August Vintage Cushion 3 Stone Design and Proportion

[AVC4Me]

Calling all AVC lovers...please offer your opinion on the following 3 stone combinations.

I came across this 3 stone and I love the proportions (1.25 center with .4ct sides or 3.125 ratio). The center stone has a L:W ratio of 1.03, slightly rectangular (which I like).



I am trying to decide between 2 different center stones (0.89, J, VS2 and 1.05, K VS2) AND which side stones to go with it. Both of these center stones are square, not slightly rectangular (which I prefer). (That being said, I may wait on this whole project until I see a stone close to that ratio within the budget)

Below are the various combinations. The differences in the "look" between them is very subtle, but noticeable.

My thoughts at the moment are, if I go with the smaller center (0.89), I need to emphasize it by using the smaller sides (0.25) to make it pop.

With the larger center (1.05), I think the larger sides (0.31) seem in better proportion to the center than the smaller.

I would also like split claw prongs on the center only to help "define" the center stone.

The cost difference from smaller center/sides to larger center/sides is about $2700. Is it worth it to "size up"??

Take a look and tell me what you think!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I would go with the largest set. The others might work in bezels or halos, but I think for the stones to be set as a three stone, you need a carat in the center. 1.03 is much more square looking than rectangular, but I actually like that shape a lot for a three stone ring. I like a rectangular stone more in a halo.

 

[Niel]

I think my favorite is the smaller center with the larger sides. The second pic. Just for diamonds, I support the last one as large is large, and there is something to be said about getting as big as you can. But I really love the second pic

 

[umbrella]

I honestly love the first option, with the .89 J and the smaller side stones. That was the first picture I saw and I went WOW! The other combinations didn't grab me so much. The proportion of the .89 looks lovely, delicate and not clunky. The 1.05 K looks heavier, which some may like, but as a personal preference for me, I love the smaller centre and smaller side stones I would with no question choose that combination, especially if there's a $2700 difference! That's a lot of money. Also, the photos were taken in different lighting so that may be affecting it, but the J looks like a better colour match than the K.

 

[arkieb1]

What ring size do you wear? That is what makes the difference for me, I owned a .99 AVC and the size of your finger should at least in part be dictating which stone you pick. I have also observed the larger the AVC the more you notice the cut pattern.

 

[partgypsy]

I honestly love the first option, with the .89 J and the smaller side stones. That was the first picture I saw and I went WOW! The other combinations didn't grab me so much. The proportion of the .89 looks lovely, delicate and not clunky. The 1.05 K looks heavier, which some may like, but as a personal preference for me, I love the smaller centre and smaller side stones I would with no question choose that combination, especially if there's a $2700 difference! That's a lot of money. Also, the photos were taken in different lighting so that may be affecting it, but the J looks like a better colour match than the K.

me too I just like the first set best.

 

[marymm]

I honestly love the first option, with the .89 J and the smaller side stones. That was the first picture I saw and I went WOW! The other combinations didn't grab me so much. The proportion of the .89 looks lovely, delicate and not clunky. The 1.05 K looks heavier, which some may like, but as a personal preference for me, I love the smaller centre and smaller side stones I would with no question choose that combination, especially if there's a $2700 difference! That's a lot of money. Also, the photos were taken in different lighting so that may be affecting it, but the J looks like a better colour match than the K.

me too I just like the first set best.

Another +1 to the first option - beautiful!

 

[daintyG]

I prefer the .89 with .25 sides. I personally enjoy delicate looks the most. I liked the other options, too, though.

 

[AVC4Me]

Thank you all for you thoughts!! My ring size is probably around a 7. I think the pictures were taken on a size 6 hand (thank you GOG!!)

Arkieb1, what is your ring size and how did you set your .99 AVC?

I think my biggest fear with going smaller is that I will sacrifice what AVCs are known for...those gorgeous chunky flashes. But for the added $$$, I may just have to appreciate them on a smaller scale.

Here is another option: these sizes replicate the proportions of the original 3 stone (pic 1) exactly. It's a little tough to judge this one since it's not a hand shot and was taken much closer.

 

[Fancygems]

I prefer the first two with the .89 center and like the last pic with the bigger stones least

 

[apacherose]

They are all beautiful! It will be a lovely ring whatever you decide. My personal taste likes the bigger, chunky pillow sides with both the .89 and 1.05. I'd probably make 'paper diamond' rings and see what looked best on me. If you have not done that before keep in mind that in real 3D life the diamonds seem bigger than their 2D paper outlines, but, it is still really helpful for me to make my 'pretend' rings. My new AVC solitaire has a 1.03 ratio- I did not specifically seek it out but I really like it. So there is also the option of waiting if that silhouette is a big draw for you. The money/size is just personal... for me if the larger was in budget for the project I'd probably go larger, if the money made me uneasy, then the .89 is completely gorgeous. I love them both, truly. I think you will still get the chunky flash with the .89 suite; I talked with David from GOG about that quite a bit.

 

[AVC4Me]

Apacherose, did you have the luxury of seeing your AVC in person before purchasing? I'm having the hardest time judging "size". What did David have to say re: "getting that AVC look" in a smaller stone?

Vatche would probably do the setting...wondering if I can pull off double prongs on a center stone that's less than 1ct????

 

[tyty333]

I like the .89 with the .30ish side stones to give you a little more finger coverage.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Now knowing that your ring size is a 7, I still think you should go with the largest combination if you are setting them in baskets with prongs. The problem with any hypothetical choice is whether they have a matching pair of sides in the right color. I really think that ought to be what determines the choice...what matching sidestones are available and then see what center stones work well with them.

