Confused Bridal Magazine advice?

[surfgirl]

So, I got married two months ago and as of this week, apparently I am the proud owner of a new subscription to Modern Bride Magazine, no idea how it came to me...Because, y''know, it''s so important to have a subscription to a bridal magazine AFTER you get married...Anyway, I digress. I feel it is now my duty to blast through these magazines when they arrive just because someone is sending it to me, and really, let''s be honest, we all just look at the ring advertisements, right? So I''m reading this little "article" about diamond engagement rings and they say,

"Ask potential jewlers if the store''s rings come with a certificate from a gem lab like GIA. This is used to verify the diamond''s characteristics."

Then they go on to give some "insider tips" on showing you mad diamond knowledge skillz by doing the following:

"When you''re interested in a diamond, ask about it''s ''spread.'' Determined by many factors, including depth, angles and thickness of the stone, the spread is essentially how big the diamond appears. Keep in mind that a 1 carat diamond should spread 6.5 mm, and a 2 carat diamond should spread 8.2mm."

I felt a bit flummoxed after reading this. Mainly because they infer that GIA "or a lab like..." without addressing that most of these "labs" are pretty meh in their alleged grading. Shouldn''t a bridal magazine give the important details? Don''t they have a duty to educamacate the public on which labs are most reliable?

I was also perplexed that asking about a stone''s "spread" was somehow the happening thing to ask, of all the questions one would ask about a potential stone. I mean, I dont think I ever asked about the spread of a stone. I was first concerned with cut, then color, then clarity, then whether or not it was too small/big on my finger. But spread? Never asked. Does anyone else think this is a weird bit of advice to give, considering all the other more important things one should be asking about a potential stone? Or is it moi?

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/12/2007 6:49:36 PM
Author:surfgirl
''When you''re interested in a diamond, ask about it''s ''spread.'' Determined by many factors, including depth, angles and thickness of the stone, the spread is essentially how big the diamond appears. Keep in mind that a 1 carat diamond should spread 6.5 mm, and a 2 carat diamond should spread 8.2mm.''

I was also perplexed that asking about a stone''s ''spread'' was somehow the happening thing to ask, of all the questions one would ask about a potential stone. Does anyone else think this is a weird bit of advice to give, considering all the other more important things one should be asking about a potential stone? Or is it moi?

I actually think "spread", or lack thereof is one of the ways maul jewelry stores make their dough. We''ve seen a lot of "one carat" stones around here that face up more like a .70 ... people seem to think that all "one carats" look alike & don''t realize they''re getting wasted weight (and ripped off).
Valid thing to edumacate on in a short-format, quick-hits article if you ask me. Not like they''re gonna get into crown angles & girdle width without folks glazing over & falling off the can!

 

[surfgirl]

deco, I suppose you're right, but IF they took the time to get someone who knew what they were talking about, maybe, just maybe, mall stores would have to up their game because they'd have consumers who knew better. I know, I'm talking crazy talk! And I suppose then where would all those frozen spit stones go to live?

It just boggles the mind that even a magazine devoted to brides wouldn't do due diligence and give a thorough article to their readers...I guess that was my gripe!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Welcome to the mainstream, surfgirl. The writers don't want to get too technical so what you found is pretty common. I'll raise a toast to you - or any number of your edumacated friends here - if you'll write one of those articles yourself.

Date: 10/12/2007 7:00:39 PM
Author: decodelighted

I actually think 'spread', or lack thereof is one of the ways maul jewelry stores make their dough. We've seen a lot of 'one carat' stones around here that face up more like a .70 ... people seem to think that all 'one carats' look alike & don't realize they're getting wasted weight (and ripped off).
Valid thing to edumacate on in a short-format, quick-hits article if you ask me. Not like they're gonna get into crown angles & girdle width without folks glazing over & falling off the can!

