0.75ct round vs. 1.0ct. round

[Detox]

I have been reading, reading and more reading.

Currently I have been eyeing a diamiond for an engagement ring in the 0.75ct VS1 ID/ID range. The price of most of these diamonds is in my "comfor zone" However, the jump to 1.0ct. although expensive, isn''t extreme.

Questions:

1. I have read on the forums that is possible to find 0.75ct diamonds that appear much larger than they are. What specs on a diamond will tell me this?
2. Is there any real "investment" reason to buy a 1.0ct over 0.75ct? The price point seems to be $3000 for 0.75ct and $5000 for 1.0ct.

My GF has fairly petite. A 1.0ct stone might look a little big. She is not picky.

It seems almost everyone on the forum has a 1.oct or larger. Are they many our there with solitaire rounds that are only 0.75ct range and are you really happy with them?

Many Thanks

 

[Logan Sapphire]

You should check out the Under 1ct thread in the Show Me the Ring folder. There are many beautiful rings there.

Is this a surprise for your girlfriend or are you involving her with the purchase? If you''re shopping together, you may want to have her try on .75 and 1ct to get her opinion. I know some may not believe it, but there are definitely people out there who prefer smaller stones. Also, what is her finger size?

I do happen to have a .78ct. and a size 3.75 finger. Sometimes the stone looks big, other times it looks kind of small. But in either case, I think it has a nice presence on my hand. I love my ring, though.

I''m attaching 3 pics that I have at work. The last one makes the stone look bigger, I think.

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Second one:

 

[Logan Sapphire]

Last one:

 

[jellybean]

I have a 0.724ct J/SI1. I have size 6 fingers (although this is sized at a 6 1/2) so my fingers aren''t exactly petite although they are long. I like the size of it but to be quite honest I want a 1ct. I personally like that size better on me. Here''s some pics to give you an idea size-wise.

Here''s the solitaire itself.

 

[jellybean]

Looks like Logan Saphire and I wear our solitaires the same way -- with an eternity band.

Here it is with the band.

 

[Detox]

Thank you very much for the pictures. It helps to give me an idea.

The ring is meant to be a surprise. She knows it''s coming soon, she just doesn''t know when, or exactly what the ring will look like. The only comment she has made was regarding solitare rings and that she is worried she would catch it on something and lose the diamond. My thoughts on this is that a good setting would prevent this from happening. She is not clumsy or rough with things so I don''t know why she has that notion.

I do understand that carat weight does not tell how big a stone will look. For example it can have a lot of weight but be a really deep stone in comparison to a shallower stoner with less carat weight. I want maximize my price/carat while getting a stone that looks larger than it is (without sacrificing the quality of the stone)

 

[Detox]

BTW, really nice rings

 

[jellybean]

Date: 5/18/2005 9:20:15 AM
Author: Detox
Thank you very much for the pictures. It helps to give me an idea.

The ring is meant to be a surprise. She knows it''s coming soon, she just doesn''t know when, or exactly what the ring will look like. The only comment she has made was regarding solitare rings and that she is worried she would catch it on something and lose the diamond. My thoughts on this is that a good setting would prevent this from happening. She is not clumsy or rough with things so I don''t know why she has that notion.

I do understand that carat weight does not tell how big a stone will look. For example it can have a lot of weight but be a really deep stone in comparison to a shallower stoner with less carat weight. I want maximize my price/carat while getting a stone that looks larger than it is (without sacrificing the quality of the stone)

You''re correct in that carat weight doesn''t necessarily tell how big a stone will look. Since you are focusing on rounds, if you get an ideal cut, your stone will look larger than a non-ideal cut of the same size. My diamond is an ideal cut.

As far as settings are concerned, you could always propose with a simple white gold solitaire setting and have her pick out the setting she likes. A lot of people do that. My solitaire is a 4 prong tiffany type setting (very simple) and it sits very low on my finger -- the head of the setting actually touches my finger. I personally like a little bit higher setting b/c I think that also makes the diamond appear bigger. You could always get a 6 prong setting if she''s really worried about wacking her hand and sending the diamond flying.

 

[Jimbo34]

Center stone is .76 Color I VS1 Ideal Cut......outside stones and tension side stones underneath total an additional .75 You might want to go for something like this.

Jimbo

 

[Detox]

Jimbo,

For some reason your pictures aren''t showing.

 

[belle]

i can see them

 

[JCJD]

Date: 5/18/2005 9:20:15 AM
Author: Detox
The only comment she has made was regarding solitare rings and that she is worried she would catch it on something and lose the diamond. My thoughts on this is that a good setting would prevent this from happening. She is not clumsy or rough with things so I don't know why she has that notion.

Have you looked at diamond solitaire rings yourself? The diamond sits up rather high in the classic Tiffany settings. The fact that we use our hands for all kinds of activities - washing dishes, gardening, opening and closing car doors, carrying pounds of groceries, catching yourself from falling, etc - means there is a somewhat legitimate fear of knocking the diamond good and having it fly across the parking lot or something equally horrible. Luckily, this is rare, if you have a solidly made piece of jewelry, this makes it more rare, and there are settings that make the loss of the diamond even more unlikely (6-prong instead of 4, bezels). So, in a roundabout way, I'm saying that even though she is not clumsy normally, having a valuable and sentimental gem sitting 7 cm above her hand is cause for a little concern. I was knocking mine around for months after I got engaged. It's now 7 months into our engagement, and I'm finally accomodating for the extra space above my left hand. Anyways... back to topic!

If you want a .75ct that looks larger, go for a shallower cut (larger table %). To stay within ideal proportions but look larger, you can go up to 58% table, although I believe there are also 60% table 60% depth RBs that have excellent light return (EXPERTS - HELP!)

Also, why do you need to jump all the way from .75 to 1.00? You can get a .9ct for significantly less than the magic 1.00ct sweet spot and not many people would guess that it was smaller, especially if it's ideal.

 

[JCJD]

Date: 5/18/2005 11:09:40 AM
Author: belle
i can see them

Hmm... I can''t.


Detox - here''s a pic of my 0.38ct pear ering. It has a spread a bit larger than a .5 RB. My ring size is 4.5.

 

[Jimbo34]

try this..........

 

[belle]

Date: 5/18/2005 11:29:29 AM
Author: JCJD

Date: 5/18/2005 11:09:40 AM
Author: belle
i can see them

Hmm... I can''t.

the force is with me.

wonder why you guys can''t see them?

 

[Detox]

Jimbo,

I was able to see your repost. Those rings are nice, WOW there is alot of diamonds there.

 

[Jimbo34]

Date: 5/18/2005 12:18:29 PM
Author: Detox
Jimbo,

I was able to see your repost. Those rings are nice, WOW there is alot of diamonds there.

Thanks for the compliments,

That is 3 pictures of the SAME ring btw from different angles. There are 13 diamonds total. Bought the setting at a chain store in a local Mall that already had all 13 diamonds on it. Didn't like the center diamond that was in it, so had them take it out and I found a much better center stone online that matched the side stones. The chain store even set it for us for free.

Paid just over $3600 for the whole ring. Needles to say we are both very, very happy. She loves it !

Jimbo

 

[Jimbo34]

the force is with me.

wonder why you guys can''t see them?

Bella...The first pictures are from my webshot album , so probably you were already logged into your own webshots album so you were alowed to see my pictures. When I posted them again got them from a shutterfly.

Just a guess........

Jimbo