best sub for diamond in engagement ring?

[nverlast1]

neeeed hhelp

 

[mepearl53]

Hands down the Russian brilliant

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I am not sure if I really understand your question but I love Sapphire e-rings.

 

[ame]

Definitely a Sapphire.

 

[JCJD]

depends on whether you mean a diamond simulant or a different gemstone.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

I rather have a real gemstone than a sim. diamond. (personally).

 

[Odilia]

I''m not sure what the question is either. Do you want a substitute for a diamond temporarily, (few months, few years?) until you find the right diamond, or a permanent stone that is not a diamond. If the latter, there are lots of factors, one of which is (I don''t know any of the correct gemological terminology) hardness? durability? Sapphires are one of the hard ones, as far as I know, and hence a popular one. Plus the blue might be considered more of a "neutral" color sort of, as far as not clashing with outfits etc, (such as a ruby might) if someone cares about that. There are many reasons sapphires could be a good choice. (Of course they come in other colors too.) I know many jewelers frown on having things like emeralds or aquamarines for an engagement ring (even as accents) because they are softer? and won''t hold up as well. (Although I know folks who have emeralds in their wedding and eng. rings and are happy.) But again, if it were just a stone to "sub" for a short while until you get a diamond, an aquamarine could be good. Anyway, that''s my two cents. It would also depend on the taste of the one wearing it, of course.

 

[Lorelei]

How about a white sapphire? Might be a good choice

 

[Ann]

I am almost afraid to post this response. Maybe this thread should be moved elsewhere. But if you mean a diamond simulant, have you looked at Ashas at www.betterthandiamond.com ?

 

[nverlast1]

prob will be long term but im on a severe budget and i cant afford a $4000- 5000 diamond, also thinkin on goin with tension setting so stone will need to last

 

[jcrow]

interlaps from Wink are nice too.

 

[valeria101]

Tension setting! So.. the stone will not need to be large after all, no?

Do you mind posting the details: what setting is this? How large the stone? Do you want it to look like a diamond? If colored stones are also desirable, are there any restrictions about those?

Honestly, if nothing natural works out, then syntetics sond allot better than simulants. Since the choice of syntetic diamonds is rather limited for now, this argument leads to a nicely cut syntetic sapphire of whatever color you might like. A fancy cut would probably be quite impressive and end up as one of a kind tension setting. You don''t see many with anything but round stones and that is quite a puzzle since the tension rings would showcase intricate cuts like no other

Speaking of intricate cuts... perhaps sites like Concavegems and Customgemstones might geve you some ideas. I''ve seen sapphire, garnet and clean beryl offered in tension settings. It depends on the sort of setting whether the girdle of the stone is exposed to damage or not. Otherwise, as long as the cut of the stone''s girdle and the clarity allows, any should go into a tension setting nicely.


Also, rectangular stones seem very fit for tension rings - IMO, for what that matters.

Here''s an interesting one from the ''Specials'' at Pearlman''s

From Absolute Titanium (they also make the same rings in traditional metals). And another nice (?... just IMO) inlay setting from Titaniumera:

Just a thought...

 

[maxspinel]

If you really want a diamond for engagement ring, why not just get one instead of a substitue? The price of diamonds is not as out of reach as often thought.

Diamond is very hard and it is a Type I stone which is usually eye clean. Without a loupe, SI2/SI3 or even some I1 stones can look very brilliant and no different than the higher clarity grades. As far as hardness is concerned, if you want a natural gem, then corundum (Ruby, sapphires) is the next best choice. The corundum are Type II stones so they typically have some eye-visible inclusions.They are denser than diamonds so with the same carat weight and proportions, they''ll look smaller. Also, to enhance the color, they are generally cut deeper than diamonds so they face up even smaller.

Diamonds can face up very white up to J and even K. A 1.5ct oval at K SI3 costs ~ $2500 to $3000. To look the same face up size, the ruby/sapphire will have to be ~ 2.0 cts or larger.

If you like something unusual and stunnig, you can buy a fancy light yellow diamond. They are cheaper than J and sometimes even K diamonds. Colored diamonds are very rare compared to the whites and I can never understand why fancy light yellows are priced lower than J. With the same price, if one can get an obvious yellow diamond, why settle with an off white?

. De Beers is so successful promoting values that you can''t see and items that are not rare.

Don''t give up on the diamonds yet if this is what you want. They are more affordable than you might have thought.

 

[valeria101]

Between K/Si3 diamond and 1k/ct sapphire... it sounds like the blues are winning. There are enough eye clean sapphires and being colored helps too. SI3 diamonds are often not eye clean...

Agreed that for any weight sapphires are smaller, but for the same money this may not be the case because the prices per carat between diamonds and sapphires are so different.



Anyway, I would defend the light yellow choice too - if the budget allows and 'diamond' is a must.

Say, this is 'R' arrows & all <1k (LINK)- 'lovely make' it says, and it seems so as much as I can tell:

Well, just IMO. I must say, I have yet to see a light yellow diamond in a tension setting! If there is some yellow gold to help lend some color it would probably work great. There are also these 'cone' settings that would surely help such a stone look one of a kind. Not tension, but sort of 'suspended' anyway:

This one is by George Sawyer, but other designers use the same cone settings too.

Just a thought...

Nverlast1, where are you ?

 

[JCJD]

Date: 9/30/2005 2:53:15 PM
Author: nverlast1
prob will be long term but im on a severe budget and i cant afford a $4000- 5000 diamond, also thinkin on goin with tension setting so stone will need to last

Why do you want a $4000 diamond? If size is important to her (assuming you''re the guy) you two need to talk about what is more important for both of you - waiting for engagement to have the diamond size she wants or compromising on size, quality, diamond vs gemstone, ring vs no ring, etc to get engaged now. Budget is an area that must be discussed IMO, the rest can be surprise if that''s important to you.

My now-husband proposed without an ering (I wore a $9 Walmart cz until he surprised me with a diamond the next month), and my 0.38ct G SI2 pear cut diamond in platinum ring was significantly less than $2000, or so I''ve gathered from him. We were married this summer, engaged last winter.

There are a lot of options here, you just need to find the one that''s the best for the two of you, and therefore communication is key, and ultimately, it should be the prospect of marrying each other that is most important, not the quality, size, or even existence of a diamond engagement ring that matters. Hope that helps!!

 

[Lorelei]

Ana you do such great work, wonderful pics as usual and info!

 

[politely]

Why do you need a sub for a diamond? It''s not just a budget issue, but also a size/quality issue. You can get diamonds for much less than $4,000, but just as for almost every budget, you will need to make trade-offs. Going to another type of stone, you will have the same issues (budget, size, quality) and will also have to make trade-offs. The question is, does moving from one type of gem to another solve your specific issue?

And, umm... there''s also the issue of the ring wearer''s gem preference... that should probably play a role in your decision process....

You will definitely get good advice (and have already), but you need to be a little more specific what you''re looking for, or in your case, what you want to avoid.

-P