Best RBC - 1.34ct range for under 5k?

[JamiSteven]

I have decided to keep the tiffany solitaire setting that I am in possession of and start searching for the perfect diamond for the setting. I have a budget of 5k total for the diamond and would prefer the vendor include the mounting of the diamond in the setting. The setting use to house a 1.34ct RBC - F color grade/VS1 clarity, 7.09-7.12 x 4.35mm.

I found this which seems ok for the price ---> http://www.brilliance.com/diamonds/1.32-carat-round-h-color-vs2-clarity-super-ideal-cut-egl-certified-loose-diamond-D12391420

 

[04diamond<3]

I'd really call ID Jewelry to help find you a stone within your specifications and budget. They're amazing at finding stones on a budget and can help work with you on your budget.

www.idjewelryonline.com

I wouldn't suggest buying from the place that you posted. IDJ will give you pictures and an idealscope image which is absolutely necessary if you're going to buy a round online.

 

[JamiSteven]

I'd really call ID Jewelry to help find you a stone within your specifications and budget. They're amazing at finding stones on a budget and can help work with you on your budget.

www.idjewelryonline.com

I wouldn't suggest buying from the place that you posted. IDJ will give you pictures and an idealscope image which is absolutely necessary if you're going to buy a round online.

Thanks, ill contact them and post the results!

 

[JulieN]

EGL International is way off the mark. Price search shows results in the J/K SI range for GIA graded stones.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You definitely need to ask them for GIA Excellent cut only! EGL grading is not accurate.

 

[Niel]

Excel diamonds has a handful of j-m ex cut stones in your price range. Send them an email asking for the highest color eye clean stone you can get, they are pretty great I'm sure they'll be able to help

 

[JamiSteven]

Just got off the phone with the guy at IDJ, he said he has a "pricescope" approved diamond there with GIA cert that he believes will be perfect for this. I am waiting on some high res images this afternoon and possibly a video of the diamond. Ill let you guys/gals know the results, im excited nonetheless!

 

[Niel]

Just got off the phone with the guy at IDJ, he said he has a "pricescope" approved diamond there with GIA cert that he believes will be perfect for this. I am waiting on some high res images this afternoon and possibly a video of the diamond. Ill let you guys/gals know the results, im excited nonetheless!

Oh awesome!

 

[JamiSteven]

Here is what Yekutiel has sent over, ill have high res images and video hopefully by tomorrow.. What do you guys/gals think of this? I think the color grade is a bit low, and there is one inclusion however he said that can be covered with one of the prongs.

 

[Niel]

I like the fluorescence. Did he provide you with the whole gia report? What are the angles?

 

[JamiSteven]

I like the fluorescence. Did he provide you with the whole gia report? What are the angles?

As of yet this is all I have, ill post more details as they arrive. Im very interested to see what the fluorescence looks like in person.

 

[Niel]

Here are the angles. Looks good.
http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?reportno=5146044943&go=Look+Up&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&pagename=GIA%2FDispatcher&c=Page&cid=1355954554547

 

[yssie]

Numbers are fine, request photos.

I think the Tiffany 6prong setting is forgiving enough to - well, forgive - the 0.1mm diameter difference btwn this one and the original in the hands of a good bench. Since you'll have 6 prongs putting that UGF meet under a prong shouldn't be too difficult, and I also think the prongs will be big enough to distract from the plotted inclusions even if they can't be completely covered.

The colour in a K of this size will be visible from the side, and visible face-up compared to higher coloured diamonds unless you're particularly colour-insensitive, IMO. Tiffany does not sell rings with diamonds with strong blue fluor, and Tiffany only sells rings with I and above (and my experience has been that they err strict on colour compared to GIA). If she LOVES the aesthetic of the original Tiffany setting then this seems like an excellent compromise. If, however, she wants people to think she does in fact have a ring from Tiffany, she should know that she won't be fooling anyone who cares to take a good look.


ETA: A recent experience showed that GIA really does sometimes seem to pick fluor grades out of a hat, so have IDJ check it and tell you if it's actually got SBF by any *reasonable* metric

Niel your link didn't work for me - here's another: https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=5146044943&weight=1.25#

 

[JamiSteven]

Numbers are fine, request photos.

I think the Tiffany 6prong setting is forgiving enough to - well, forgive - the 0.1mm diameter difference btwn this one and the original in the hands of a good bench. Since you'll have 6 prongs putting that UGF meet under a prong shouldn't be too difficult, and I also think the prongs will be big enough to distract from the plotted inclusions even if they can't be completely covered.