Ditto to that. I've seen many such articles and we're regularly consulted/interviewed. The techie stuff gets lost. One example, available online, was for a 2006 edition of Kiplinger's magazine (google 'kiplinger diamonds clicks online'). The reporter did significant research and we got pretty technical with him. They managed to illuminate GIA/AGS, but before it was published he let us know that many things that we - and others he interviewed - offered (and stressed) about cut were left on the 'cutting room' floor (pun alert) because it was "over the heads" of the audience. They did squeeze in a bit about 'new' cut grading at the very end of the article...but quoted that only 5% of diamonds will get highest marks...if that estimate was from us it was for AGSL round/princess cuts.

 

[decodelighted]

Date: 10/12/2007 7:13:51 PM
Author: surfgirl
It just boggles the mind that even a magazine devoted to brides wouldn''t do due diligence and give a thorough article to their readers...I guess that was my gripe!

Um... we are talking about MODERN BRIDE not SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. There is an audience for the type of article you''re suggesting ... but I very much doubt its the MODERN BRIDE/KNOT/BRIDES readership ... plus, their advertisers are co.''s like Tiffany & Cartier -- whole package kind of places that would have you believe they are the ONLY places to get "superior" product. AND ... the audience is brides or brides-to-be, who, in the majority of cases are simply passing on info to the fellas involved. Make the info TOO complicated and engagement is delayed. Tear out an ad for the Tiffany Novo, slip it inside his laptop and you''re booking a hall in no time.

 

[surfgirl]

John, I know what you mean, but it's really sad though, because I think if people knew more, they'd buy better. For example, just this week I saw an old friend I hadn't seen in years. She grabs my hand to see my engagement ring and stares at it for a minute with mouth open and then says "but, why is it so shimmery?" and I'm thinking "uh, because it's well cut?" Then her very next comment is to ask the size because that really seems to be the only "important" issue to mainstream consumers - "how big is it?" She seemed to be reconciling in her head that the scintillation was from the size. I didn't have time for an education session but next time I see her, if she wants to know, I'll explain it to her. I mean, this isn't rocket science or anything. And to be honest, Kiplinger's readership should be able to handle the difference between crowns, pavillions, culets, girdles and tables, let alone the 4 C's. I mean you dont need to be an Einstein to understand it. It just annoys me to see such lazy reporting. That's all. Modern Bride = lazy journalism.

ETA: deco, of course you're right but still...why wouldn't people want to know more about the most expensive luxury purchase they've probably ever made? It boggles the mind...well, it boggles my mind but I've gotta stop thinking about it!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/12/2007 7:39:24 PM
Author: surfgirl
John, I know what you mean, but it''s really sad though, because I think if people knew more, they''d buy better. For example, just this week I saw an old friend I hadn''t seen in years. She grabs my hand to see my engagement ring and stares at it for a minute with mouth open and then says ''but, why is it so shimmery?'' and I''m thinking ''uh, because it''s well cut?'' Then her very next comment is to ask the size because that really seems to be the only ''important'' issue to mainstream consumers - ''how big is it?'' She seemed to be reconciling in her head that the scintillation was from the size. I didn''t have time for an education session but next time I see her, if she wants to know, I''ll explain it to her. I mean, this isn''t rocket science or anything. And to be honest, Kiplinger''s readership should be able to handle the difference between crowns, pavillions, culets, girdles and tables, let alone the 4 C''s. I mean you dont need to be an Einstein to understand it. It just annoys me to see such lazy reporting. That''s all. Modern Bride = lazy journalism.

ETA: deco, of course you''re right but still...why wouldn''t people want to know more about the most expensive luxury purchase they''ve probably ever made? It boggles the mind...well, it boggles my mind but I''ve gotta stop thinking about it!

Amen sister. And please...never stop preaching. Sure, you may be preaching to the choir here but we''re a small small chorus (cue orchestra: "I''d like to teach the world to sing..."

).

