esumsea
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2007
- Messages
- 144
Date: 12/28/2007 11:41:15 AM
Author: aljdewey
I''m not a-scared! LOLDate: 12/28/2007 11:15:25 AM
Author: Ellen
This is exactly what I''ve wanted to post, but didn''t. I guess I felt like I might be swaying your decision....
Plus there were all those people telling you to hold out. I feared for my life.![]()
![]()
The Chainsaw boldly goes where no other dares. LMAO!
Unfortunately they are. Otherwise, I would be wearing a Square H&A''s as my upgrade right now.Date: 12/28/2007 1:53:29 PM
Author: Chrono
Okay, all you PSers are probably sick and tired of me posting but...there''s a 1.45 ct K VS2 PoH in the works that measures 6.5 mm.
This is going to be a tough decision
1. 1.45 ct K VS2 PoH (6.5 mm)
2. 1.28 ct J SI1 RB (6.9 mm)
3. 1.01 ct F SI1 cushion (5.7 x 6.1 mm) which I''ll most likely get a larger one
The first two are about the same price. The 3rd option is there just to see what cushions are all about since I love that shape.
I currently have a J so J''s are okay in my book. I like the RB because it''s very big and has MB but it isn''t square. I like the PoH because it''s square and has great optics like a round but is still stretching to hit my minumum magic 6.5 mm mark. I mean, a 1.45 ct is smaller than the 1.28 ct? Okay, I guess I have to accept that fancies are like that.But it''s also one step down to a K.![]()
So much to mull over...
check out the poh in person then go from there....Date: 12/28/2007 1:53:29 PM
Author: Chrono
Okay, all you PSers are probably sick and tired of me posting but...there''s a 1.45 ct K VS2 PoH in the works that measures 6.5 mm.
This is going to be a tough decision
1. 1.45 ct K VS2 PoH (6.5 mm)
2. 1.28 ct J SI1 RB (6.9 mm)
3. 1.01 ct F SI1 cushion (5.7 x 6.1 mm) which I''ll most likely get a larger one
The first two are about the same price. The 3rd option is there just to see what cushions are all about since I love that shape.
I currently have a J so J''s are okay in my book. I like the RB because it''s very big and has MB but it isn''t square. I like the PoH because it''s square and has great optics like a round but is still stretching to hit my minumum magic 6.5 mm mark. I mean, a 1.45 ct is smaller than the 1.28 ct? Okay, I guess I have to accept that fancies are like that.But it''s also one step down to a K.![]()
So much to mull over...
How dare you!!!!Date: 12/28/2007 3:30:50 PM
Author: Chrono
MrsS and Ellen,
I really don''t know. If I could pick one, I wouldn''t be debating over this here on PS now, would I?Size or shape? Don''t take this the wrong way but RBs are so common. I like squares because they are unique. This is obvious in my choice of an EC e-ring and most of my gemstones are cushions.![]()
I am having touble accepting the fact that this PoH is so small compared to the RB. To me, this is the hardest part. It''s just too small and I''m not sure if I can justify spending the same amount of money for a smaller stone with lesser colour. To be fair, the PoH has slightly better clarity but that SI1 RB is super eye clean, and has MB to boot.
Everything seems to be pointing in favour to the RB. The only thing holding me back is the shape.![]()
I meant to suggest this as well.Date: 12/28/2007 3:39:04 PM
Author: lyra
How dare you!!!!How about trying a round in a square setting? It''s worth a try if you''re really itching for size, which I can understand.![]()
Ellen is right... a round shape may be common, but a RB with PS-level quality is very uncommon, and it will stand out far beyond the everyday-rounds!Date: 12/28/2007 3:39:47 PM
Author: Ellen
Chrono, I do understand. I was the same way when I was looking for my upgrade. I seriously wanted a square, thought rounds were so common. But, I found the decision as trying as you are. And this was a one time shot for me, so I went with another round. Yes, lots of my friends (in fact most) also have rounds. However, mine is still distinctly different, because mine is cut so well. It clearly outshines the rest. Not to sound braggy, but it''s true.
And I love it, and I still love squares, and hope to own one someday. But if I don''t I''m quite content. Maybe you would find the same? or maybe not. But as Al pointed out, you can do both. Get the round, live with it, wait and see what comes down the pike for squares...just play it by ear.
Ellen I LOVE that Vatche! One of my favorites too!Date: 12/28/2007 4:08:45 PM
Author: Ellen
Here is one of my absolute faves,
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-vatche-antique-ring.53611/
Well yes, that is something we must think about.....Date: 12/28/2007 4:19:28 PM
Author: Chrono
Wow, that Vatch ring is really something.Keep it coming, I love those pictures.![]()
I can''t believe how bad DSS has bitten me. However, it doesn''t seem to affect my OEC or my EC.Just in case DSS bites me again, I am reluctant to spend a lot of money on a setting for this diamond. I splurged on the last one thinking it''s my forever RHR, but look at me now.![]()
![]()
IDK what that is, sorry.Date: 12/28/2007 4:45:28 PM
Author: Chrono
Umm, are there any round in a square peg settings without halos? As much as I adore them in pictures, they just don''t look good on me. I''m so sorry but I don''t want to sound unappreciative.I''m so glad that you all are so helpful.![]()
Date: 12/28/2007 4:45:28 PM
Author: Chrono
Umm, are there any round in a square peg settings without halos? As much as I adore them in pictures, they just don''t look good on me. I''m so sorry but I don''t want to sound unappreciative.I''m so glad that you all are so helpful.![]()
Date: 12/28/2007 4:45:28 PM
Author: Chrono
Umm, are there any round in a square peg settings without halos? As much as I adore them in pictures, they just don''t look good on me. I''m so sorry but I don''t want to sound unappreciative.I''m so glad that you all are so helpful.![]()
OH... that''s right... I''ve seen many rings where the RB appeared more squarish due to the 4-prong setting. Especially those that appear like 3 beads making a triangular shape with the point of the "triangle" pointing away from the diamond. If I come across a photo I will post it.Date: 12/28/2007 5:26:59 PM
Author: mrssalvo
Date: 12/28/2007 4:45:28 PM
Author: Chrono
Umm, are there any round in a square peg settings without halos? As much as I adore them in pictures, they just don''t look good on me. I''m so sorry but I don''t want to sound unappreciative.I''m so glad that you all are so helpful.![]()
well, the halo is what is going to give the visual effect of the square or squarish shape. micheal b settings have the prongs shaped a certain way that can make a stone appear more square, but that''s the only one I can think of.
here is fortheloveofdiamonds michael b..
![]()