Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

are these proportions ok?

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
A

ambenj

Rough_Rock
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
19
my new stone is 1.5 c round - depth is 63% and table is 56%- i think that these are probably not great but not sure.
thanks for your help
 
The table is very good. Depth is decieving, although it is a 2a in the AGA charts you still need the crown height, crown angle, pavilion depth, pavilion angle and girdle thickness. Try to get a sarin report on it.
 
People here would be able to give better advice if you post more information on the stone (i.e crown and pavillion angles if you have them, girdle thickness etc.).

From the numbers you give all I can say is that the stone is a bit deep which means you are probably loosing size (diameter will be smaller than 7.5mm)

Melina
 
Why is additional information required on this stone? It's got a total depth of 63% !!! There is a *really* small chance that it might be lively because the pavilion angle might just happen to be right, but it is extremely unlikely that all of the depth is in the girdle - which would have repercussons of it's own - but the odds are that the stone is not going to perform as well as a diamond with a shallower total depth because if the cutter was focused on beauty when he cut the stone, it wouldn't be 63% deep! That aside, you're paying a premium for a 1.50 carat stone which is going to face up the size of a 1.40 at best... We concur with what people are saying about needing the crown and pavilion angle in order to make an informed decision about the diamond, what we're trying to say is *why bother* when the measurements which are available indicate that the stone is already a potential dog due to the total depth.
 
The stone is a DOG?
Wow- some consideration of feelings would be nice. We just dropped down alot of money for this so to hear that I bought a Dog is harsh.
 
I think it may be nice. 63% is a little deep, but not out of the world, considering that most stones at the mall are in the 67-72% range.
6.gif
Probably you're loosing (visually) a few points, meaning that the stone may face up like a 1.40-1.45ct instead of a 1.50, but if the price was right, there's nothing terrible with that.
Do you have any specs like crown, pavilion and girdle?
Remember, you're wearing a diamond, not a certificate, on your finger!
2.gif
9.gif
 
All that was said is with those numbers and without knowing more, it is a "potential dog". I don't think anyone meant to insult you or the stone, they are just pointing out that it outside of what is considered great proportions. As others have said, if it looks good and you got a good deal on it, then great!
 
The girdle is Medium, faceted. I don't have the angle measurements but will get those tonight.
1.53 c. is actually bigger than i orginally had in mind and the stone was a good price so if it ends up looking in the 1.4_ range then that's ok with me.
 
Just because the stone has a 63% depth doesn't make it a dog. Maybe just not ideal. I've seen alot of bow wows with a 56% table and a 60% total depth. Also I have seen plenty of stones with a 63% depth that perform well enough to achieve what the person is trying get with the funds they have.
 
The girdle is Medium, faceted. I don't have the angle measurements but will get those tonight.
1.53 c. is actually bigger than i orginally had in mind and the stone was a good price so if it ends up looking in the 1.4_ range then that's ok with me.

I'm coming from a .40 so even 1.40 is a huge jump!
 
Please don't equate a stone with yourself. If people who post here don't like a stone you have or bought, feelings shouldn't get hurt. They are commenting on the stone, not YOU!

Now why this stone is not exhaulted:

1) Many people here have a narrower view of what makes a well cut RB stone.

2) These people adhere to HCA and AGA charts to determine if the stone is well cut to their specifications

3) These people have either seen a lot of stones, or learned quite a bit about stones, or some even SELL them, like NiceIce. They know diamonds. It's a diamond forum.

4) It may not have the BEST optics available to you in the specified price range or carat size. There are items on-line that will outperform your stone in various tests of light retention, etc...How much do you care?

It's like my coworker who went to Zales and got a 1ct ring she was so proud of. She asked me what I thought with all my "diamond knowledge". I was blunt. She didn't want to slap me, instead she said, "Ok. So I'm STILL happy with it." And she was... Now she wants an upgrade in quality.

If you are happy with what you have, then who cares if anyone calls it a dog. My only reason I can fathom why it would hurt your feelings, is because you want to hear how wonderful it is, but you're also asking for opinions, no? Take each one with a grain of salt, and decide to keep it or change it based on what YOU want, and if YOU like it.