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

20% of the weighting of HCA is spread.

what you report is probably beter journalism than much of the pop vox garbage that we see

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/12/2007 8:07:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
20% of the weighting of HCA is spread.

what you report is probably beter journalism than much of the pop vox garbage that we see

Yes ... It is hard to find anywhere a 1 carat diamond with diameter of 6.5 mm or a 2 carat diamond with diameter of 8.2 mm. Really hard. I remember really a small number of such diamonds among Infinity / ACA / GOG offerings. I almost gave up and shifted focus more on other factors. Energy and time required to find with this spread (among super ideals, not whatever kind diamonds) is much more than spending some extra money to make up the spread by weight - I woud tell Garry that I have an HCA elite 2.01 carat diamond with spread of 8.23 mm, which actually is 2.1 carat. Nothing wrong ... beauty wise.

 

[Kaleigh]

Date: 10/12/2007 7:39:24 PM
Author: surfgirl
John, I know what you mean, but it''s really sad though, because I think if people knew more, they''d buy better. For example, just this week I saw an old friend I hadn''t seen in years. She grabs my hand to see my engagement ring and stares at it for a minute with mouth open and then says ''but, why is it so shimmery?'' and I''m thinking ''uh, because it''s well cut?'' Then her very next comment is to ask the size because that really seems to be the only ''important'' issue to mainstream consumers - ''how big is it?'' She seemed to be reconciling in her head that the scintillation was from the size. I didn''t have time for an education session but next time I see her, if she wants to know, I''ll explain it to her. I mean, this isn''t rocket science or anything. And to be honest, Kiplinger''s readership should be able to handle the difference between crowns, pavillions, culets, girdles and tables, let alone the 4 C''s. I mean you dont need to be an Einstein to understand it. It just annoys me to see such lazy reporting. That''s all. Modern Bride = lazy journalism.

ETA: deco, of course you''re right but still...why wouldn''t people want to know more about the most expensive luxury purchase they''ve probably ever made? It boggles the mind...well, it boggles my mind but I''ve gotta stop thinking about it!

Oh gosh I hear ya and want to scream. I do my edumacating in person. Each person that grabs my hand, I tell them as much as they can absorb, and tell them about PS. I figure one person a day, will keep the sales at Zales at Bay.... LOL!!!!!

 

[surfgirl]

Date: 10/12/2007 8:53:06 PM
Author: gontama

Date: 10/12/2007 8:07:40 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

20% of the weighting of HCA is spread.


what you report is probably beter journalism than much of the pop vox garbage that we see

Yes ... It is hard to find anywhere a 1 carat diamond with diameter of 6.5 mm or a 2 carat diamond with diameter of 8.2 mm. Really hard. I remember really a small number of such diamonds among Infinity / ACA / GOG offerings. I almost gave up and shifted focus more on other factors. Energy and time required to find with this spread (among super ideals, not whatever kind diamonds) is much more than spending some extra money to make up the spread by weight - I woud tell Garry that I have an HCA elite 2.01 carat diamond with spread of 8.23 mm, which actually is 2.1 carat. Nothing wrong ... beauty wise.

OK, now I''m wondering about this spread thingy...Is 8.2mm really the ideal spread for a 2ct. ring and if so what would it be for a 2.5ct? Are they talking about the spread from girdle to girdle or the table alone? Now I feel stupid that I''m not sure! Me and my big mouth! Someone help a sister out! Thanks!

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/12/2007 9:38:40 PM
Author: surfgirl

Date: 10/12/2007 8:53:06 PM
Author: gontama

Date: 10/12/2007 8:07:40 PM

Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

20% of the weighting of HCA is spread.


what you report is probably beter journalism than much of the pop vox garbage that we see

Yes ... It is hard to find anywhere a 1 carat diamond with diameter of 6.5 mm or a 2 carat diamond with diameter of 8.2 mm. Really hard. I remember really a small number of such diamonds among Infinity / ACA / GOG offerings. I almost gave up and shifted focus more on other factors. Energy and time required to find with this spread (among super ideals, not whatever kind diamonds) is much more than spending some extra money to make up the spread by weight - I woud tell Garry that I have an HCA elite 2.01 carat diamond with spread of 8.23 mm, which actually is 2.1 carat. Nothing wrong ... beauty wise.

