decisively_unsure
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2015
- Messages
- 146
Ryan_W said:The thing I like about the 0.76 is its shape.
This is a 0.57 Tiffany Soleste I looked at:
I don't think it looks too bad at all. With a stone just under 0.2c bigger, I'm sure it would look fine.
The good thing with the 0.76 is the fact that is has quite a large surface area (5.64 x 4.70) due to being 3.29 deep.
chrono said:DU,
The OP is trying to replicate the Blue Box ring. He mentioned in his first post that the BB ring is completely out of budget.
It's your opinion that its not a tasteful, classic ring. But again, you'd probably dislike Diana/Kate's ring - probably one of the most classic and tasteful rings - NOT A COCKTAIL RING. Not everyone wants a diamond solitare, and who are you to judge what they want? It's great to give your opinion, but the OP obviously doesn't care, and neither does his GF. So if you want to be helpful, why not offer you opinion on the stones in question?decisively_unsure|1437666729|3906506 said:My frank opinion is that such a style is ideal for a cocktail / dress ring, but it not timeless and neutral enough to suit all styles on all days. Whilst am absolutely sure many people have different tastes and thus my opinion isn't always relevant, but especially given the stone size parameters, then you could get a really mind-blowing solitaire stone in a platinum setting for the same dough. Easily up to 0.9ct and a better quality diamond regardless of blue box.
My girlfriend wanted an embellished 'art deco' style ring, but was very blown away with a simple classic setting with a modern round brilliant (when I gave up looking and thought I should go with my gut). Again just another opinion we all have them.
Regardless of opinion though, a lovely rock is built in with electromagnets for women.![]()
telephone89 said:It's your opinion that its not a tasteful, classic ring. But again, you'd probably dislike Diana/Kate's ring - probably one of the most classic and tasteful rings - NOT A COCKTAIL RING. Not everyone wants a diamond solitare, and who are you to judge what they want? It's great to give your opinion, but the OP obviously doesn't care, and neither does his GF. So if you want to be helpful, why not offer you opinion on the stones in question?decisively_unsure|1437666729|3906506 said:My frank opinion is that such a style is ideal for a cocktail / dress ring, but it not timeless and neutral enough to suit all styles on all days. Whilst am absolutely sure many people have different tastes and thus my opinion isn't always relevant, but especially given the stone size parameters, then you could get a really mind-blowing solitaire stone in a platinum setting for the same dough. Easily up to 0.9ct and a better quality diamond regardless of blue box.
My girlfriend wanted an embellished 'art deco' style ring, but was very blown away with a simple classic setting with a modern round brilliant (when I gave up looking and thought I should go with my gut). Again just another opinion we all have them.
Regardless of opinion though, a lovely rock is built in with electromagnets for women.![]()
To the OP - I really love the shape of the smaller one. Are you in a rush? Maybe you can wait until a larger more rectangular stone becomes available? From the other photos, I am leaning toward the 1.02, but I think asking for the 1.04 on a white background might help them be judged more 'apples to apples'.
eta - just saw your reply. 2k is quite a bit, and thats a decision only you can make. We *generally* suggest to spend more on the stone/less on the setting because you can upgrade the setting later. But if you want this to be a forever setting, maybe spending the extra is worthwhile.
My frank opinion is that such a style is ideal for a cocktail / dress ring, but it not timelessdecisively_unsure|1437676869|3906608 said:Hey, I did caveat my post and gave an alternate opinion. That the OP is still committed is a good thing. There was no mention of tasteful or any sign of judgement, but maybe in your own opinion hey?
Specifically regarding the OP choose the one that looks the prettiest and ignore things like carat size.
pricescopenewbie|1437707231|3906798 said:Hey Ryan,
i think you should go with your gut. if you like the elongated shape, go for it. you won't be happy with a square ring no matter how nice the stone is otherwise. some PSer used to have a famous double halo FY ring, which has a 0.7-ish rectangular center stone. both the stone and setting were from DBL. i think it is well proportioned and gave a nice finger coverage. i vaguely remember her finger sz is slightly larger than your girl's. so your girl should have no problem with a 0.7 center stone. another nice thing is, you might save yourself a lot work and some money if you consider use DBL both the stone and the setting.
oh, i found the link of the ring. here u are, hope it will help:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-rhr-double-halo-yellow-diamond-ring.157408/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-new-rhr-double-halo-yellow-diamond-ring.157408/[/URL]
Ryan_W|1437736223|3906872 said:I've made my mind up on the FY stone, the 0.76 is the winner for me.
Here are some pics with it next to the 1.04:
From the above, I honestly think the smaller stone suits my requirements better. I think it's a nicer stone and the shape is spot on...
Just a few more tweaks sent over to David at DBL to see if he can match my design 100%. Being hand forged, I hope this won't be a problem, as long as the structural integrity of the ring isn't compromised.
As mad as it sounds after all this, I've still asked him to price me up the ring with a nice 1ct colourless diamond.
I'm 95% sure I want to get her a FY, but there's still an element of doubt about digressing from the norm..... There's nothing stopping me buying her either a colourless or FY ring later down the line etc..... Why is this such a hard decision?!![]()