Affordable ring for my girl...

[JulieN]

Not to worry! The New Line ACA is supposed to be more colorful. Who said the bigger one has less fire? (And at 60.8 depth, is as big as a lot of .50s; I looked)

 

[argh&stuff]

Julie,

Haha... no one said it, other than my girl. She was just asking, because to her, the picture of the smaller diamond has more cuts of colored light, and the bigger one looks more white to her. I think that''s why she''s more drawn to the smaller, actually.

 

[JulieN]

Dhog's wife's New Line ACAs. Pretty easy to get fire in direct sunlight out of any diamond... but still beautiful.

Anyway, WF pictures aren't real life conditions. I guess you can judge clarity, symmetry, but not fire. I do care most about fire... Right, so you could ask WF which one shows more fire (of course it'll be different for different lighting) but I think they'd say the .46; now, if it turns out that the .42 exhibits more fire, then I'd get that, since...I'm addicted to it.

 

[Small]

ARgh,
Aside from looking at a blown up picture to see inclusions you really won''t know how it will sparkle until you see it in many different lighting situations. I think you will be fine with either of these for what you are looking for. I don''t think I''ve ever read about anyone being disappointed with an ACA or ES selection. You are thinking too much lol!
Glad to hear you''ll be sticking around...we''d miss ya!

 

[JulieN]

ok, I'm bad, I should be getting ready for tomorrow's lectures, but I found a .541 J SI1 ES.

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2362024.htm

933+PS discount at 5% (it might be 2%)=887 or 914
setting + head from wink=300
total=1187 or 1214

Ok, so it's not an ACA but the IS image looks really nice, and it has cherry proportions. it's 5.26 mm diameter, and it's well-priced at 15% off an ACA with similar stats. The IS isn't PERFECT (neither is the .42's,) but at this level, not sure if your eyes could really see the difference.

The .54 is 9% bigger than the .46, and 19% (!) bigger than the .42

Lot's of PSers have J diamonds...there's a thread in SMTR that's all Js (Mara's, Patty's, many others) And at .54 it shouldn't be a problem. Of course, don't expect icy-white, but I don't think you need to worry about it being yellow or possible contrast in white gold.

If you you like this, ask WF if it is eye-clean; I can see the inclusions at 40x, but they look like they'll check out.

Good luck, A&S! We all want you and her to be happy with the end product.

Ok, I just thought I'd add on my personal theory of the engagement ring... animals often have elaborate courship rituals, such as building the nicest next and decorating it, or bringing food to the female. It's all about investment. Eggs are expensive! Sperm is cheap! Women do not want to waste eggs on men who are deadbeats. Women need to know if their men are sufficiently "invested." So it's all very romantic about how a ring is a symbol of love and it goes in a circle without end, but when it comes right down to it, it's all about investment. Amazing what "love" chemicals in our brains tell us to do.

 

[argh&stuff]

Wow, Julie. That''s cheaper than the .46! Interesting. I thought you only got a discount on the diamonds posted via pricescope, and I can''t find that diamond posted that way. I wonder why.

But yeah, I''ll have to ask Jamie about that. Even without the discount, it''s not bad.

933 (diamond)
195 (setting)
25 (getting ring sized down)
50 (having WF set ring not bought from them)
------
1173

THANK YOU, Julie. I now have yet another option!

Seriously, though, if it''s a "good one," I''ll be thrilled!! Because well, she so loves the 1/2 carat size.

Any suggestions from my dear friends?

 

[pinkflamingo]

I also really like this one:
.55 I SI2 Expert Selection

Ask for the pricescope discount, it should bring you right around 1200 with the $300 setting if your budget allows. remember, no tax and free shipping.

 

[argh&stuff]

As for the inclusions, are they represented by the blurriness at the kite shaped portion of the cut near 10 o''clock being a bit cloudy? Or is that simply just an effect of the picture?

 

[pinkflamingo]

hmmm... I cant tell because the gia certificate isnt shown. I would ask about it. I see a small speck under the table around 8 o''clock, there may be a feather or a cloud at 10, but it is really hard to tell from a picture.

 

[argh&stuff]

I''ve been looking every day for I don''t know how long! How''d I miss these?

Thanks, all of you!

I''m excited all over again now.

 

[argh&stuff]

So, the "I" is bigger carat weight, but the "J" faces up bigger, because of the depth factor, right?

Interesting. I''m dying to see a comparison picture of this....