This forum has ruined me forever. After seeing well cut stones over crappy stones, I can never walk into a store again without asking for angle and #s AGAIN! I am (like many here) a perfetionist and a deal guru, so I want the best bang for my buck. So, if you're not the same, none of this should really matter. As long as YOu like your stone, who cares...Right?
 
ambenj don't get discouraged by people's comments -this is an ideal cut focused forum after all. All that matters is that you love your stone. Numbers mean nothing if the stone looks beautiful to you. There are always "better" stones out there - the real question is are YOU happy with the one you have?

I am guessing since you posted here there must be something you are unsure about. If what you are trying to find out is whether the price was really "the deal" that you think it is post the specs, let us know what you paid and we'll let you know.

Melina
 
My feelings aren't "hurt"- i just thought there was a more sensitve way to say that it may not be the best stone out there. I am interested in opinions but there was a better way to express that one.

Melina,
specs that I know and price are:
1.53 c
color: G
clarity: si2 (though through loop inclusions were minimal- way better than others with better clarity rating)
Lab: GIA
fluorecence: none
girlde: medium, faceted
table: 56%
Depth: 63%

Price: $5850
 
Well just checking so far, I found a stone that is about the same in price, but yours is better cut for sure!

It's an EGL 1.51 G, SI1, D=66.6, T=55, for $5,787.00

I would probably wonder if this is a TURE g, as GIA tends to be better as getting stricter color standards, than EGL, as well as clarity grades from GIA at SI level tend to be a bit cleaner, from what I have seen.

All in all, for that price, yes you may have gotten a greta deal!

Again, better stones out there, but there will ALWAYS be something better and bigger. What's important is that you love the stone you HAVE and that it's pretty to you! ENJOY!
 
----------------
On 4/7/2004 11:40:53 AM ambenj wrote:

The stone is a DOG?
Wow- some consideration of feelings would be nice. We just dropped down alot of money for this so to hear that I bought a Dog is harsh.----------------
Click to expand...


But, you just said above in the first post, "i think that these are probably not great but not sure,"! Huh? Sounds like you already know that this stone's measurements AREN'T perfect. If you like the stone, don't question it's numbers here, but just enjoy it. If you DON'T like the stone, then return it! Don't make issue of our responses based on very incomplete info on the stone. Possibly it's a gorgeous stone, but how would we know based on what little info you've provided?

Also, I think it's dishonest to cut the head off a Tiffany ring and stick an inferior SI2 diamond on it and pretend it's a Tiffany diamond ring, especially since Tiff would never sell that clarity. I'm not saying YOU'RE a bad person, I think your jeweler is! The Tiffany ring should have been sold AS IS and a new ring should have been purchased!

JMO,
Michelle
 
It looks like a very fair price. Nice color, SI2 is all right, GIA cert., over 1.50 ct. If your happy with the way it sparkles, then you are golden.
 


----------------
On 4/7/2004 1:13:48 PM ambenj wrote:





My feelings aren't 'hurt'- i just thought there was a more sensitve way to say that it may not be the best stone out there. I am interested in opinions but there was a better way to express that one.----------------
Click to expand...

Amber, I sense that you may be not familiar with the fact that trade slang lingo for a stone that doesn't perform well is "a dog".



I think we sometimes forget that new folks coming here may not be in the know on that. On the surface, I'm sure it seems harsh, but NiceIce is in the trade and used the common lingo. They are really nice people and didn't mean *any* offense at all by the term.



I also sense they didn't realize you'd already purchased the stone because they called it a "potential" dog. In fact, I had to go back and reread your post, too, because I also didn't realize you'd already purchased it. Typically these questions asking if a stone is ok come *before* someone makes a purchase, and we evidently missed the reference to "your new stone".



 
It looks like an excellent deal. Finding a nice, eye-clean SI 2 is not easy at all, especially in the 1ct+ range. I think you did good.
9.gif
 
----------------
On 4/7/2004 1:22:12 PM MichelleCarmen wrote:

Also, I think it's dishonest to cut the head off a Tiffany ring and stick an inferior SI2 diamond on it and pretend it's a Tiffany diamond ring, especially since Tiff would never sell that clarity. I'm not saying YOU'RE a bad person, I think your jeweler is! The Tiffany ring should have been sold AS IS and a new ring should have been purchased!

----------------

I guess I don't understand how it's *dishonest* to amend one's OWN ring to her liking.



I could understand this sentiment if she were selling the ring and representing it as a Tiffany---then I think your point would be more than valid.



