Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

$3000 budget for a princess diamond ring!

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Hest88~
At this point, MMM and I are pretty much in agreement on most stones (or can sway one another) so I don't think it matters too much--although it must seem funny when we do agree with one another (it'd be like giving yourself personal kudos--LOL)! I promise to change my avatar just as soon as my ring comes in and my B/F proposes (which will probably be about the same time MMM gets her situation fixed up, so we'll probably be back at square one with two pics of gorgeous princess cut stones as our avatars instead of butterflies)! As I've said before, great minds just think alike! Why don't you just change your avatar--peer pressure, peer pressure! LOL
9.gif
 
Hee, hee. It's so weird. I'll be reading a thread and it'll seem like the same person is replying to herself! You're right; great minds must just think alike!
 
I take it as a great compliment that you confuse the two of us because I learned a lot of my info from MMM--she's a smarty!!!
 
You people seem to know your stuff. Could you possibly give your opinion on this princess cut?

Thanks for any help,
Chad
40_1.JPG
 
That table looks really big to me--I'd keep looking....
 
Thanks for the responses, but from what I read, Reasearcher, your princess stone is 3cts or larger...I am working with a $3000 budget and a .7ct stone or possibly larger. Cut is wonderful, but so is having a bigger budget!

My fiance doesn't make much, and we are just out of school, so this is a boone for us to spend even the $3000, but we didn't want to go nuts on a ring.

I know you guys are major cut people, so that's why I needed some help and I am asking. Cut should be good enough to have a good sparkle, but since it is a princess stone and it is not known to sparkle like a round, AND I only have $3000 to spend on the whole ring, I want to have a nice size, and a G or H color, with a decent clarity.

Again, I was told that the large table is tricky, because if it's TOO large then you run into haveing too shallow of a stone, and too much light leakage. So again, if anyone out there can tell me the optimal difference of "spread" on a stone that will maximize it's appearance, without making the optics caca...???

Also, if a round stone at 1ct is about 6.5mm, then does anyone know the mm for a princess from sizes .70ct to 1ct? ANYONE?!
 
Holly- you're missing the point....it's not about budget...but the focus of this board is mainly cut quality...you're asking a bunch of vegetarians where to go for the best steak!
naughty.gif


And again, there is such a variety of proportions with princess cuts, that we can't tell you what a decent spread is...you see depths from 65 to 75....not like with rounds, where there isn't THAT much flux....

Also, there is NO way to predict optics by numbers alone with princess cuts...so that makes your question even more difficult to answer...

But OK- let's say I was looking for a decent princess where I wanted it to face up pretty large but not look like crap...I'd try to find a stone with a good depth (maybe 65-72) and if the table HAS to be bigger, make it not THAT much bigger...Each stone has to be looked at individually. Go to dirtcheapdiamonds...type in your carat weight and color and clarity...you will see lots of stones and their measurements...you can see which ones face up bigger...and those stones usually have lower depths or bigger tables...try not to go past a "premium" cut...


And LOL re: the avatars....You know what I can't stand- that dumb f*cking guy ... know which one I mean?
 
For example...this stone has a good healthy spread compared to others in its carat weight category....it's got a great depth (67) and the table is good....maybe too high in comparison to its depth...but you NEVER know....it looks good in other respects....COuld be a really pretty stone...

http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=2439075
 
HGL,
I understand your frustration, but I also think you should consider that even people with a bigger budget may have faced similar dilemmas. When I was first looking at stones, I thought I had to have a D-F, FL-VVS2 stone and therefore wasn't considering stones over 2 cts. After viewing some stones, seeing the criteria at stores like T&C and reading PS posts, I realized that I could go lower in these areas (which I wanted to do to get a larger stone). The only problem is I started doing what it looks like you're doing which is sacrificing CUT for CARAT. The problem with this is the stone really won't be impressive to most people. I can tell you now that there was a 4.05 ct stone that fit our budget that I thought seriously about, but when I viewed it in person it didn't impress me nearly as much as my 3.22 ct stone. The point is people on the PS forum are more than willing to help you find a stone that you want, but we all want to make sure you know the difference sacrificing cut for carat can make. I'm the first one who will tell you a nice "I", "SI1" stone is a great balance of quality and size, but one of the last to tell you that it's okay to lower cut standards for size. If you disagree, GREAT! You should have no problem finding a stone that fits your budget. However, I personally would not be happy with such a stone. If you have not gone out and compared stones with optimal performance to lower performing stones, I suggest you try it! I honestly was of the mind that "bigger was better" until I noticed the effect of cut.

My point to all of this is you're on the forum to ask people's opinions, and we're here to give you an honest response--not give you two thumbs up when we feel you can do better. All you have to do is look at the stone moremoremore posted to see how much better the numbers look: even though the table is still a bit large, it's still within the ideal parameters and has a much better chance of being a winner.

Anyway, I was honestly just trying to help, but if you're not wanting my opinion I will refrain from providing you with feedback in the future. Good luck with your search!
 
