3 stone size/color ratio

[beaglefan]

Hello,

I am looking for an engagement ring, and the girlfriend and I have decided on the center stone to be approx. a 1.3-1.4 carat, G, VS2 ''ideal'' cut.

If we wanted to get a 3-stone platinum setting, what size should the side stones be? Can the color be sacrificed a grade to save on $, or do I need to stay with a G to make the ring look okay?

Should I get better pricing if I buy all three stones from the same jeweler?

Thanks for the guidance!

Sean

 

[moremoremore]

I would stay with a G unless the G is a decent cut and the H was a super duper cut so as to face up whiter...I personally think it's very important to match

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 6/25/2004 5:03:39 PM beaglefan wrote:





Hello,

I am looking for an engagement ring, and the girlfriend and I have decided on the center stone to be approx. a 1.3-1.4 carat, G, VS2 'ideal' cut.

If we wanted to get a 3-stone platinum setting, what size should the side stones be? Can the color be sacrificed a grade to save on $, or do I need to stay with a G to make the ring look okay?

Should I get better pricing if I buy all three stones from the same jeweler?

Thanks for the guidance!

Sean
----------------

Sean, you'd be safe going one color on either side if desired - F or H stones. In all but the most EXTREME cases, the human eye cannot discern the slight difference of one color grade.

Add that to the fact that the sides will be smaller than the center anyway.....also, smaller stones show far less body color than their larger counterparts.

Completely no problem. You could *easily* go with H sides, and it would indeed be a smart economic choice.

 

[Patty]

beaglefan, the size of your side stones is up to you. But I wanted to tell you about my experience in having my 3 stone ring made. I was told that a common dimension is 2:1 on the side stones...Meaning that with my center stone of 1.35, I should go with side stones that total approximately 1.35 carats. Note that the ratios given are in weights, not the mm measurement. I went with side sapphires that measured 5.4 mms each and were a total of 1.52 carats.

THEN, when I went to choose a setting, I decided to go with Vatche. It turns out that my side stones were larger than the standard Vatche 3-stone ring's side stones. So my ring had to be "custom" made by Vatche, adding to the cost. I love the size of my side stones and the proportions, but if I were doing it all over again, I'd look at standard sized settings first and then choose the side stones to fit the setting.

 

[Patty]

This is a chart that I believe Valeria put together showing various 3 stone size combinations:

 

[Patty]

I'm not saying you have to get Vatche, but that's what I have and that's what I can check on easily...

Their 730 model is for a 1.25 center and it comes with 1/4 carat sides.

Their 731 model is for a 1.50 center and it comes with 1/3 carat sides.

 

[moremoremore]

I would respectfully disagree that only in extreme cases the eye can tell the difference b/t one color grade up or down. I can ABSOLUTELY tell you the difference b/w an F and G face up....

 

[researcher]

I'm usually very color sensitive, but I think there are always exceptions to the rule when looking at diamonds. It's easy for me to tell the difference between a colorless and near colorless stone, but not as easy within the same category. If the stone(s) with the best color are not quite as well cut as the other stone(s), I think the color difference is much less apparent. Even when all stones are well cut I have a harder time discerning color (my "I" is so white that if I didn't know better I'd have guessed it was a "G"). IMO it's better to find stones that face up similar than to stick to a particular color.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 6/25/2004 11:08:01 PM moremoremore wrote:





I would respectfully disagree that only in extreme cases the eye can tell the difference b/t one color grade up or down. I can ABSOLUTELY tell you the difference b/w an F and G face up....

----------------

Then you should be working for the GIA. I would respectfully suggest that you might qualify as the *extreme case*.

The downside for you in having that "superpower" is that it limits your options. The other 90-95% of us who cannot discern that difference have an opportunity to enjoy savings because we don't see the difference. The *significant majority* of people cannot see the difference face up between an F and a G.

 

[valeria101]

It really depends on how big those side stones are. One color grade looks like a safe bet by all means, and clarity can easily take a hit without showing it. It sounds nice to keep the same grades overall, but this may not mean anything visually. What size will those sides be?


Btw, those pics were taken from adiamondsisforever.com. The proportions are not listed there (and taking weight for size is less precise) but you may find the original source useful.

 

[moremoremore]

aldjewey- you know...I really want to be nice, nice,...but it just seems that, at times, your posts can be read with hostility where someone disagrees with you ... I'm not trying to start a tiff...as you are always very insightful here...I'm just sayin'...ease up girl...

 

[moremoremore]

now...where did I put that cape and tights...

 

[pqcollectibles]

It seems it would be much easier to see a difference in adjacent color grades in Princess cuts than Rounds. Princess diamonds tend to hold and show body color much more readily than Rounds do. I've personally seen H and J color ACA's side by side and there was not a noticible difference face up. I've also seen well cut G and H color Princess diamonds side by side, and the color difference was a bit obvious face up.

Also, keep in mind that the side stones will be significantly smaller than the center stone. Less body to a diamond means less color will be evident to the eye.

If you're talking a Round 3 stone ring, BeagleFan, you could maximize your budget going one color grade lower for the side diamonds. IMHO, if you go with a G color center stone, you could easily consider H color sides.

 

[Mara]

The average joe (or jane) CANNOT see the difference between one color grade and the next upon viewing...but there are people who have those extremely sharp eyes for color, as was pointed out. THANK GOD that is not me because I go to H or even I if it faces up nicely and woo hoo I just got a bigger stone for less money.

