Alarming jewelry store visit!

[Rhea]

Date: 2/21/2009 5:53:32 PM
Author: Maisie
Here is a handshot. The owner is Jo C. I hope she doesn''t mind me posting her picture.

I heart this look! Talk about more bang for your buck!

 

[elle_chris]

a 5 stone is perfect for finger coverage. tons of bling for the buck!

 

[vespergirl]

I haven''t read through this whole thread, but you remind me a lot of one of my friends who I went ering shopping with. She also wears a size 7, and even thinks that my 2 ct RB looks small - she just thought that a "big" stone would cover her whole finger. After shopping, she realized that she didn''t want anything smaller than a 4 ct center stone, so she just picked out a fancy setting and her fiance got her a 4 ct CZ as the center stone. I don''t think that my 2 ct stone is small, but she can''t believe that my husband payed so much money for something that doesn''t look that big to her. I guess it''s all about expectations. Maybe you could get a .5 or .75 center stone with a halo - haloes make center stones look much bigger & it will cover more of your finger.

 

[vespergirl]

I also wanted to mention that if you like them, you should take a look at marquise cuts. My mom''s marquise is 1.5 cts and it looks about 3 times bigger than my 2 ct RB.

 

[Maisie]

Date: 2/21/2009 7:38:35 PM
Author: vespergirl
I also wanted to mention that if you like them, you should take a look at marquise cuts. My mom''s marquise is 1.5 cts and it looks about 3 times bigger than my 2 ct RB.

I love Marquise cuts!

 

[Rockit]

The five-stone band is a great idea. I wear one and love it. Also, since marquise cuts have been mentioned, for something different, one could always set a marquise sideways with either a very modern setting, or, perhaps with some beautiful filigree and engraving for an antique look.

 

[ButterBean]

Hi abcdefg,
Please don''t get too upset. You have gotten some good advice already, but since my finger is a 7 and I just received an 80 point diamond in my e-ring, thought I''d post. I agree it would be nice to have a bigger one, but if you''re at all like me, the sparkles and flashes of colours all over the place really are a pretty good tradeoff for the smaller size IMHO.

But I guess upgrading wouldn''t be such an awful idea down the road either ...

 

[Rhea]

Date: 2/21/2009 8:32:02 PM
Author: ButterBean
Hi abcdefg,

Please don''t get too upset. You have gotten some good advice already, but since my finger is a 7 and I just received an 80 point diamond in my e-ring, thought I''d post. I agree it would be nice to have a bigger one, but if you''re at all like me, the sparkles and flashes of colours all over the place really are a pretty good tradeoff for the smaller size IMHO.


But I guess upgrading wouldn''t be such an awful idea down the road either ...

Butterbean, don''t say such things! Your stone and setting are absolutely amazing!! Can''t you just expand your collection rather than upgrade?!

 

[abcdefg]

Date: 2/21/2009 7:38:35 PM
Author: vespergirl
I also wanted to mention that if you like them, you should take a look at marquise cuts. My mom''s marquise is 1.5 cts and it looks about 3 times bigger than my 2 ct RB.

One of my friends has a marquise (not sure how big it is), and it looks like it has to be at least 1ct. Maybe that''s part of what was skewing my expectations - not even so much that her diamond necessarily has more finger coverage, but even just that it''s... thicker? Anyhow, it was appraised at something like $12k so I guess I shouldn''t be expecting to see that in diamonds that are in my price range!

 

[abcdefg]

Date: 2/21/2009 8:32:02 PM
Author: ButterBean
Hi abcdefg,

Please don''t get too upset. You have gotten some good advice already, but since my finger is a 7 and I just received an 80 point diamond in my e-ring, thought I''d post. I agree it would be nice to have a bigger one, but if you''re at all like me, the sparkles and flashes of colours all over the place really are a pretty good tradeoff for the smaller size IMHO.


But I guess upgrading wouldn''t be such an awful idea down the road either ...

Maybe it''s because I''m seeing your ring from the top and not the side, but again... this looks so much better to me than the 0.75ct diamonds I saw? I''m confused, maybe I need to go out looking again, after having read this thread.