OK, now I'm wondering about this spread thingy...Is 8.2mm really the ideal spread for a 2ct. ring and if so what would it be for a 2.5ct? Are they talking about the spread from girdle to girdle or the table alone? Now I feel stupid that I'm not sure! Me and my big mouth! Someone help a sister out! Thanks!

I do not know a technically correct wording in diamond world but it is the diameter - girdle to girdle, not table alone. A 2.5 carat diamond would have 8.82+ mm (6.5 mm / carat). Since you will be paying for the magic number 2.5 ... with just small extra money you can have the same spread by getting a 2.55 carat diamond with good (to me) spread - 6.45+ mm / carat. Beauty wise - no different often better if it comes with a little thick girdle for protection.

This is not to say we should only pay attention to the actual diameter. Other factros such as dug out girdle will have negative effect in appearance. Vendors here are safe in all respects, I believe. The formula is simple in case you want to do - divide diameter (mm) by cube root of carat.

 

[Deelight]

Yes ... It is hard to find anywhere a 1 carat diamond with diameter of 6.5 mm.

Hrmmm i must be in the minority here but I have seen masses of Mall stones cut to similar parameters (fairly well 1 ct stones that look massive, easily 1.5-2ct look) here it seems to be the thing, mind you the diamonds look like poo once you would take them out of the shop some while they are still there. Maybe I have been looking in the wrong place but all the "well cut" diamonds I have looked at have faced up substantially smaller then these unwell cut ones (mind you I originally looked at asschers, cushions and radiants and am now onto RB''s), I''d never sacrifice cut but you could definitely tell a difference in the size.

 

[gontama]

Date: 10/12/2007 11:35:28 PM
Author: Deelight

Yes ... It is hard to find anywhere a 1 carat diamond with diameter of 6.5 mm.

Hrmmm i must be in the minority here but I have seen masses of Mall stones cut to similar parameters (fairly well 1 ct stones that look massive, easily 1.5-2ct look) here it seems to be the thing, mind you the diamonds look like poo once you would take them out of the shop some while they are still there. Maybe I have been looking in the wrong place but all the 'well cut' diamonds I have looked at have faced up substantially smaller then these unwell cut ones (mind you I originally looked at asschers, cushions and radiants and am now onto RB's), I'd never sacrifice cut but you could definitely tell a difference in the size.

There can be diamonds with 6.5 mm / ct spread that are very well cut. But I doubt ... a 1ct diamond that look like a 1.5-2.0 carat??? Big spread does not necessarily mean good cut. It can be chaotic and may be dark in some light conditions. What I wanted to say is a diamond with great basic proportion and internal symmetry are all good, no need to worry too much about the spread, which is basically a by product of everything else. A diamond with 6.4 mm / ct spread is, in human observation, very close to a diamond with 6.5 mm /ct spread. I would rather focus on other things that could affect the beauty of the stone. You sure can easily see the difference if a 1 carat diamond appears as if it were 1.5 - 2.0 carat, but such a diamond must have some problem.... I do not like extreme steep/deep combo which anyone can tell from the diameter difference... Other than that, beauty trumps for me - I would get a 1 ct diamond with 6.38 mm / ct spread if I like it.