Amber was pretty clear that she is keeping the band for sentimental reasons......because *it's part of her original ring*. To me, that doesn't equate to trying to "pass off" her ring as ANYTHING. I'd lay odd that she doesn't run around NOW telling everyone "it's a Tiffany, it's a Tiffany.", so for you to imply she's "pretending" it's something it's not is baseless and accusatory.



Who are we to say "the ring SHOULD HAVE BEEN sold as it and a new ring SHOULD HAVE BEEN purchased? Says who? Amber wanted to keep part of her original ring for sentimental reasons, and of course she should keep the piece with the hallmark....her BF paid outrageously to have it there. Seeing that she's making these modifications for her *own* enjoyment, I really can't understand why you think it's okay to pass judgment on that.



 
Then if all the stone apprasied for was $400, why not save the WHOLE ring, and just get a new ring entirely. In the scheme of $400 versus $6000, it isn't really all that much. Plus sentimentality...

Either way, I agree with Michelle that the jeweler who puts on a new head of a Tiffany's band is trying to pass it off as a true Tiffany's.

It's no different than people who took real Ralph Lauren straps and put them on fake RL bags. I personally wouldn't buy one, but lots of people have. I just like to respect the designer and the integrity of the work done. Same if it were and heirloom.

But I make no accusations, because I don't give a rat's patoot what people do behind their walls...I just would have kept the WHOLE ring. I am a sentimental fool.
9.gif
 


----------------
On 4/7/2004 4:21:06 PM Nicrez wrote:


Then if all the stone apprasied for was $400, why not save the WHOLE ring, and just get a new ring entirely. In the scheme of $400 versus $6000, it isn't really all that much. Plus sentimentality...

Why not save the whole ring and get a new ring entirely? Because she doesn't *want* to. Did you read any of her comments at all? Here are the facts:



1. She wants to upgrade to larger stones.



2. The old setting won't accommodate larger stones. However, she doesn't want to part with her original ring, and she WANTS part of her old ring to remain with the new. ("maybe should have traded in band too but wanted to save something of my original ring".) Getting an entirely new ring isnt' the same thing at ALL.



3. To accommodate this desire, the jeweler is putting new heads on the existing ring.



Geez, this woman just wants to upgrade to a larger stone and keep her original band......and that entitles everyone to pass judgment? Did you read where she wrote how the ring means a lot to her because it symbolized how hard her hubby worked to get the ring when he had nothing? Would you folks be passing judgment this way if she were trying to salvage a Stuller band instead of a Tiffany's band? Has it occurred to any of you that she values the band for sentimental reasons and not JUST because it's a Tiff?

Either way, I agree with Michelle that the jeweler who puts on a new head of a Tiffany's band is trying to pass it off as a true Tiffany's.

No, he's not trying to pass off ANYTHING. He is trying to help the OWNER of the ring get the larger stones she wants without entirely losing her original e-ring. He's not "passing off" anything becuase *the owner KNOWS about it*. He's not trying to dupe anyone, he's trying to help her get what SHE WANTS.

It's no different than people who took real Ralph Lauren straps and put them on fake RL bags. I personally wouldn't buy one, but lots of people have. I just like to respect the designer and the integrity of the work done. Same if it were and heirloom.

I'm sorry, but in *this* case, it's *completely* different. This isn't a handbag, ladies.....it's an *engagement ring*.....one that obviously has a great deal of *sentimental* value to the wearer. It's not just any other purchase. Just because she wants to upgrade the stones doesn't mean she has no sentiment for the ring.

In fact, Mara just got her e-ring altered. She had been considering a larger stone, and if she had gone that route, it would have meant putting a new head on her custom-made engagement ring.



Somehow, I don't think Mara would be getting the same flak and judgments from all of you if she had chosen that route, though, because her ring isn't a Tiffany.



----------------

Click to expand...
 
good grief people, it's her ring, she can do whatever the heck she wants with it, no matter where she bought it. if, someday, she tried to sell it as a "tiffany" maybe there would be some issues, but it doesn't sound like she is ever going to do that. lighten up, already.
 


----------------
On 4/7/2004 6:19:20 PM CaptAubrey wrote:







good grief people, it's her ring, she can do whatever the heck she wants with it, no matter where she bought it. if, someday, she tried to sell it as a 'tiffany' maybe there would be some issues, but it doesn't sound like she is ever going to do that. lighten up, already.