 

[AGBF]

I just read this thread. People have contributed a lot of great ideas. I have a couple more. One is to use a bezel setting if you do not want to use a halo. It certainly will not add as much "size" as a halo would, but it will make your stone appear larger. The other is to use a white sapphire instead of a diamond. (This is a variation on the "colored stone" idea.) A white sapphire is obviously a precious gem, not something like a CZ which you might feel was "second best", but would still have the white, bridal look that many people in our culture are used to without the same expense of a diamond.

Deborah

 

[Noahsmom]

Here is my .52ct. The two stones are .25 ct each.

The stone next to it is a .87.

 

[wapila1]

I wear a size 8 ring (and a size 11 shoe!

), and my engagement ring is a .95 carat round brilliant solitaire. At one point I was concerned not about the diamond looking small but about my hands looking even bigger than they are, so I asked for suggestions about making things look more proportionate. Everyone said get the stone haloed, which I looked into and agree is the best way to make a stone look bigger. Unfortunatley, however, I personally don't care for halos. If you do though, I think it's a great way to go! That Bev K with a .5-.6 stone would probably be in your price range and give you tons of bang for your buck. Also, if you get the stone from a PS vendor with a good upgrade policy, you could always trade the diamond in for a bigger stone later and have it set as a solitaire.

 

[AGBF]

This site has some white sapphires for sale. As you can see, it is possible to buy a large white sapphire for a few hundred dollars. I do not necessarily recommend using this website; I am posting the link just to give you an idea of what is available. One of the jewelers here could get you a very nice, large, white sapphire for a low price and you would have a lot more money left to set it any way you liked...including surrounded by diamonds if you wished to use them. But why would you?

Deborah

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 2/21/2009 10:04:08 PM
Author: AGBF




This site has some white sapphires for sale. As you can see, it is possible to buy a large white sapphire for a few hundred dollars. I do not necessarily recommend using this website; I am posting the link just to give you an idea of what is available. One of the jewelers here could get you a very nice, large, white sapphire for a low price and you would have a lot more money left to set it any way you liked...including surrounded by diamonds if you wished to use them. But why would you?


Deborah

Not that a white sapph might not work for you, but just be aware that it only returns white light. Thus it will never look like a real diamond because it lacks fire. Just something to know since most people haven''t seen white sapphs in person.

 

[abcdefg]

Date: 2/21/2009 10:07:11 PM
Author: neatfreak
Not that a white sapph might not work for you, but just be aware that it only returns white light. Thus it will never look like a real diamond because it lacks fire. Just something to know since most people haven''t seen white sapphs in person.

Good to know, I wasn''t aware of that.

 

[T L]

Date: 2/21/2009 12:40:19 PM
Author: abcdefg


I guess I''m just shocked because I wasn''t expecting them to be THAT small. I don''t care how much a rock sparkles if it''s like half the size of a pencil eraser? I can''t really justify spending thousands of dollars on that... I guess I just don''t get it. Maybe I''ll just go with a plain band for a ring.

It''s funny because I am a collector of colored gems and I also have several colored diamonds. I have to say that my 7mm diamond looks HUGE to me as well as others, but if I had a tourmaline that size, I would consider that a very small colored gem. I think because diamonds are so expensive and you rarely see them in sizes over three carats at B&M stores, most people consider a 6mm stone to be a nice size. It''s a mental thing that I think many people are attuned to. In fact, I believe the most expensive natural substance on earth are GIA certified fancy red diamonds, and they''re RARELY ever found over a carat in size. Let''s talk about spending a million dollars on something that is probably a third of the size of a pencil eraser!!

 

[Gypsy]

Okay so... I was looking for something else, and it occured to me that, if it were me in your situation, and I have a budget up to 3K... but more comfortably around 2K I would easily give up on platinum and rounds.

A .60 carat pear can face up 5 x 7 which is about what a 1 carat Emerald cut typically faces up. Same with ovals.

If you don''t want a marquise, I would go for a G-H SI1 eyeclean oval or pear, around 2K and spend up to 500 on the setting, maximum.