 

[aljdewey]

Date: 10/12/2007 7:39:24 PM
Author: surfgirl
John, I know what you mean, but it''s really sad though, because I think if people knew more, they''d buy better. For example, just this week I saw an old friend I hadn''t seen in years. She grabs my hand to see my engagement ring and stares at it for a minute with mouth open and then says ''but, why is it so shimmery?'' and I''m thinking ''uh, because it''s well cut?'' Then her very next comment is to ask the size because that really seems to be the only ''important'' issue to mainstream consumers - ''how big is it?'' She seemed to be reconciling in her head that the scintillation was from the size. I didn''t have time for an education session but next time I see her, if she wants to know, I''ll explain it to her. I mean, this isn''t rocket science or anything. And to be honest, Kiplinger''s readership should be able to handle the difference between crowns, pavillions, culets, girdles and tables, let alone the 4 C''s. I mean you dont need to be an Einstein to understand it. It just annoys me to see such lazy reporting. That''s all. Modern Bride = lazy journalism.

ETA: deco, of course you''re right but still...why wouldn''t people want to know more about the most expensive luxury purchase they''ve probably ever made? It boggles the mind...well, it boggles my mind but I''ve gotta stop thinking about it!

SG, you''re leaving something out of the equation (which Deco is trying to point to)..........not everyone else is like you (or us).

It makes sense to those of us here that one should want to know more about such an expensive purchase.....and that''s why we''re all here. But some folks don''t WANT to get that involved because it doesn''t interest them. Considering how many of their friends/peers have successfully (in their minds) bought rings and not had to get a PhD in diamonds, they feel as though a small amount of know-how will be enough.

There are those people who will become intrigued and want to know more when you explain to them why your diamond is so sparkly. There are others who will do the ''eyes glazed over'' thing before you''ve finished your first sentence. They just don''t want to be technical.

For THAT latter market (which is the market that Modern Bride writes for, by the way), the best way to help them get a decent cut without explaining all the scientific nuances of cut is to say "look for a spread of around 6.5mm on a 1 ct stone". Without having to explain crown/pavilion/girdle, etc. etc etc., they''ve given the average consumer one thing that might help them at least swim in the ''better cut'' waters.

 

[Ellen]

Ditto Deco and Alj on the fact that not all want to learn about spurklies. I haven''t found one person (in my real life, and yes, I have one, lol) who cares to hear one teeny thing that I''ve learned here. They simply don''t care.


Frankly, I''m impressed the article wasn''t full of absolute rubbish. I was expecting much worse.

 

[JohnQuixote]

I have to sympathize with Surfgirl. While I don't expect pop vox articles to be technical schematics I wish they would at least mention the fact that there is more to learn. Some of these reporters are made aware. How about: "Cut: While we've given the basics, no single article can cover this important C in its entirety. We suggest you contact a reliable professional if you want to navigate the labyrinth of information. 'Ware the rocks. Haha."

By the way, this kind of limited coverage is true in more than just the diamond world. I read similar "pop magazine" articles about music and audio equipment that cause me to take a sharp intake of breath. Like addicts anywhere, we here on PS have very high expectations and knowledge about our passion - and we like to share that passion completely and accurately.

Regarding friends and neighbors: 100% agree. They don't care to know about cut information casually... but all that changes FAST when they decide to go jewelry shopping for the girl. Suddenly I'm their boon companion and they're all ears & taking notes.

 

[surfgirl]

So John, IS there an "ideal spread" for a 1, 2 & 2.5ct stone? I'm just curious a I dont think I've read any threads on ideal spread dimensions before. I cant seem to find any...this "article" has now piqued my curiosity as to whether or not such a thing exists....do you know?

ETA: Someone on the Hangout thread just posted about their friend who's FI dropped $12k on a ring from Jared's

and now she's wondering why her diamond is the same size as a 1 ct...so it made me wonder about a 1,2 & 2.5 stone and what the ideal spread would be...

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 10/13/2007 1:35:34 PM
Author: surfgirl

So John, IS there an 'ideal spread' for a 1, 2 & 2.5ct stone? I'm just curious a I dont think I've read any threads on ideal spread dimensions before. I cant seem to find any...this 'article' has now piqued my curiosity as to whether or not such a thing exists....do you know?