The colour in a K of this size will be visible from the side, and visible face-up compared to higher coloured diamonds unless you're particularly colour-insensitive, IMO. Tiffany does not sell rings with diamonds with strong blue fluor, and Tiffany only sells rings with I and above (and my experience has been that they err strict on colour compared to GIA). If she LOVES the aesthetic of the original Tiffany setting then this seems like an excellent compromise. If, however, she wants people to think she does in fact have a ring from Tiffany, she should know that she won't be fooling anyone who cares to take a good look.


ETA: A recent experience showed that GIA really does sometimes seem to pick fluor grades out of a hat, so have IDJ check it and tell you if it's actually got SBF by any *reasonable* metric

Niel your link didn't work for me - here's another: https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=5146044943&weight=1.25#

The blue fluorescence if it is only slight will not bother me, however if it is cloudy in any way then this wont be the one. I guess ill wait for the video and hope its a good match!

How do you all think the difference will be in the original diameter compared to the new? I really dont want the prongs to appear raised or look different from the original at all, although I am not sure if what im asking for is a bit too much!

 

[yssie]

Numbers are fine, request photos.

I think the Tiffany 6prong setting is forgiving enough to - well, forgive - the 0.1mm diameter difference btwn this one and the original in the hands of a good bench. Since you'll have 6 prongs putting that UGF meet under a prong shouldn't be too difficult, and I also think the prongs will be big enough to distract from the plotted inclusions even if they can't be completely covered.

The colour in a K of this size will be visible from the side, and visible face-up compared to higher coloured diamonds unless you're particularly colour-insensitive, IMO. Tiffany does not sell rings with diamonds with strong blue fluor, and Tiffany only sells rings with I and above (and my experience has been that they err strict on colour compared to GIA). If she LOVES the aesthetic of the original Tiffany setting then this seems like an excellent compromise. If, however, she wants people to think she does in fact have a ring from Tiffany, she should know that she won't be fooling anyone who cares to take a good look.


ETA: A recent experience showed that GIA really does sometimes seem to pick fluor grades out of a hat, so have IDJ check it and tell you if it's actually got SBF by any *reasonable* metric

Niel your link didn't work for me - here's another: https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=5146044943&weight=1.25#

The blue fluorescence if it is only slight will not bother me, however if it is cloudy in any way then this wont be the one. I guess ill wait for the video and hope its a good match!

How do you all think the difference will be in the original diameter compared to the new? I really dont want the prongs to appear raised or look different from the original at all, although I am not sure if what im asking for is a bit too much!

Fluor - you'll have to have them check it, video and pictures won't answer your questions unless they can take one under a blacklight as well.

As I said in my post *I* think diameter will be fine. It won't pass for a "real" tiffany IRL on closer look but not because the diameter is different from the original.


Nitpick on fluor, YMMV - Garry has said that cloudiness is often in conjunction w/ other pervasive inclusions (clouds, wisps, grade-making pinpoints in lower grades, etc.), and this makes sense. In all their literature GIA is careful not to state fluor as the sole reason for "haziness", and as I've yet to find a logical explanation from any source for why that may be true I personally pin this widespread belief on human tendency to parrot without reason rather than factual objectivity.

 

[JamiSteven]

Numbers are fine, request photos.

I think the Tiffany 6prong setting is forgiving enough to - well, forgive - the 0.1mm diameter difference btwn this one and the original in the hands of a good bench. Since you'll have 6 prongs putting that UGF meet under a prong shouldn't be too difficult, and I also think the prongs will be big enough to distract from the plotted inclusions even if they can't be completely covered.

The colour in a K of this size will be visible from the side, and visible face-up compared to higher coloured diamonds unless you're particularly colour-insensitive, IMO. Tiffany does not sell rings with diamonds with strong blue fluor, and Tiffany only sells rings with I and above (and my experience has been that they err strict on colour compared to GIA). If she LOVES the aesthetic of the original Tiffany setting then this seems like an excellent compromise. If, however, she wants people to think she does in fact have a ring from Tiffany, she should know that she won't be fooling anyone who cares to take a good look.


ETA: A recent experience showed that GIA really does sometimes seem to pick fluor grades out of a hat, so have IDJ check it and tell you if it's actually got SBF by any *reasonable* metric

Niel your link didn't work for me - here's another: https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=5146044943&weight=1.25#

The blue fluorescence if it is only slight will not bother me, however if it is cloudy in any way then this wont be the one. I guess ill wait for the video and hope its a good match!

How do you all think the difference will be in the original diameter compared to the new? I really dont want the prongs to appear raised or look different from the original at all, although I am not sure if what im asking for is a bit too much!