BF...I would actually recommend dropping that VS clarity down to eye-clean SI1 if you are interested in bang for the buck...So F/G/H SI would be a great option and you will find alot more possibilities in that mix...you can even get a VS2 center stone and SI sides or similar...the clarity in my opinon is not as big of a deal as color may be...as long as it is eye-clean from ALL SIDES, and depending on which vendor you work with, be sure they will tell you this before buying (some are better than others, some seem to carry extremely eye-clean inventories), then you can mix and match clarity and keep color grades the same (my preference). However, as long as you don't have those extremely good eyes for color...you should be fine..I have an H stone and it faces up very white, I had a G stone before, my husband has an F stone and I have I earrings...they all look pretty much the same to me...its that blinding sparkle that you REALLY see!!

As for ratios..use that chart that Patty posted from Valeria, it gives great visuals. I prefer smaller side stones to larger ones as I like the center stone to shine shine shine...but everyone has a different opinion.

Good luck!

 

[moremoremore]

You know, it dawned on me that princess and rounds are NOT the same...DUH. And that's what I look at, so I'm ref'ing to princess stones...but I believe that with rounds it is an entirely different story...especially in ideal cut rounds....it could very well be and probably is much harder to see the color in rounds face up and also, there is much less "body to look at through the pavillion...and also, I wanted to add that I really shouldn't have made that stupid childish post towards aldjewey....I just read a little hostility...but I don't think that was the case!

 

[moremoremore]

oops...you read my mind pq...just read your post!

 

[pqcollectibles]

Oh, MMM!!! I knew you were a "square" stone person and I fig'd that's where you were coming from. If you only knew how many miles I drove, the shops I visited, the "special" diamond shows I went to, and the number of diamonds I looked at BEFORE I ever bought!!!

It was actually a side by side comparison in a local diamond broker's shop where I saw an Ideal cut Round and a well cut Princess side by side. Both H color, but I wouldn't have guessed it. The Princess had much more body color to it and I commented on it to the shop owner. She said, "Generally speaking, square cuts tend to hold and show more body color than rounds." I was shopping for a Round, wasn't interested in learning about Princess cuts at the time, and I still picked up a valuable tidbit of info.

 

[aljdewey]

----------------
On 6/26/2004 10:32:17 AM moremoremore wrote:





aldjewey- you know...I really want to be nice, nice,...but it just seems that, at times, your posts can be read with hostility where someone disagrees with you ... I'm not trying to start a tiff...as you are always very insightful here...I'm just sayin'...ease up girl...
----------------

No harm done, MMM!

Nor am I trying to start a tiff. I don't have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me at all. What a boring place this would be if everyone agreed and there was no exchange of ideas! I'm not sure where you find the hostility....heck, I even put the wink emoticon!

I realize that I'm often very direct and very to-the-point; please don't mistake that for hostility.

My reply wasn't meant to disrespect you at all. My point was this....the fact that you feel your eyes can see the difference isn't representative of what a typical experience would be because most people--90 to 95%--cannot see differences in one color grade. While it's great that you are in the 5-10% that see the difference, I'd hate for this poster to think that was the rule and not the exception.

That's important for this person to know because he seems to want to drop in color to save a bit of money. If I were in his shoes and I thought that 50 out of 100 people would see the color variation, that would concern me MUCH more than knowing that out of 100 people, only 5-10 would be able to discern a color difference.

 

[researcher]

I have a really random question--why is it that princess stones, graded against the same master set of round stones, are said to show more color than rounds? Is it that, table down, they are the same color but when face up the cut of rounds shows less color? This has always been a question for me, just as the idea that larger stones show more color. I don't get why they wouldn't just be graded as a lower color to begin with so everyone knows what they're getting when they choose a stone.

 

[researcher]

Bump.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 6/27/2004 12:02:32 AM researcher wrote:



Is it that, table down, they are the same color but when face up the cut of rounds shows less color?

----------------

True.

Same thing for larger pieces. Color saturation is enhanced by the length of the light path within a stone - and since face-down those stones do not reflect light inside them much, the cut and size (among those ring-compatible stones) do not get to contribute much to the apparent color. One may expect that size really does induce some bias (regardless of how you place the stone for grading color that is), but diamonds just do not get that big.

This, as far as I know, of course.


There is one related Q that seems to fit on this thread. How does the contrast created by cut contribute to the apparent tint of a stone?

I would expect that contrast brilliance does highlight the tint of lower color diamonds somewhat (this, on the ground that color is more distinct on dark background, whenever those reflector facets get in the shade). This may contribute to fancy shapes showing more color. Some similar logic would indicate that brilliance hides body color.

And even for the most brilliant stones, body color would show when the piece is tilted a bit, so that brilliance is no logger showing all that strong - so the setting's shape (aside the color of the metal) may well help hide color, just as brilliance does.

Any thoughts ?

 

[researcher]

Thanks, AnA!
I get so confused with all of this because my stone is a fairly big "I" color princess set in platinum, and really doesn't show more color than "G" color stones that have also been set (even when comparing them side by side). My only conclusion has been that my stone is better cut than the others (even though it's on the deeper side).

 

[Patty]

Sean,

Here are the pics of mine that I told you I'd post. The center stone is 7.2 mms (1.35 carat) and the side sapphires are approximately 5.4 mms each.

 

[researcher]

That's beautiful, Patty! I like the proportions a lot

 

[Patty]

Thank you researcher!

 

[researcher]

You're welcome! I'm used to seeing gemstones in the center with diamond accent stones, but I love the look of your ring and the simplicity of the setting!!!