 

[junebug17]

I like the one with the largest stones I think the ring will have more hand presence and give you more finger coverage.

 

[kenny]

For the .089, use the 0.25s.
For the 1.05, use the 0.31s.

IMO for a 3-stone the center diamond must be distinctly larger than the sides ... otherwise it looks like someone tried and failed to make a 3-stone ring with the 3 diamonds same size.

For the posted pics I think for the smaller center stone the smaller sides do this better.

For the larger stones the larger sides actually look better since the smaller sides look too small.

That's my

 

[Niel]

IMO for a 3-stone the center diamond must be distinctly larger than the sides ... otherwise it looks like someone tried and failed to make a 3-stone ring with the 3 diamonds same size.

For the posted pics I think for the smaller center stone the smaller sides do this better.

For the larger stones the larger sides actually look better since the smaller sides look too small.

That's my

I guess I don't get this part. They put three stones together and then failed to make a three stone? Is it saying that in your eyes a three stone isnt a three stone strictly by number of stones, but they have to meet a particular proportion in your mind?

 

[AVC4Me]

A discouraging update...someone snagged the 1.05 K VS2...perhaps I tipped someone off that I might be interested in it and they were too??

I guess asking for opinions BEFORE the stones are put on hold is NOT the best idea.....

So, I make do with the .89 J...or sit and wait and watch the inventory

 

[arkieb1]

My vote is for the ring with the largest stones as well it's going to cover more of your finger across ways. You will still see the pattern in the smaller stone, but the larger they are the more this stands out IMHO.

Why don't you ask GOG if they are going to be cutting more any time soon, you might eventually find one that is more rectangular rather than squarer if you are willing to wait.

 

[kenny]

IMO for a 3-stone the center diamond must be distinctly larger than the sides ... otherwise it looks like someone tried and failed to make a 3-stone ring with the 3 diamonds same size.

For the posted pics I think for the smaller center stone the smaller sides do this better.

For the larger stones the larger sides actually look better since the smaller sides look too small.

That's my

I guess I don't get this part. They put three stones together and then failed to make a three stone? Is it saying that in your eyes a three stone isnt a three stone strictly by number of stones, but they have to meet a particular proportion in your mind?

Yes.

Did you miss the first three letters of my post?
IMO.

You don't get it.
No problem.

 

[Niel]

A discouraging update...someone snagged the 1.05 K VS2...perhaps I tipped someone off that I might be interested in it and they were too??

I guess asking for opinions BEFORE the stones are put on hold is NOT the best idea.....

So, I make do with the .89 J...or sit and wait and watch the inventory

I still vote the .89 with the larger side stones. That was still my favorite. And then, sense they have a lifetime trade in policy (if I remember correctly) you won't have to upgrade the aide stones if you ever upgrade the center stone.

 

[Niel]

IMO for a 3-stone the center diamond must be distinctly larger than the sides ... otherwise it looks like someone tried and failed to make a 3-stone ring with the 3 diamonds same size.

For the posted pics I think for the smaller center stone the smaller sides do this better.

For the larger stones the larger sides actually look better since the smaller sides look too small.

That's my

I guess I don't get this part. They put three stones together and then failed to make a three stone? Is it saying that in your eyes a three stone isnt a three stone strictly by number of stones, but they have to meet a particular proportion in your mind?

Yes.

Did you miss the first three letters of my post?
IMO.

You don't get it.
No problem.

Haha OK. Calm down. Just clarifying.

 

[LLJsmom]

My vote is for the ring with the largest stones as well it's going to cover more of your finger across ways. You will still see the pattern in the smaller stone, but the larger they are the more this stands out IMHO.

Why don't you ask GOG if they are going to be cutting more any time soon, you might eventually find one that is more rectangular rather than squarer if you are willing to wait.

+1. Wait for the stone that you want. And I like the biggest set. Presence...

 

[apacherose]

Hey AVC! There is a diamond size comparison website which I think is not okay for me to link to but I have sent the link to David so if you cant find it after digging around ask him; you can put in the exact dimensions and your finger size and length and skin tone and compare two side by side- that was so helpful for me. I know you will have sides but still might help.

If I were you and not 100 percent I would so wait. However, David told me you can easily see the facet pattern at above 50 points on these large faceted beauties. I am overseas and have not preview shipped stones before buying. Good good luck. Have fun, this is exciting!

 

[packrat]

I prefer three stones where the sides are close in size to the center. Not completely the same size-I did try that and while I liked it, I wanted juuuust a bit of difference in size. I think it makes the ring look like one cohesive piece, rather than a center with sides. That's of course my opinion b/c that's how my own AVC three stone is, and I adore it like none other. I have a .71 center and .48 sides on a 4.25 finger. I can see the facets. I would go as big as you can afford.

 

[packrat]

mine

 

[apacherose]

Packrat your ring is yummy beautiful. I love it!

 

[AVC4Me]

Does anyone know who owns(ed) the 3 stone AVC that I referenced above? Did it ever show up on PS? I am trying to locate profile pictures and pics from the back of the ring.

Thanks for any leads on this!!

 

[EvangelineG]

I like the second option. I actually quite like 3 stones where the sidestones are large. Lots of finger coverage, and I like the softer graduation from centre to sides.

 

[chrono]

I like picture 2 as well, but I am biased because I have a 3 stone with similar proportions.