shape
carat
color
clarity

HELP me pick my $10,000 diamond!

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by ClemsonPurdue, Jul 30, 2018.

  1. ClemsonPurdue
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    68
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2018
    by ClemsonPurdue » Aug 1, 2018
    Too funny, those are seriously the two I had screenshot and sent to my mom. Plus the oval suspended in the split shank. Those were my three favorites.

    My absolute favorite is the first one, the x shape. I'm a little confused by the V on the side of the diamond. It's almost like it's suspended and not connected to the band. Like typically in styles like this, the pave band may wrap up the diamond if that makes sense.

    On the 2nd one, I could have it taper from large to small alternating round and baguette like I liked in the Shane ring. It does appear to have a slight gap between the middle and side channels which I like.

    It does seem that the x shape or an option where it tapers to center stone like what you drew in the bottom could help lengthen my finger and accentuate the center stone. And I think I could do a round or an oval in either of these. Maybe up my budget to get closer to 2 carat? :love::lickout:

    I would probably do less chunky prongs as I think those are distracting.

    @farrahlyn - What are your thoughts on wedding bands for these? I like how they are symmetrical and I feel like they are ornate enough in profile view that a wedding band may block that. I originally thought I may do a wedding band that I could wear on its own without the ring when exercising or swimming or traveling when I'm too nervous to wear my main ring. I could do my baguette round alternating in the band if I went with the pave x. Then, I'd have two totally different rings. So, ideally I just want one piece unless they need a wedding band and that would add to the overall look. Also, is there anything trendy or too vintage with these? I don't think so, but want your opinion.
     
    sledge likes this.
  2. farrahlyn
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,170
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    by farrahlyn » Aug 1, 2018
    I agree, i had the same thought with the V on the first one, it seems unfinished. i had the SAME thoughts toon on the second one, that middle channel could have the alternating stones that you liked. DK can definitely do more refined prongs.

    As far as wedding band, you could get the alternating baugette and round that you like and just wear the band on your right hand. (i do this sometimes with my set) I think the ring is statement enough. and if you dont' want to wear your e-ring, just wear that band on your left hand.
     
    sledge likes this.
  3. rockysalamander
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,721
    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    by rockysalamander » Aug 1, 2018
    [QUOT
    E="farrahlyn, post: 4384796, member: 85982"]Ok, so i kinda had an idea. i'm not as good as Rocky at explain so bear with me. When i saw this setting with the x prongs it occured to me that this is a good way to get that pinched look and the pretty profile that your original ring you posted had because of the gap/space under the stone. that peg head on that setting totally detracts from it.



    So i thought this setting was nice and semi close to the original one you liked and easier to draw on for these purposes. ignore the princess shape. the red is the prong changes, creating the X prong. I'm not even sure if this is possible, i did draw it slightly pinched approacing the stone. The purple lines, you could thin out that channel as it approaches the stone to create that pinched look at the stone. Again, i DON'T know if this is completely possible, just throwing it out there. Does this make sense? THoughts?

    [/QUOTE]
    I think this is well explained! Its basically like a triple shank or "underpass" design. Here are a few contemporary designers. I'm throwing some addition designs out to see if we can help you pin down a style.

    http://sholdtdesign.com/
    https://www.dianavincent.com/collections/engagement-rings

    upload_2018-8-1_16-15-55.png
    upload_2018-8-1_16-18-54.png
    upload_2018-8-1_16-21-17.png


    Here's a few more designs to consider.
    https://www.bezambar.com/shop/bouquet-light-oval-diamond-center-engagement-ring/
    upload_2018-8-1_16-0-3.png

    upload_2018-8-1_16-0-35.png

    But, if want some serious finger coverage that highlights the center stone, how about a well balance 3-stone with colored sides (reverse of this) to really make that center pop?

    upload_2018-8-1_16-30-2.png
    https://filigreejewelers.com/produc...2-rectangular-cut-yellow-diamond-in-platinum/
     
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2018
    bmfang, Matthews1127 and sledge like this.
  4. farrahlyn
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,170
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    sledge and rockysalamander like this.
    


    


  5. rockysalamander
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,721
    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    by rockysalamander » Aug 1, 2018
    Thanks!

