That one certainly is gorgeous, but you're right, a little too pricey for me. Hope it works for you though!!canuk-gal|1303346952|2901447 said:HI:
Well, last itme I checked this stone was 10K less so my choice, in a plain solitare, won't help you at all! Happy ring shopping!
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamond/diamond-detail/?product_id=AGS-104044686014
cheers--Sharon
Kirstyrae|1303348722|2901492 said:Yes, Gypsy, it is for an e-ring. We've looked around a lot the last couple weeks and it's time to start making some decisions. We've narrowed down what we like, but there are so many gorgeous options still, it's really hard to decide.
We loved the Tiffany Novo except we'd want more for the money ($48,600 for a 1.9 F VVS2). If we went with that style, we'd make it a "faux-vo" as we've called it, so we could get a large (approx 3.0) diamond for less $ than the real Tiffany. And, I'd be afraid I'd do damage to people or clothes with that rock.
We also loved the Embrace (also Tiffany, looked beautiful in a 1.5 with a halo), but then we came across the Michael Barin tri halo and WOW. Gorgeous. But it's $10-11k just for the setting.
Then I saw Frankie's Steven Kirsch pave halo, and I just can't decide. That setting would be between $5 and 6k.
We don't really want to wait the month that it would take for the custom work, but I suppose we could be more patient.
Anyway, I was just wondering what some of you would do. It seems like a lot of the people on here have a LOT more experience than I do in choosing diamonds and settings (and deciding what looks balanced on a finger), so it couldn't hurt to ask around. Also, we aren't telling anyone we know until the proposal is official (upon acquisition of the ring), so I can't talk to friends about it at all.
Thanks in advance for any input you may have!
Dreamer_D|1303351554|2901549 said:This perhaps: http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8157/
That looks lovely, except that I thought no culet was desired. Am I misinformed (my guy has actually been doing all the research up til now and I've just taken his word for it)?Dreamer_D|1303351554|2901549 said:This perhaps: http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8157/
Kirstyrae|1303355885|2901609 said:That looks lovely, except that I thought no culet was desired. Am I misinformed (my guy has actually been doing all the research up til now and I've just taken his word for it)?Dreamer_D|1303351554|2901549 said:This perhaps: http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8157/
diamondseeker2006|1303356032|2901614 said:Kirstyrae|1303355885|2901609 said:That looks lovely, except that I thought no culet was desired. Am I misinformed (my guy has actually been doing all the research up til now and I've just taken his word for it)?Dreamer_D|1303351554|2901549 said:This perhaps: http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/8157/
Those are top cut quality antique style cushions and they definitely should have culets! There may be modern cushions with no culets, but these are masterfully cut to have excellent light performance!
slg47|1303402696|2901897 said:I would pick what shape you want first that AVC dreamer linked is GORGEOUS and one of my favorite AVCs but if you want a round, asscher, princess, emerald...then I would get what YOU want.
frankiextah|1303441246|2902383 said:Just to be clear a 2 ct cushion is visually and definitively smaller than a 2ct round brilliant and thus is less expensive.
OCmom! How in the world are these rings and diamonds so much less expensive than everything else out there. The skeptic in me is kicking in. I just can't believe they could really cost so little (well, relatively).OCmom3xboys|1303439070|2902359 said:
iota15|1303443022|2902399 said:frankiextah|1303441246|2902383 said:Just to be clear a 2 ct cushion is visually and definitively smaller than a 2ct round brilliant and thus is less expensive.
I would disagree with that. A 2 ct cushion is not necessarily smaller looking. Depending on the stone, cushions can look larger or smaller. Especially at the 2 ct size, there's a lot more weight for a size differential - and certainly, there are some 2 ct cushions that look MUCH larger than a typical 2 ct round.
frankiextah|1303449624|2902453 said:iota15|1303443022|2902399 said:frankiextah|1303441246|2902383 said:Just to be clear a 2 ct cushion is visually and definitively smaller than a 2ct round brilliant and thus is less expensive.
I would disagree with that. A 2 ct cushion is not necessarily smaller looking. Depending on the stone, cushions can look larger or smaller. Especially at the 2 ct size, there's a lot more weight for a size differential - and certainly, there are some 2 ct cushions that look MUCH larger than a typical 2 ct round.
I apologize for being misinformed... I would love to see an optically excellent cushion that has a larger physical parameter than an ideal cut round brilliant, of the same carat weight? I would imagine the cushion would have to have a shallower crown and a shallower depth to achieve the same circumference as a round brilliant, and thus wouldn't have excellent optics in the first place ?