Fluor - you'll have to have them check it, video and pictures won't answer your questions unless they can take one under a blacklight as well.

As I said in my post *I* think diameter will be fine. It won't pass for a "real" tiffany IRL on closer look but not because the diameter is different from the original.


Nitpick on fluor, YMMV - Garry has said that cloudiness is often in conjunction w/ other pervasive inclusions (clouds, wisps, grade-making pinpoints in lower grades, etc.), and this makes sense. In all their literature GIA is careful not to state fluor as the sole reason for "haziness", and as I've yet to find a logical explanation from any source for why that may be true I personally pin this widespread belief on human tendency to parrot without reason rather than factual objectivity.

You all know so much about this stuff, my head is spinning over here.

 

[yssie]

Numbers are fine, request photos.

I think the Tiffany 6prong setting is forgiving enough to - well, forgive - the 0.1mm diameter difference btwn this one and the original in the hands of a good bench. Since you'll have 6 prongs putting that UGF meet under a prong shouldn't be too difficult, and I also think the prongs will be big enough to distract from the plotted inclusions even if they can't be completely covered.

The colour in a K of this size will be visible from the side, and visible face-up compared to higher coloured diamonds unless you're particularly colour-insensitive, IMO. Tiffany does not sell rings with diamonds with strong blue fluor, and Tiffany only sells rings with I and above (and my experience has been that they err strict on colour compared to GIA). If she LOVES the aesthetic of the original Tiffany setting then this seems like an excellent compromise. If, however, she wants people to think she does in fact have a ring from Tiffany, she should know that she won't be fooling anyone who cares to take a good look.


ETA: A recent experience showed that GIA really does sometimes seem to pick fluor grades out of a hat, so have IDJ check it and tell you if it's actually got SBF by any *reasonable* metric

Niel your link didn't work for me - here's another: https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=5146044943&weight=1.25#

The blue fluorescence if it is only slight will not bother me, however if it is cloudy in any way then this wont be the one. I guess ill wait for the video and hope its a good match!

How do you all think the difference will be in the original diameter compared to the new? I really dont want the prongs to appear raised or look different from the original at all, although I am not sure if what im asking for is a bit too much!

Fluor - you'll have to have them check it, video and pictures won't answer your questions unless they can take one under a blacklight as well.

As I said in my post *I* think diameter will be fine. It won't pass for a "real" tiffany IRL on closer look but not because the diameter is different from the original.


Nitpick on fluor, YMMV - Garry has said that cloudiness is often in conjunction w/ other pervasive inclusions (clouds, wisps, grade-making pinpoints in lower grades, etc.), and this makes sense. In all their literature GIA is careful not to state fluor as the sole reason for "haziness", and as I've yet to find a logical explanation from any source for why that may be true I personally pin this widespread belief on human tendency to parrot without reason rather than factual objectivity.

You all know so much about this stuff, my head is spinning over here.

Easy enough to fix! have IDJ have it shipped out if they don't already have it, take some pics, give you some in-person opinions, and go from there

 

[04diamond<3]

Numbers are fine, request photos.

I think the Tiffany 6prong setting is forgiving enough to - well, forgive - the 0.1mm diameter difference btwn this one and the original in the hands of a good bench. Since you'll have 6 prongs putting that UGF meet under a prong shouldn't be too difficult, and I also think the prongs will be big enough to distract from the plotted inclusions even if they can't be completely covered.

The colour in a K of this size will be visible from the side, and visible face-up compared to higher coloured diamonds unless you're particularly colour-insensitive, IMO. Tiffany does not sell rings with diamonds with strong blue fluor, and Tiffany only sells rings with I and above (and my experience has been that they err strict on colour compared to GIA). If she LOVES the aesthetic of the original Tiffany setting then this seems like an excellent compromise. If, however, she wants people to think she does in fact have a ring from Tiffany, she should know that she won't be fooling anyone who cares to take a good look.


ETA: A recent experience showed that GIA really does sometimes seem to pick fluor grades out of a hat, so have IDJ check it and tell you if it's actually got SBF by any *reasonable* metric

Niel your link didn't work for me - here's another: https://myapps.gia.edu/ReportCheckPortal/getReportData.do?&reportno=5146044943&weight=1.25#

The blue fluorescence if it is only slight will not bother me, however if it is cloudy in any way then this wont be the one. I guess ill wait for the video and hope its a good match!

How do you all think the difference will be in the original diameter compared to the new? I really dont want the prongs to appear raised or look different from the original at all, although I am not sure if what im asking for is a bit too much!

Fluor - you'll have to have them check it, video and pictures won't answer your questions unless they can take one under a blacklight as well.

