Affordable ring for my girl...

[february2003bride]

Gosh, I don''t know! I''m personally a sucker for WF''s ACA H&A''s line (owning a smaller one myself) and for such a small stone it has amazing fire and sparkle! But I know many people are just as happy with the ES at WF as well (I believe Mara own''s one?). If the $200 extra for the ACA won''t hurt your budget for the setting I''d probably go with that one... but either one are perfect! The ACA .46 one is an Ideal cut.

 

[argh&stuff]

The .42 is ideal cut, too, isn''t it?

 

[indecisive]

If the .42 is the one you keep coming back to then get it and don''t second guess yourself!! We called in a stone to WF about a week ago and they are holding it for us while we decide on our setting. I don''t know if it would be the same with an in stock diamond, and we also have committed to buying it so you might want to call and see how long you would have to decide. It would really suck to have it sold right when you are ready to buy though. Also, I was looking around ebay for a jewelry box. not actual jewelry!, and I saw this and thought of your ring. It might be cute to incorporate in your proposal or to have something to put her tulip ring in while she is sleeping.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Franz-Porcelain-Tulip-Covered-Trinket-Box-Ring-Box_W0QQitemZ6614795503QQcategoryZ18791QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

Speaking of proposals, do you have any plans yet?

 

[argh&stuff]

Now, the .42 picture I posted doesn''t look as clear as the one on the site. Aw, well...

Decisions, decisions.

I wonder how much it''ll knock off the price of the Niwaka setting to take out those two surprise diamonds. I don''t even remember how big they said they were, but they must be flippin'' tiny because I can''t see them. I think the email my girl got said they were H&A, though. SO, maybe that''ll pop down the cost to some degree. I can hope, can''t I?

 

[february2003bride]

On the .42:

Shape: Round Ideal Cut
Carat: 0.420
Color: H
Clarity: SI1
Depth: 61.7
Table: 55.6
Crown Angle: 34.7
Crown %: 15.6
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43
Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: Negligible
Measurements: 4.81-4.84X2.97

On the .468:

Report: AGS
Shape: A Cut Above H&A
Carat: 0.468
Color: F
Clarity: SI2
Depth: 60.3
Table: 56.4
Crown Angle: 34.9
Crown %: 15.2
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Pavilion %: 43
Girdle: Thin to Medium
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Culet: Pointed
Fluorescence: No
Measurements: 5.04-5.07X3.05

 

[february2003bride]

I agree with Indecisive. If you keep coming back to the .42 because you love it and its in your budget, go for it!

 

[argh&stuff]

That''s cute, Indecisive. I''ll have to look around Ebay for that, although I''m scared silly to buy from that place. (My mom got dooped... that''s when I decided to NEVER purchase online. But, I think you''re all changing me a bit in that regard.)

Proposals... I have a couple of ideas. I''ve posted them on the LIW forum (haha... yeah, even though I''m a guy. I thought it''d be funny. It was. Now I''m sort of addicted to this place. Oh well. It could be worse).

As for anything definite, nope. Not yet. I probably won''t post anything "for sure" on here anyway, because she''s been known to poke around more than she should.

 

[argh&stuff]

Between those two, what is the difference I''d see, in regard to "face up" size?

Can someone help me with a visual (Valeria101 is REALLY good at that stuff).

 

[argh&stuff]

Well dang!

WF says that their diamonds go quickly, and that they can only hold them for a matter of 24 hours, and if I want it held longer than that, it requires a credit card number, but I''m not ready to go that far yet. (I''m a big one for thinking things through, in case you''ve not all seen that yet.)

And, I want to know what I''m gonna put the diamond in, too! So maybe it''ll all make sense soon.

 

[f0rbidden]

oh! jewlery box!
hey!

i have a couple of little Delft blue trinket boxes that have tulip/windmill designs on them.

my husband is from Holland ..and well, his parents sent us some stuff to sell on eBay. i have one that''s a great little heart that would be really lovely!

let me know if you want to see pix :O)

 

[argh&stuff]

FOr,

Yeah, let me see the pictures, please. It''s an easier thing to decide on than something such as this! I welcome the change of pace.