Maybe that''s why I put things off over the weekend!

 

[JulieN]

for all intents and purposes, both the J and I are the same size (5.26 mm vs 5.28 mm) not even a 1% difference

Smalls says: I see a small speck under the table around 8 o'clock, there may be a feather or a cloud at 10, but it is really hard to tell from a picture.
I think there are some needles at 2 o'clock, and there's definitely something else I see at 8 o'clock (not small's)

the p-scope database is updated twice a week, so maybe these haven't been refreshed yet.

 

[Small]

OOOHHHHH, those are both nice options for you Argh...You should call Jamie and ask her of the 4 you are considering which she thinks is the best choice.

 

[argh&stuff]

Hello there, all.

This week has been a highly emotional one for my girl. And, in turn, for me, too. Aye...

Anyway, the comparison came out really nice. At least I can post something positive.

 

[argh&stuff]

Is it just me, or does the smaller one appear more sparkly?

 

[JulieN]

argh, you can only determine sparkliness when you are moving, the diamond is moving, or the light source is moving (or any and all of the above)

since this is a picture, you cannot determine sparkliness. HTH

 

[indecisive]

I agree. Idealscope pics can help you determine the light output of a diamond but not those pictures. They both look really good to me!

 

[sunkist]

Oh cool Argh! I''d totally get the bigger one! It''s a great price and it''s an ES so you''re not going to be disappointed I''m sure

It looks beautiful and has great numbers!

 

[Small]

Argh...you can''t determine how sparkly it will be from the picture...the IS is your source

Is your girl still having a hard time because you haven''t purchased the ring yet? She''s probably just stressed thinking the diamonds you''ve been looking at will be gone by the time you are ready. And she''s impatient LOL...just like most of us women are when we want something LOL.

Which one do you like best as of right now??? I think I like the .54

Great value and just the size you''ve been aiming for

 

[pinkflamingo]

another vote for the .54. i think she will appreciate the larger size. you can''t tell sparkles from a picture, argh. I know this is tough, but it looks like a great option.

 

[BrownEyes]

Good morning Argh ...

Another vote for the .54 - - it has great numbers and represents a great value. PLUS, I agree with those who posted above ... your girl will definitely appreciate the larger size.

Best of luck to you! Let us know what you decide ...

 

[argh&stuff]

So, about all this cloudiness and feathers... at 8 o''clock. Which diamond is that referring to? Which is the better one? I''m confused. Again.

 

[JulieN]

argh, call wf about the .54 and .55 about inclusions.

 

[indecisive]

Have you asked them to compare the stones for you (clarity, fire)? They really both look like great options and I think you are getting caught up in very small differences. Remember these are very magnified pictures. Talk to WF and if all things are equivalent go with the larger so your gf can know she got the half carat. Are things all set for the setting for when you decide on the diamond?

 

[argh&stuff]

Jamie said both are good. I just like to hear opinions. Sorry all.

 

[JulieN]

I think clarity is the deciding issue between both. ask jamie not which one is more eye-clean, but "what is the minimum distance to see the inclusion(s) on each?" "are there any carbon spots?" "are they both eye-clean from the side?"

 

[argh&stuff]

Thanks, Julie.

Still waiting on a reply from WF.

 

[indecisive]

I would call them first thing tomorrow if I were you. WF has really good customer service but if any company gets busy it is the squeaky wheel that gets the oil. Call them so you can get the ring on your girls finger!!

 

[anchor31]

Argh, I'm very curious to know if these stones are eye-clean too... Don't worry, I don't intend to steal it from you!

J and I have been looking at the same size/price range, so I'm just curious.

Have you seen those? The inclusions can be seen in the pics, but it's hard to say if they'd be visible with the naked eye.

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2362018.htm# I wonder about the spots and 2 and 4 o'clock...

http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-2362028.htm# But there a black thingy at 4 o'clock that looks a bit obvious.

Good luck on your search, and keep us posted!

 

[argh&stuff]

Anch,

That''s the thing: I can''t see anything in the way of "inclusions" on any of the pictures of any of the diamonds I''ve looked at. I try to see "feathers," "black spots," and all that other stuff, and I just really don''t see anything other than the pattern of the cut of the diamond, and the black portions made by the flash of the camera.

I''m not one with a keen eye, I suppose. That''s why I have to rely on people like you all... and that''s also why I get confused over why one diamond can be 2,000 and another the same size can be 1,000. Crazy odd to me....