x 58.3%), whereas 18k gold has a density of about 14.5 (19.3 x 75%). Although considerably less fillers are used, even platinum rings have some so final density of those are around 20.1.

Using density we can then multiply by cubic centimeters (cm3) to obtain grams. Then you can find market pricing for gold and platinum (normally quoted in ounces so you have to divide by 31.1 to convert to $/gram).

At this point you have a decent idea of how much gold and platinum value is in the ring. It doesn't account for the fillers, labor or markups associated with everything. Consequently this is commonly called a scrap, or melt, value of the ring.

But maybe it gives you an idea how weights and sizes matter and relate to final pricing variances between men and women rings. Unfortunatly, having scientific knowledge of the process doesn't necessarily change sticker shock feelings we sometimes associate with a purchase.

This article has a good explanation as well:

https://www.callagold.com/education/rule-of-thumb-in-calculating-the-cost-of-gold-jewelry/

And this explains densities, etc a little further while still keeping it simple:

http://www.18carat.co.uk/densityofgoldandothermetals.html
 

sledge

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Apr 23, 2018
Messages
5,791

Face up views of super ideals will look very white. To really compare, you also need a side view of the pavilion which is how diamonds are graded for color as the pavilion is where color is mostly seen.
 

1amaN00b

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
73
I have a random question about WF. I assume they resell diamonds that customers have sent back for exchange/upgrade. How do customers know if the diamond they are interested is a result of an upgrade?
 

ringo865

Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Feb 14, 2014
Messages
2,897
Ask the vendor.
 

lovedogs

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
18,033
I have a random question about WF. I assume they resell diamonds that customers have sent back for exchange/upgrade. How do customers know if the diamond they are interested is a result of an upgrade?
Ask WF. They will be honest and tell you. But I would argue it doesn't matter or affect anything about the quality of the stone, as WF gets them recertified to make sure they are in the same condition as when sold.
 

1amaN00b

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
73
Ask WF. They will be honest and tell you. But I would argue it doesn't matter or affect anything about the quality of the stone, as WF gets them recertified to make sure they are in the same condition as when sold.

Yup confirmed with WF!
 

1amaN00b

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
73
One more thing, I just noticed that the AGS report has a comment that says: Clouds not shown.

I searched on PS and read a few threads. I think this may be a concern with a SI1 stone but is this something I should be concerned about given this is a VS2 ACA stone?

Update: I was told that the clouds are so insignificant that they aren't plotted but listed under comments for completeness.
 
Last edited:

blueMA

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
1,257
One more thing, I just noticed that the AGS report has a comment that says: Clouds not shown.

I searched on PS and read a few threads. I think this may be a concern with a SI1 stone but is this something I should be concerned about given this is a VS2 ACA stone?

Update: I was told that the clouds are so insignificant that they aren't plotted but listed under comments for completeness.

Generally you don't have to worry about transparency issues with ACA stones since they're already vetted. You're right to be very cautions about that clarity note when it comes to most other diamond purchases.
 

1amaN00b

Rough_Rock
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
73
I'm waiting for the e-ring to arrive. I was researching on the setting and wonder if the WF contemporary solitaire taper setting I got (1461) is too thin for the 1.344 ct stone. I love the setting but want to get some thoughts on it. The WF setting has stones much bigger but I trust/rely on PS for advice.

Band width: 1.45-2.00 mm
 
Last edited:

blueMA

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
1,257
I'm waiting for the e-ring to arrive. I was researching on the setting and wonder if the WF contemporary solitaire taper setting I got (1461) is too thin for the 1.344 ct stone. I love the setting but want to get some thoughts on it. The WF setting has stones much bigger but I trust/rely on PS for advice.

Band width: 1.45-2.00 mm

No, it won't be too thin. In fact, a thinner tapered band makes a diamond look larger, so it's often preferred. Platinum will never wear thin down like gold, so you should be just fine.
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top