ETA: Someone on the Hangout thread just posted about their friend who's FI dropped $12k on a ring from Jared's

and now she's wondering why her diamond is the same size as a 1 ct...so it made me wonder about a 1,2 & 2.5 stone and what the ideal spread would be...

Spread can be used as a guideline but it is not absolute. A well-cut 1ct round brilliant should spread appx 6.40-6.50mm...but just because a diamond has proper spread doesn't mean it's cut well.

Always remember that a diamond's components must be considered together. No single measurement tells all.

Example: All three simulations below are modeled at 1ct and spread exactly 6.50 mm. Anyone think they're equal?

 

[niceice]

A fluff article from a bridal magazine is not that surprising, but has anybody read the "love at first sight" how to buy a diamond insert that was featured in the September 2007 Modern Jeweler magazine? Not including the advertisements, it read like eleven pages of "La, La, La, La, La... Almost all internet dealers are crooks and only your local jewelry retailer will be able to show you a beautiful diamond that isn''t fracture filled and laser drilled..." along with my personal favorite statement of all time given as a reason to buy a mounted diamond from your local jeweler as opposed to buying a loose diamond from an internet dealer "there is, however, a caveat for diamonds in settings. Good designers can work with a diamonds shortcomings in many ways." Huh? Oh wait, I think this is what it means... Does it mean that the diamonds sold by most retail jewelers have shortcomings that would be noticed by the customer if they were shown to the customer unmounted? So they''re placed in mountings so that the "shortcomings" can be hidden behind prongs and masked by the reflections of the setting? Isn''t that interesting? What an excellent reason to buy retail! No, I''m not being sarcastic, not at all... The article was very convincing, heck, at this point I wouldn''t even buy a diamond from an internet dealer like ourselves, WF, GOG, Wink Jones, James Allen, ERD, etc. who specialize in ideal cut diamonds of precision make with GIA and AGS pedigrees and diamond details pages which disclose all kinds of detail. Heck no! I''d rather buy "blind" with a 5X or 7X power loupe under the heat of 300W halogen lighting with blue diochromatic filters and take the advice of some behind the counter blathering idiot who was selling lint-picker-uppers last week at X-Mart but is working the jewelry counter part time this week to pick up some extra cash for the holidays! Oh yea baby, hook me up with the diamond of my dreams and help me find the perfect mounting to "hide it''s shortcomings!"

If I were to score the Modern Jeweler publication "love at first sight" in terms of what it taught me or has the potential to teach a consumer, I''d personally give it a 10 on a scale of 100 in terms of the accuracy of content and the degree to which the internet market was represented as a viable option for today''s educated consumer. It scores a "10" because I thought the pictures were pretty - and that is why most people pick up a magazine, right?

BTW: re-prints are available for purchase to the retail trade. I wonder, do you think they''re willing to re-print them with our logo? If we''re going to send such informative publications out to our clients, we want to be sure that they''re imprinted with our logo so that they''ll remember where to go when they need more padding for the bottom of the bird cage!

Was it Winston Churchill who said something like "never pick a fight with someone who buys ink and paper by the truckload?" Darn, I hate it when I forget that. Too bad for the publisher of this weak kneed article that blogging doesn''t cost a dime.

 

[denverappraiser]

Date: 10/12/2007 6:49:36 PM

'When you're interested in a diamond, ask about it's 'spread.' Determined by many factors, including depth, angles and thickness of the stone, the spread is essentially how big the diamond appears.

Spread is not determined by many factors. It’s determined by 2. Average diameter and weight, neither of which is included in their list.