 

[arjunajane]

Date: 2/21/2009 1:51:11 PM
Author: Maisie
It was Arjunajane''s gorgeous K that made me think of going lower in colour but keeping the ideal cut. Have a look at her beautiful ring - https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-wonderful-e-ring-upgrade-thankyou.89827/

Aww maisie really? I had no idea! That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy, thankyou! I''m glad I could somehow contribute to that awesome new gem of yours

To abcdefg -
1. Things always look much much huger online/on your screen. Jewellery and gems are delicate by nature - "bulk" is not what you are paying for.
2. Please don''t go by what is being told you in a mall store - I will bet you their "ideal" is not a true ideal - there is no guidelines for people to just use and abuse this term. You need to go to an upper market retailer that carries branded H&A stones such as Hearts on Fire - I wouldn''t recommend them as they are very pricey, but will give you an idea on what a true ideal looks like.
3. I doubt seriously it was an H. Just look at the photos of my accurately graded K - no yellow in sight.

4. If after doing some more research with better diamonds, you are still not impressed - it sounds like you might just not be a "diamond person"? If thats the case, there is no harm there, to each their own.
Others have given you some very good suggestions for alternatives in the thread, personally I think the 5 stone band is a great idea for you.

Good luck!

 

[Gypsy]

This one, for example, has great spread and nice promise. G VS2 to boot.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/G-VS2-Premium-Cut-Pear-Diamond-1118294.asp

In this setting (baguettes and pears look lovely together, plus it will give you some extra width coverage). James Allen can get this in for you:

http://www.adwar.com/products/styles/22981L/view


Alternately this is a promising stone as well. Almost 5 x 7. F VS1.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamonds/F-VS1-Ideal-Cut-Pear-Diamond-1179997.asp


Later on if you want to larger diamond, you can put this in a gorgeous drop pendant, or make it into a RHR. If you don't want to you can get a different, platinum, setting.

 

[Rockit]

Another option might be to find a beautiful 3/4ct diamond, or slightly larger, and flank it with two similarly sized colored stones, rich blue sapphires, for example, for a three-stone ring. It is a classic look – kind of between a band and traditional ER – and should give just enough finger coverage. The colored stones will contrast and help draw attention to a bright, colorless, drop-dead gorgeous center stone. You could use a round brilliant as a center or, for something a little more subtle and different, try a cushion, antique OMC, OEC, or transitional-cut center with round sides. Then, later if you decide to "upgrade" the ring will look wonderful as a RHR. Hummm, I''d like one myself, actually!

For what it is worth, on my hand, oval, pear, and marquise shapes – unless they are more substantial in size, or turned sideways (not the pear, obviously!) – tend to be a little "skinny" when it comes to providing me the coverage I want. Yes, they have the length, but their narrowness doesn''t work for me.

Really, it all depends on what looks best on YOUR hand and works best to fulfill your expectations...

 

[vespergirl]

Something like this would give great coverage, or with a pear or marquise center stone. This one is Ritani, but you could have a PS jeweler make something similar for less expensive - it would look great with a .5 ct center stone:

 

[vespergirl]

Here are a couple of Fay Cullen rings around $3000. The haloes give great finger coverage, and are beautiful.

 

[vespergirl]

I also really love this ring from Whiteflash - the price with the center diamonds is only around $2700 total in 18K WG. I would love to have it myself!

 

[ButterBean]

Date: 2/21/2009 8:37:39 PM
Author: Addy

Date: 2/21/2009 8:32:02 PM
Author: ButterBean
Hi abcdefg,

Please don''t get too upset. You have gotten some good advice already, but since my finger is a 7 and I just received an 80 point diamond in my e-ring, thought I''d post. I agree it would be nice to have a bigger one, but if you''re at all like me, the sparkles and flashes of colours all over the place really are a pretty good tradeoff for the smaller size IMHO.


But I guess upgrading wouldn''t be such an awful idea down the road either ...

Butterbean, don''t say such things! Your stone and setting are absolutely amazing!! Can''t you just expand your collection rather than upgrade?!

Sorry. Hangs her head in shame...

I LOVE my set and would not give them up for anything!

 

[ButterBean]

I think what you''re seeing at the B&M''s is that their diamonds are not cut very well, so you WILL see more body color and they won''t look as impressive! If you put one of those stones next to a well cut one of identical size and color, you will absolutely see the difference!

And, have you looked into getting an OEC or transitional stone? The look is a little different, but I love them. Do a little search and let us know what you think?? We might have another old-cut lover.
BB