----------------
Click to expand...
EXACTLY what I was trying to say, Capt. You just chose the more direct route!
9.gif
2.gif
11.gif
 
----------------
On 4/7/2004 6:53:56 PM aljdewey wrote:




----------------
On 4/7/2004 6:19:20 PM CaptAubrey wrote:




good grief people, it's her ring, she can do whatever the heck she wants with it, no matter where she bought it. if, someday, she tried to sell it as a 'tiffany' maybe there would be some issues, but it doesn't sound like she is ever going to do that. lighten up, already.

----------------
Click to expand...
EXACTLY what I was trying to say, Capt. You just chose the more direct route!
9.gif
2.gif
11.gif

----------------
Click to expand...


Really....just let the women enjoy her *own* ring. Shaking my head.

I can't help but think this would be a non-issue if the ring wasn't Tiffany & this poor women was trading *down* in size. F&I admitting running fast......
 
We will all always disagree about something, and that's a given.

Fact is, it's HER ring, so she could EAT it for all we should care. She wants a bigger stone. Great. Who cares what she chooses to do personally?

Al, I just agreed with Michelle, and if you will defend a woman for having her choice of stone size, you should agree we have the right to say whatever we want. I still will always feel wrong about taking a designer ring and putting an unoriginal item and transposing it.

I guess what I had issues with is the fact that if the band was not Tiffany's, then would it have been so sentimental?

I am sorry, but I won't apologize about keeping a brand image true to it's integrity. Again, I worked for a designer who would get ripped off CONSTANTLY. It's so infuriating! If someone's ring was designed by a designer whose work was known to be expensive and exclusive, and you changed the stone on it to make it look more expensive, then YES I would have a problem with it, and I think I have the right to say it.

Even if Tiffany's is the Friday's whipping child on this forum, I still respect their original designs and craftsmanship, and I can disagree with the concept of altering it deceptively, because I would hope that most people wouldn't purposefully do that in the future. Whether that's the case with Ambenj, I don't know, I don't care, it's not personal, it's the concept in general I am talking about. Like I said, I have seen that happen so often, so people can have bragging rights to something that isn't what it seems. It's all about some people's appearances at the expense of the desinger and the designer's image.

As a matter of fact, I am keeping the BAND that I got on my E-ring, after I get the real e-ring band made, and I will use it for a topaz I have, as a right hand ring. I am sentimental, and it's NOT Tiffany's.
 
----------------
On 4/8/2004 11:19:22 AM Nicrez wrote:

I guess what I had issues with is the fact that if the band was not Tiffany's, then would it have been so sentimental?

-----
Click to expand...


Well, why would that question even be raised? My original e-ring setting was certainly no Tiffany....just a nice tiffany style solitaire. I had sentimental attachment to mine & incorporated part of my setting into a well-know award winning goldsmith's design. He was perfectly o.k with it. But, I guess that is O.K. because it's not Tiffany.

I'm a purist. In my biz, you have to be. I will not alter nor will I buy altered items. That sentiment is just about objects. This isn't just a Tiffany ring. This is her engagement ring & with it comes a transcention of sentimentality. She wants to keep her original band. Why all the judgemental comments about her motives, the jeweler's motives & their subsequent actions. Geez, elevating what she has done to a crime against nature.

This isn't some high moral ground one has to take. It's a ring for pete's sake. And *her* e-ring at that.

Ambenj, enjoy your new ring. I completely understand sentimentally incorporating part of your original band. I did *exactly* the same thing for *exactly* the same reasons.
 


----------------
On 4/8/2004 11:19:22 AM Nicrez wrote:











Al, I just agreed with Michelle, and if you will defend a woman for having her choice of stone size, you should agree we have the right to say whatever we want.

Yes, you have the right to say whatever you want.....and so do I, which means I have the right to say that I think your comments are baselessly self-righteous and judgmental.



I guess what I had issues with is the fact that if the band was not Tiffany's, then would it have been so sentimental.



And what *I* have issue with is that you ASSUME that the sentiment is toward the name and not toward the fact that it is her original e-ring. Why don't you go back and read that thread CAREFULLY. It wasn't the owner saying "I don't want to lose the Tiff name".......OTHERS were advising her to make sure the hallmark remained intact.



I take issue with the fact that you ASSUME that she's a "name-monger" just because her ring comes from Tiff's. She didn't choose that; her hubby did.