Have you been to Holland? I hear it''s really nice there.

 

[ecf8503]

It looks like the 0.468 F SI2 is a new stone - no IS image yet, and the AGS cert is only dated March 13 (2 weeks ago). I''m sure WF can take the IS shot for you ASAP if you ask them to.

The 0.46 is an ACA. The 0.42 is not. Not that that means a lot sometimes, as some ES stones are "near miss" ACA''s. The 0.42 has an IS that kicks the butts of 95% of the diamonds on the market today, and it is a gorgeous stone. But based on the photos themselves, it seems to me there are subtle differences - now whether you are astute enough to see them even if they were side by side I don''t know. The 0.42 has the white triangles around the girdle and between the arrow shafts that are there on purpose - they add to the scintillation (or "sparkliness") of the stone - more smaller flashes of light in this one. The ACA looks based on just it''s photo to not have these to the same degree - that stone looks to be a new line ACA, in that it will deliver broad flashes of color, as opposed to many small flashes if that makes sense. Some have argued that these new line type stones with the more painted girdles can actually give a larger face up appearance because there is no leakage at the girdle (although it is supposed to be there) - others feel these diamonds develop a darkness at the girdle. I''ve never seen one, so I don''t know -

The 0.42 has one arrow shaft that it not as black as the others in the IS (at 9:00) and it appears to correspond to a difference in the photo in the 7:30 arrow. The 0.46''s photo is uniform all the way around.

The 0.46 is 0.2mm bigger than the 0.42 - is that visible? Not separately - but next to each other I would see it. I had a 5.1mm and a 5.4mm side by side, and I could see that difference.

Honestly - I like everything there is about the 0.46 and I haven''t even seen the IS yet! If I had the extra $200, I''d take that one in a heartbeat over the 0.42 - bigger (albeit not by much!), a color that I personally prefer, fabulous photo and specs (it''s an AGS000), etc.

If I were you I''d call WF, have Brian pull both stones and look at them side by side and tell you what the differences are TO THE EYE - because that''s what matters! Make sure both are eye-clean first of all, and ask him to "compare and contrast" the personalities of the stones. You''ll get an honest opinion from an expert regarding the pure performance of the stones.

It''s like asking a critic to compare Van Gogh and Monet - they could tell you what is the same, different, etc - but they can''t tell you what you like. But - based on their comments, you may be better able to digest the feel of the stones and make a more informed decision than just staring at numbers and greatly magnified pics!

Just my opinion -

Good luck! Whichever stone you pick will be fabulous, so don''t worry -

 

[firebirdgold]

I think we''re talking about a .01 inch difference in diameter.
I''m looking at around a .5 carat diamond myself and have been aiming for as close to 5 mm in diameter as I can. But that''s mainly because this option wouldn''t go in a custom setting, but one premade for a .5 carat size stone.

I don''t think that size difference will look too small on her tiny finger. I still say go for the .42 carat diamond, it''s really beautiful!


btw: I''m trying to give my bf lots of choices, so the .3 carat flush niwaka is still in the running!

 

[f0rbidden]

I''ll post them when I get home! I have two, now that I think about it..but the heart one is really cute.

Not only have I been to Holland, I was actually married there. They have some very very unusual rules about marriage - certainly nothing like we have here in the States.

 

[argh&stuff]

I think maybe I need more education, people. What is an AGS000?

I called and asked for the IdealScope image.

Just this weekend we were talking, and I think she really, really likes both the original stuller band we''d found with the delicate cathedral AND the niwaka setting. She does want a tulip head, but she''s not sold on the stuller head, as it''s tall and "stalky" as she calls it.

IF WF can do the more delicate, lower tulip head with the stuller, I may go that way, to save some money and then I can possibly put it toward the bigger, better (??) diamond. If not, I''ll see what the cost of the Niwaka replica would be, without the diamonds as a surprise.

The stuller band is 110! 110! Yes! I love it. But, not at the risk of her losing the tulip head she loves, though...