As I said in my post *I* think diameter will be fine. It won't pass for a "real" tiffany IRL on closer look but not because the diameter is different from the original.


Nitpick on fluor, YMMV - Garry has said that cloudiness is often in conjunction w/ other pervasive inclusions (clouds, wisps, grade-making pinpoints in lower grades, etc.), and this makes sense. In all their literature GIA is careful not to state fluor as the sole reason for "haziness", and as I've yet to find a logical explanation from any source for why that may be true I personally pin this widespread belief on human tendency to parrot without reason rather than factual objectivity.

You all know so much about this stuff, my head is spinning over here.

Easy enough to fix! have IDJ have it shipped out if they don't already have it, take some pics, give you some in-person opinions, and go from there

They also provide idealscope images, so ask for that too! I'm glad they found you something!!

 

[ariel144]

This one is smaller but will be a WOW diamond...have you considered old cuts? AVRs are just awesome stones (newly cut Old European...faceting chunky). Just another possibility.

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/10514/

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/7022/

I like the stone from IDJ with strong blue fl. You need picture and an Idealscope and Aset to check for leakage.

 

[JamiSteven]

Here are the pics from IDJ, I dont think this will be the diamond to go with, looks like quite a few inclusions and I know the tiffany prongs will not cover this as they do not wrap around top enough (which is one of the best features of the Tiffany prongs IMO)

 

[04diamond<3]

Here are the pics from IDJ, I dont think this will be the diamond to go with, looks like quite a few inclusions and I know the tiffany prongs will not cover this as they do not wrap around top enough (which is one of the best features of the Tiffany prongs IMO)

I think you should ask Yuki about this before you throw this one out. The IS looks good and it looks like a beautiful stone. Does he have the setting?

 

[TC1987]

The two inclusions on top of the arrows might bother you. Or might not. The big blob probably won't, because that's a busy area compared to the table.

 

[ariel144]

Here are the pics from IDJ, I dont think this will be the diamond to go with, looks like quite a few inclusions and I know the tiffany prongs will not cover this as they do not wrap around top enough (which is one of the best features of the Tiffany prongs IMO)

I think you should ask Yuki about this before you throw this one out. The IS looks good and it looks like a beautiful stone. Does he have the setting?

DITTO, you need to ask the gemologist. Looks like a nice stone especially for your budget.

 

[JamiSteven]

I have also found this at GOG..

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9743/

And this GIA certified 1.32, which is much closer to what the original setting was made for, still waiting on idealscope from the vendor, it is also the same exact price as the one at IDJ.

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?reportno=2136594105&go=Look+Up&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&pagename=GIA%2FDispatcher&c=Page&cid=1355954554547

 

[Niel]

I have also found this at GOG..

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9743/

I don't love that one.... plus that's an I. Those inclusions are weather very visible or dangerous.

 

[JamiSteven]

I have also found this at GOG..

http://www.goodoldgold.com/diamond/9743/

I don't love that one.... plus that's an I. Those inclusions are weather very visible or dangerous.

Thanks for your input Niel, what about this one? Im still waiting on idealscope images.. its priced right under 5k, about the same as the one at IDJ

http://www.gia.edu/cs/Satellite?reportno=2136594105&go=Look+Up&childpagename=GIA%2FPage%2FReportCheck&pagename=GIA%2FDispatcher&c=Page&cid=1355954554547

 

[Niel]

I think I'd prefer a smaller table, have you tried contacting excel?? Also have you ruled out the original one from id jewelry? I think it looks nice!

 

[JamiSteven]

I think I'd prefer a smaller table, have you tried contacting excel?? Also have you ruled out the original one from id jewelry? I think it looks nice!

I think the table is only 1% higher than the IDJ, is it that big of a difference? I have a call in to Excel and waiting on some options from them. Thanks again!

 

[Niel]

I think I'd prefer a smaller table, have you tried contacting excel?? Also have you ruled out the original one from id jewelry? I think it looks nice!

I think the table is only 1% higher than the IDJ, is it that big of a difference? I have a call in to Excel and waiting on some options from them. Thanks again!

A would like a smaller crown, its still worth getting an idealscope could be nice.
Excel is really great hopefully they have something, I think they have really good prices

 

[Christina...]

I wouldn't give up on the IDJ stone just yet. The images are greatly magnified, you need to consider that this stone is only 7mm, while the prong won't likely cover the inclusions closest to the girdle, it will likely mask it. As someone else mentioned, this is a busy, active area of the diamond and I suspect that too will help hide the inclusion somewhat. If the inclusions under the table are eye clean then I still think this is your best option.