You misunderstand my post Researcher. I simply said that even though I understand that every search has it's frustrations, especially in fancy shapes, I am among many people (and there will be a large concensus here I imagine) that BIGGER is what people notice. With a stone over 1.5cts, I would absolutely concentrate on cut, because I could afford to have a well cut stone, and size wouldn't be so important, because it's already BIG (in my humble opinion) BUT, considering our budget, I noticed color, and I wanted size. I also didn't want junk, so I asked for optimal spread... Is that wrong? Do people not use spread to show size, because I know carat is weight and that isn't what determines the viewable surface area...

Mosat people's first question is not "WOW! What a cut!" It's "Wow, what carat is it?" I don't need a number to make me happy, but I have slightly large fingers, and for me to concentrate our only $3000 on a well cut small stone just doesn't feel like the right thing, when I can get a decently well cut stone slightly larger. That's why I dropped to an SI1, considering an SI2. Color could go to an H, but I am hoping to keep that at near-colorless....

Thanks for giving me your opinions, and I really appreciate different viewpoints that challenge mine, I was just hoping that perhaps someone could shed some light on the questions asked... I think More was helpful in including that stone, and I totally think it could be lovely. I just wish there where brilliant scope images that I could compare the "shallow" stones to the "ideal" stones, and so far, not one jeweler I have been to has any stone under a 75% depth. Not one. So these on-line stones are pies in the sky for now...

Can someone tell me if my question is impossible (to find an average surface area for corresponding carat weights), because I was told that Radiants have an average spread, so I assume other fancies will as well, especially popular stones like princess...

Has anyone else encountered this? HELP!!
 
I just did a quick check for you. Right now, using the PS defaults, there are a ton of 1 carats available with diameters ranging from 5.3mm to around 6mm. The average diameter of well cut 1 carat Princess cuts runs around 5.5mm to 5.6mm. Princess cuts are not the "spreadiest" cut available, tho. For example, the average diameter of a well cut 1 carat Round is 6.5mm. 1mm doesn't sound like so much, but it is an obvious size difference.
1.gif
 
Hey HOLLY: CHECK THIS ONE OUT!!!! I just saw it and thought of you....You know, it's not too easy to find a depth at 67 and a table at 67.5...It looks really nice...

And also, I do understand needed to satisfy yourself re: carat weight...BUT, if you totally disregard cut, all people will see is a lifeless princess...and no one will care how big it is....I REALLY like this one...it's got a really good spread b/c of the depth....and it has an awesome table that is right around depth....

Oh yeah, one more thing...a lot of vendors on here who don't drop ship offer tons of analysis on their stones...but I've wondered if they'd actually sell a poorly cut princess...b/c they have a lifetime buy-back...they probably woulnd't want to buy back...so you might not get all the analysis you're looking for...I dunno. I do know dirt cheap is really great and you can see the stone b/f you pay!

http://www.dirtcheapdiamonds.com/diamond_detail.cfm?did=2519520
 
oops...that one has a 67.5 depth, 67 table. I like it. A lot.
 
And you could totally tell people "oh, it's about a carat" which it would look like! With the rest of the money, you could get a really nice setting!
 
----------------
On 6/5/2004 12:53:55 PM moremoremore wrote:

And you could totally tell people 'oh, it's about a carat' which it would look like! With the rest of the money, you could get a really nice setting!----------------
Click to expand...


Soooooo true, MMM!!! So many people forget that "carat" is a weight and not a size!!

I had an Ideal cut 0.75 carat Round with a diameter of 6mm. Many Maul store 1 carat rounds aren't much bigger than that. More than a few people remarked about my "gorgeous carat" sized diamond. They didn't ask and I didn't tell. HeeeeHeeeee!!!
2.gif
But my 0.75 carat "Ideal" was a lot more sparkly than their 1 carat Maul store cuts!!
9.gif
 
my philosophy....if it looks like a carat...it IS a carat....if it looks an F color...it IS F color...if it looks like a vs2...it IS a vs2!!! LOL
1.gif
 
Thanks More! That could be really really pretty! I'm going to show that to my fiance when he comes home today and see what he thinks. I still do all the research, but he's the wallet...
2.gif
9.gif
And PQ, that was sort of what I was asking!!! I didn't realize that princess stones has so much less diameter! What about slightly rectangular princesses? Is it true they look larger?

It's not that I am trying to pass off a small diamond for a larger one, or anything, I just truly want our budget to stretch on the most noticeable differences, and sadly, not most around me know real diamonds. They wouldn't know a "maul store" stone from another, so for me to have a sizeable stone with a good color is key... and of course, I don't want something with a HUGE table just for show and size, but I suppose something with some "presence".

My friend has a .75 8star stone, and that thing is lovely but always so dirty that you can't tell it's even a diamond. Can't say I'll be like that, but sometimes, it depends on the person how their diamond will show... I have an old aunt who wears big chunky CZ rings and they are so amazing, so she gets more comments than my friend's 8star...
rolleyes.gif
nono.gif
 
As you seem to be able to tell, half of "presence" is just keeping it clean! A minor investment in windex will solve that problem.
2.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top