I wonder if WF will end up thinking I''m cheap as I keep trying to find ways to cut costs. It''s all in the name of love, and of wanting to get married. Now rather than next year.

 

[firebirdgold]

AGS 0 = Ideal
So 000 is Ideal cut, Ideal Polish, Ideal Symmetry!

Personally I''m not sure how much difference there is between excellent polish and symmetry and ideal.

 

[argh&stuff]

So the one I like is a single 0?

I about had a panic attack just now; went to check on the stones, and I couldn''t find the .42. Then I couldn''t find the .468. I was like, Oh crud! Did I wait too long, completely?

I closed out of everything, tried it again, and there they were. Whew...

 

[JulieN]

Actually, AGS-000 is ideal LIGHT PERFORMANCE, proportion, and finish. The sum of these three indicates the AGS grade. So an AGS-0 is an AGS-000.

And I, honestly, would go for the bigger one, because at the small carat sizes, a few more points is a lot. The bigger one is 9.8% bigger than the .42

 

[argh&stuff]

Julie,

do you know how to represent that size difference visually?

I''ve been hoping Valeria would come around... but I''ve not seen her here lately. Not on my thread anyway. I would like to see a comparison of the two diamonds, represented by size, and I''d like to see the shorter, more squatty tulip head from the niwaka put on the stuller band, in case that is an option I have.

I wish I had photoshop!

(In case I''ve not mentioned it lately, thank you ALL so much for helping me with this. I know I take a LONG time sometimes, but I do appreciate the guidance and opinions.)

 

[sunkist]

I've read that a .2 mm difference would be similar to the thickness of two sheets of nice copier paper. I got it out of a thread around here somewhere about a conversation with WF, I think. So if you look at what that would be, it's small, and you can see it, but if you were comparing the stones side by side I'm guessing you'd barely be able to tell the difference.

 

[E B]

Date: 3/27/2006 8:51:41 PM
Author: sunkist
I've read that a .2 mm difference would be similar to the thickness of two sheets of nice copier paper. I got it out of a thread around here somewhere about a conversation with WF, I think. So if you look at what that would be, it's small, and you can see it, but if you were comparing the stones side by side I'm guessing you'd barely be able to tell the difference.

Sunkist, I've always heard the "2 sheets of paper" thickness is a .10mm difference (ie. .80ct vs a .90ct). And in the case of Argh's diamonds, unless I'm completely wrong, we're talking about a .04mm difference (which will absolutely not be visable), not a .2mm difference. A .2mm difference would be a .42 and a .62.

 

[argh&stuff]

Sunkist,

Really? The thickness of two sheets of paper? Heck, that''s not worth 200 dollars!

Wow, if that''s all the difference is, I''m still MUCH more partial to the .42 stone.

 

[argh&stuff]

Well dang, Ebree, You''ve sold me even more on the .42.



Thanks!!

 

[argh&stuff]

Well dang again! I just re-read Julie''s post. She says it''s a significant difference in size. I wish I could see it...

 

[E B]

If 2 sheets of paper really does show a .2mm size difference (.80ct to 1ct) then I''m glad we didn''t spend $1.5k more on a 1ct! My .85 (.84 was a steal!

 

[indecisive]

I would look at a ruler a see how small a mm is. It is tiny!! And .23mm is even tinier. I know I couldn''t tell the difference.

 

[Blenheim]

Wait, is the two sheets of paper rule for .2 mm or for .2 carats?

 

[argh&stuff]

Well, I''m not that astute at sizes or differences, but if the difference is 2mm... that seems like it''d be more than two sheets of paper''s thickness. I mean, that thickness isn''t even enough to make a line on a ruler for... and it''d be TWO marks!

I''m gonna call a math teacher friend of mine. It''s ridiculous that I can''t wrap my mind around this.

 

[sunkist]

No, no. This is .2mm we''re talking about. You''re comparing 4.8mm to 5 mm, right? The 2 sheets of paper is supposedly equal to 0.2mm.

 

[E B]

Oh, man, I'm completely wrong! I switched the ct and mms. Silly. I was never good at math!