I am sorry, but I won't apologize about keeping a brand image true to it's integrity. Again, I worked for a designer who would get ripped off CONSTANTLY. It's so infuriating. If someone's ring was designed by a designer whose work was known to be expensive and exclusive, and you changed the stone on it to make it look more expensive, then YES I would have a problem with it, and I think I have the right to say it.



You are still missing the point. Yes, I'm sorry your designer gets ripped off....and I too can appreciate that frustration. But this woman is NOT RIPPING THEM OFF, for Christ's sake! The FULL Tiff premium was PAID for on her ring. That is NOT ripping anyone off. What's the problem.....you're issue is that it will look like she bought a BIGGER tiffany rock than she did? SO WHAT? She paid the premium for the Tiffany rock/band, and *I* personally don't believe other's should start disparaging her for wanting to change her ring. And that's what *I* think.



Even if Tiffany's is the Friday's whipping child on this forum, I still respect their original designs and craftsmanship, and I can disagree with the concept of altering it deceptively,



Whether that's the case with Ambenj, I don't know.....



That's *right*...you DON'T know, and until you do, you should refrain from dragging someone's motives through the proverbial mud. She is NOT altering the ring "deceptively".....she is NOT trying to get something (the Tiff name) without PAYING for it. She is just trying to keep part of her original e-ring.....and if you haven't gotten that by now, you won't get it at all.




Click to expand...
 
----------------
On 4/7/2004 6:53:56 PM aljdewey wrote:




----------------
On 4/7/2004 6:19:20 PM CaptAubrey wrote:




good grief people, it's her ring, she can do whatever the heck she wants with it, no matter where she bought it. if, someday, she tried to sell it as a 'tiffany' maybe there would be some issues, but it doesn't sound like she is ever going to do that. lighten up, already.

----------------
Click to expand...
EXACTLY what I was trying to say, Capt. You just chose the more direct route!
9.gif
2.gif
11.gif

----------------
Click to expand...


Of course she would NEVER sell her ring. . .lol, but what happens if she passes this ring on to future generations and one of these individuals tries to sell the ring as an original Tiffany? Someone will get ripped off. Of course this is all speculative, but my opinion was stated entirely with the reminder that we have, in the past, had a poster here who bought a ring on eBay where the original Tiff diamond had been taken out and someone was still trying to pass this off as a Tiffany & Co. package deal, and this person's ring reminded me of this post. Oh well, doesn't matter. I won't be buying any Tiffany rings on eBay, so I'm safe.
9.gif



Michelle
 
There peeerrrrfect you are a diamond Goddess who bought the best diamond in the world that everyone lusts after.
Maidens will swoon at the sight of it and the gentlemen will be blinded by its bright and shiny glory!
The thought of looking upon it will launch a thousand warships and destroy a great nation.
All will bow before your wonderful diamond!!

There that better??
 


----------------
On 4/8/2004 7:18:37 PM MichelleCarmen wrote:





but what happens if she passes this ring on to future generations and one of these individuals tries to sell the ring as an original Tiffany? Someone will get ripped off. Of course this is all speculative, but my opinion was stated entirely with the reminder that we have, in the past, had a poster here who bought a ring on eBay where the original Tiff diamond had been taken out and someone was still trying to pass this off as a Tiffany & Co. package deal, and this person's ring reminded me of this post. Oh well, doesn't matter. I won't be buying any Tiffany rings on eBay, so I'm safe.
9.gif



Michelle

----------------
Click to expand...

I see that point, but honestly........if someone is really concerned about "authenticity", what the hell are they doing buying a Tiff ring on ebay? Hey, if *I'm* concerned with buying a *real* Rolex, I certainly don't think I'm gonna find it from a sidewalk vendor in NYC......know what I mean??



I just find it really, really hard to believe that everyone thinks it won't be noticeable to a trained eye that the head was replaced. I mean, c'mon guys, we see more threads than Springmaid about how all these average Joe's can see the MINUTEST of differences in Tiff copies, and how NO ONE could mistake one of the replicas for an original.........and now we're supposed to buy that a trained professional wouldn't be able to see that the head of this ring has been altered??



It's great that everyone's all worried about someone who's not even born yet getting duped 60 years down the line by the altered Tiff ring, but I think everyone's getting just a bit fanatical about this. Let this woman wear her ring in peace.
 
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