Diamond vs Setting? What''s More Important?

[lingpanda01]

Can I get someone's expert opinion on a diamond like this?
http://www.whiteflash.com/hearts_arrows/Whiteflash-ACA-cut-diamond-2183229.htm#

It's .665 ct. On the AGS report, should I be worried about the inclusion in the middle? It's SI1, so I thought that means you can't see any inclusions with the naked eye, right? Cut's the most important thing, so a grade 0 means it's the best cut? Super shiny?

 

[cindygenit]

For me, it is both. I won''t get the biggest rock I can afford if it means I won''t be able to get the setting of my dreams. There is NO hope for an e-ring upgrade for me so the setting has to be something I would always love!

 

[justginger]

I *thought* I was in the "most money for the diamond" camp -- but when I put my ring together, it ended up being nearly 55/45 on diamond and setting. I was fortunate that I found an antique cushion that met all of my requirements for a reasonable price -- and unlucky that I fell in love with Leon''s creations, thus spending a few thousand more on the setting than I anticipated! I guess for me, the bottom line is finding the diamond and then using the rest of the available funds for the setting. I could have dedicated 75% or 80% of my budget to the stone, but who knows if a more expensive one would have been as pretty to me as the one I bought?

When it comes to choosing an ideal cut RB, I would still suggest spending more on the diamond. It''s a bit different when you''re trying to find "the right" fancy shape -- sometimes the right one is cheaper than what you''re willing to spend! And judging by PS and people I know in the real world, if you''re gonna change something, it''ll be the setting before it''s the stone.

 

[Collee]

Do a google search for Leo Ingwer or check out thre link below. He offers a variety of nice quaility simple PT settings at a very reasonable price.

Ingwer Settings