shape
carat
color
clarity

Decesion Time

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

addiction

Rough_Rock
Joined
May 21, 2008
Messages
30
After a looonnnggg day, here are my options so far, any comments are more than welcomed and appreciated!

1. T&CO Channel Setting 0.8ct Round Brilliant (1.2 ctw) $11,100

HCA: 0.8

Measurements: 6.04 - 6.08 x 3.64
Color: F
Clarity: VVS1
Cut: EX
Symmetry: VG
Polish: EX
Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Faceted Thin to Medium
Culet: None

Total Depth: 60.1%
Table Size: 57%
Pavilion depth: 42.9%
Crown Height: 14.2%
Pavilion Angle: 40.7
Crown Angle: 34.2
Lower Half: 75%
Star Length: 50%


2. T&CO Channel Setting 1.21ct Round Brilliant (1.61 ctw) $15,200

HCA: 3.1
8.gif


Measurements: 6.77 - 6.80 x 4.25
Color: H
Clarity: VS1
Cut: EX
Symmetry: VG
Polish: EX
Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Faceted Thin to Medium
Culet: None

Total Depth: 62.6%
Table Size: 57%
Pavilion depth: 43.5%
Crown Height: 15.5%
Pavilion Angle: 41
Crown Angle: 35.2
Lower Half: 80%
Star Length: 55%


3. T&CO Classic Setting 1.25ct Round Brilliant $14,900

HCA: 1.4

Measurements: 6.92 - 6.97 x 4.27
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
Cut: EX
Symmetry: EX
Polish: EX
Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Faceted Medium to Slightly Thick
Culet: None

Total Depth: 61.5%
Table Size: 56%
Pavilion depth: 43.2%
Crown Height: 15.6%
Pavilion Angle: 40.8
Crown Angle: 34.7
Lower Half: 80%
Star Length: 50%



4. T&CO Channel Setting 0.98ct Round Brilliant (1.38 ctw) $11,200

HCA: 1.6

Measurements: 6.44 - 6.45 x 3.88
Color: I
Clarity: VS1
Cut: EX
Symmetry: VG
Polish: VG
Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Bruted Medium to Slightly Thick
Culet: None

Total Depth: 60.2%
Table Size: 59%
Pavilion depth: 43.3%
Crown Height: 13.7%
Pavilion Angle: 41
Crown Angle: 33.8
Lower Half: 75%
Star Length: 55%


5. Cartier Channel 1895 1.04 ct Round Brilliant (1.34 ctw) $14,675

HCA: not known (GIA cert has no angles / %)

Measurements: 6.56 - 6.59 x 3.96
Color: H
Clarity: VS2
Cut: --
Symmetry: VG
Polish: VG
Fluorescence: None
Girdle: Faceted Very Thin to Slightly Thick
Culet: None

Total Depth: 60.2%
Table Size: 59%
Pavilion depth: --
Crown Height: --
Pavilion Angle: --
Crown Angle: --
Lower Half: --
Star Length: --

This is also my order of preference. I must mention that I only saw rings (1) and (3) (and a dozen others that I ended up not choosing). Here are my thoughts:

(1) though it seems small, it has by far the most
10.gif
29.gif
FIRE
29.gif
10.gif
of them all... It's like it stood out from the display out of all of them. I actually didn't realize at first that it was so small because of the setting. I'm not surprised at all that it has such a good HCA, it actually looked bigger, it had excellent scintillation even with the hand over blocking some of the special store light
2.gif
I love the fact that it has great color and clarity parameters, much better than I was originally looking at, though smaller. The symmetry is VG which concerns me a bit, is there a big difference between EX and VG? Would you be able to see facets not pointing up, off center table, or misshapen faces? Extra facets??? All in all, I love the fact that it's sensitively priced to my budget, which will probably allow me to also get the Channel wedding band. I saw the 2 together today, they look outstanding (indescribable..
3.gif
) The center stone seems to be worth about 6.5k - 7k, so if you consider the channel setting at about 2.5k - 3k, the premium seems more acceptable (tolerable).