For most people, the only reason that weight is relevant at all is because it has a direct relationship to the price. When it’s mounted and on a finger a more direct unit would be some sort of measurement bling/sq.mm, which sort of seems like spread. That's why the above seems like reasonable advice to casual readers. Obviously since you are paying by weight and your assigned utility is by face up surface area, it follows that the shallower the better. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. That ‘bling’ measurement goes down as the face gets bigger or smaller for any particular stone for reasons that include some of those other parameters they list. Add to that the fact that bling is a bit hard to define because not everyone is looking for the same things and not everyone uses the terms the same way and you have a serious communication problem. That’s why it doesn’t work and people stick with the standard 4c’s (which have their own communications issues).

If you work out your optical objectives there is some complicated math that you can use to decide how to get to that target and, fortunately, it’s not necessary for consumers to do it. The cutters, dealers and labs have done it in advance. Both AGS and GIA offer cut grades on round stones that are far more useful metrics and cutters manufacture stones targeted directly at these standards. Certain brands will cut to their own definitions of beauty and, for the most part, are very upfront both about what they are making and why they make it that way.

Advising people to choose a diamond based on spread is like advising people to choose a car based on color. The fastest ones are red so, if you get a red car you’ll be fine, right?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

 

[surfgirl]

Neil, that''s exactly why I asked this question to begin with...Choosing a diamond based on a spread diameter listed in some lame bridal magazine seems crazy! Oh well, sleep well gentle PSers, at least we''re all set..

 

[WinkHPD]

Wow, take the weekend off and it is too late to add anything intelligent to the conversation, the salient points have been very well made.

Todd, if you get some reprints of that cage liner, please send me one, I want to snag some elements from it to ridicule on my site!

Wink

 

[risingsun]

Date: 10/13/2007 3:19:32 PM
Author: denverappraiser


Advising people to choose a diamond based on spread is like advising people to choose a car based on color. The fastest ones are red so, if you get a red car you’ll be fine, right?

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver

Neil~But red is the fastest color

 

[Haven]

Date: 10/13/2007 10:29:51 AM
Author: Ellen
Ditto Deco and Alj on the fact that not all want to learn about spurklies. I haven''t found one person (in my real life, and yes, I have one, lol) who cares to hear one teeny thing that I''ve learned here. They simply don''t care.


Frankly, I''m impressed the article wasn''t full of absolute rubbish. I was expecting much worse.

I hear ya, Ellen--nobody cares at all! We just went to dinner on Saturday with two other couples whom we haven''t seen since we got engaged and this is how the interaction went:

Them: CONGRATULATIONS! (blah blah blah . . . ) Let us see the ring! . . . Oh my gosh it is so BLINGY! Holy cow, why is it so sparkly!?!?!

FI: Well, we did a lot of research into cut and Haven found this website Pricescope that scoured for months to find information (notices friends getting distracted, yawning, and pauses.)

Them: So, is it so sparkly because you just had it cleaned?

FI: Um, there''s a bit more that goes into it. (Says more that is ignored.)

Them: I am going in tomorrow to get my ring cleaned, man is that thing sparkly!

FI: Sigh.

Surfgirl--I just read a guide in one of those bridal mags that labels an asscher as a cushion, and a radiant as a princess. You''re absolutely right, I don''t think anyone is going to get a quality edumucation from a bridal mag. Alas, we PSers will have to keep all the brilliant sparklies to ourselves!

 

[surfgirl]

Haven, your conversation cracked me up, and yet its both true and sad, isn''t it? Oh well, at least that means more better stones for us PSers, right?

 

[Ellen]

Date: 10/15/2007 6:53:15 PM
Author: surfgirl
Haven, your conversation cracked me up, and yet its both true and sad, isn''t it? Oh well, at least that means more better stones for us PSers, right?

Yes.

I started to tell my niece about my OMC, but only got one sentence out, literally, and I was already losing her.

The really sad part is, her hubby just graduated, he''s an Oral Surgeon. Opening an office soon. Gonna make lots and lots of money. Already buying her diamonds. Could be buying her reeeeeeally nice diamonds. But noo, they dun listen to me.