(2) I haven't seen the ring and I'm concerned with the HCA
33.gif
Overall, it's a lot of stone for the money with the channel setting, big difference in color and clarity from ring no (1). This also seems to be slightly too high due to a higher and steeper crown, probably this is the cause of the higher HCA. This is at the very top of my budget (overdraft...
22.gif
) and I won't probably be able to get the Channel wedding band, maybe just the plain Platinum one. I looked at the combination today... not pleasant when compared to the first one... it's like the only thing you notice is the plain band against the sparkling channel setting... you can't even see the center stone...

(3) I saw this last week, first ring. I honestly can't remember it, so I guess it's not that great? The stone seems to not be worth more than 8.5k - 9k, so with the setting at 1.5k - 2k, this one seems to have the highest premium of all. Again, no channel wedding band if I get this one...

(4) I haven't seen this, it's the most stone (total) of all the rings. Big drop in color, ok clarity. It seems to have a big table and slightly smaller and flatter crown. I'm concerned with the VG symmetry as (1) and also the VG polish... What is the difference to EX polish? Certainly you wouldn't be able to see polish lines, would you? The price is ok and will allow for the wedding band, the center stone is probably 5.5k - 6k and the channel setting at about 2.5k - 3k.

(5) I don't even want to talk about this one, the experience at the Cartier store was well below expectations. I'll pass on they're offer.... it's also pricier than T&CO (which is already hmhm
22.gif
).

I welcome your thoughts and opinions on my selection....

Dan.
 
Go with your gut. I think #1 sounds like a great choice if it means you can afford the fab wedding band with it! And as we have mentioned before it's normal for Tiffany's stuff to run the gamut between awesome and so-so. So I'm glad you did the HCA and don't be afraid to listen to it!!!!!

I also think #4 looks like a great option...but you should try to see it first.
 
Date: 5/27/2008 11:38:09 PM
Author: neatfreak
Go with your gut. I think #1 sounds like a great choice if it means you can afford the fab wedding band with it! And as we have mentioned before it''s normal for Tiffany''s stuff to run the gamut between awesome and so-so. So I''m glad you did the HCA and don''t be afraid to listen to it!!!!!


I also think #4 looks like a great option...but you should try to see it first.

wow neatfreak, you are a fast reader
1.gif
 
Date: 5/27/2008 11:39:46 PM
Author: addiction
Date: 5/27/2008 11:38:09 PM

Author: neatfreak

Go with your gut. I think #1 sounds like a great choice if it means you can afford the fab wedding band with it! And as we have mentioned before it''s normal for Tiffany''s stuff to run the gamut between awesome and so-so. So I''m glad you did the HCA and don''t be afraid to listen to it!!!!!



I also think #4 looks like a great option...but you should try to see it first.


wow neatfreak, you are a fast reader
1.gif

Hehe...yes I am. Working on a Ph.D., so I have to be to be able to get through all the material I need to and stay sane.
2.gif
 
VG polish or sym is fine.
 
one more thing about no (4), should there be a concern about the bruted girdle as opposed to faceted? Was that just a preference of the cutter? Will it affect any light return performance? I think dust and oil is caught easier by brute girdles but no apparent difference in light return?


edit: I forgot to mention that if I choose the lower priced arrangements with the wedding band, there will be 2 ctw on that finger....
30.gif
that setting will be like a flashlight at night
10.gif
 
It sounds like number 1 really peaked your interest. Since you mentioned it''s in your budget and sounds like a gorgeous diamond, I would go with it.
 
Date: 5/28/2008 12:28:32 AM
Author: marcyc
It sounds like number 1 really peaked your interest. Since you mentioned it''s in your budget and sounds like a gorgeous diamond, I would go with it.

You have a beautiful arrangement marcy! The only thing that sets me back a little is that viewed from above you can''t really notice the center stone that well since it''s so small.... maybe that''s a little harsh, since there''s at least 70 - 75 points difference between the center stone and channel ones...
 
It looks like number 1 made your heart go pitty patty so I would listen to that and go for one :).
 
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
Top