    Another ring to ponder. This has the floating look for the stones in the middle. This is such masterful design. Everything about the proportions and use and placement of the diamonds. Those prongs are amazing. Honestly. I love this. If the floating element was not desired, that area could be filled with the step-cuts and rounds. You might lose some of the flow offered by the frenchies here.

    [​IMG]
    upload_2018-8-1_17-1-55.png
    [​IMG]

    https://www.jewelsbygrace.com/split-shank-setting-designer-bez-ambar
     
    Matthews1127, sledge and lovedogs like this.
  6. ClemsonPurdue
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    68
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2018
    by ClemsonPurdue » Aug 1, 2018
    Update: I took some time this afternoon to go to several jewelry stores here in Indianapolis to try to hone in on what style engagement ring I like best. I tried on several styles similar to what you all shared and re-tried on the Shane setting I originally loved. The Shane setting is still my favorite and here is why:

    - I like how the Shane ring has larger stones that are channel set. I love the round and emerald cut alternating and they really sparkle next to the center brilliant round. The tiny diamonds on most rings just don't do it for me.
    - I looked at some split shanks and other slightly more dainty and vintage pieces with pave stones. Maybe with a larger center, I'd be okay with the more subtle setting but it's not enough at the 1.5 carat mark.
    - I like how the Shane ring looks like it has a wedding band with the pave or small channel set along the top and bottom. I really do only want one piece. If I did a basic cathedral with larger stones that taper, I would want a wedding band. And while I like those, it's a look I commonly see.
    - I like how the ring splits on either side of the center diamond. I think the vertical line is flattering on my finger and keeps the diamond from getting lost in the band. I would describe the split as "framing" the diamond.
    - I like how there is a lot of white gold and that the band is thick all the way around.

    With all of that said, I am 100% sure that I want to have the ring designed custom, so I am certainly open to changes to improve the look of the ring. For example, I think someone suggested fishtail setting for the diamonds on top and bottom. I think that would be pretty based on my quick google search. Is a lot of what you all don't like about the ring related to the transition from band to diamond? I'm torn on that cause like I said, I like the separation to accentuate the diamond. Maybe more delicate prongs and not sitting up so sky high would help? Basically I need feedback on how you would recommend improving the look of the ring.

    IMG_3885.jpg

    Today, I also explored quotes on having this ring custom made. DK quote $3,200 which is substantially less than Shane. Adiamor has a ring that is very similar that they could customize. I don't have an official quote, but I think they'd be about the same. Whiteflash is getting back to me tomorrow with a quote. I reached out to Adiamor and Whiteflash because they both have diamonds I would consider, and I figured there may be advantages and cost savings to having custom ring done at same vendor that stone comes from? Do I save on a setting fee or maybe get a better package deal? My initial instinct is that setting quality would be better coming from DK than Adiamor. I also think it'd be fantastic to get a diamond sent to the jeweler before the ring is made so that the side stones can be a perfect match. Thoughts on this?

    If my total budget is $15,000, I may now have a bit more room for the diamond. Should I have the setting made in platinum? I hear mixed reviews on justifying platinum, but with mine having so much exposed white gold, the upgrade may be worth it.

    In looking at diamonds in the Shane setting, I'm certain I don't want to go lower than 7.5 mm. I think a 1.75 carat would be best but maybe a stretch given a $11,000 center stone budget. I'm wanting excellent cut with excellent proportions, color H (maybe I...), 100% eye clean (probs SI1).

    Wow! I feel like I'm really getting somewhere and learning A TON! FYI, my boyfriend thinks I'm crazy and doesn't care at all what I pick. :roll

    @farrahlyn @sledge @rockysalamander @HDer @LLJsmom @ZestfullyBling @ringo865
     
    bmfang, sledge and farrahlyn like this.
  7. farrahlyn
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,170
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    by farrahlyn » Aug 2, 2018
    WOW! You have certainly made progress! I'm glad you tried on some more styles and are now certain what it is you want.

    My thoughts on the Shane setting... i just really dislike that peg head. it really cheapens the ring IMO. Going custom though, you should be able to come up with a prettier head. i like the fishtail idea but not quite sure i'd like it with your setting. :think:

    as far as the platinum, check out the link i had posted with @sledge journey with DK. He went into a lot of detail about what metal to use, like you he wanted platinum but ended up going in another direction. Platnium will patina over time so if you're looking to have SHINY SHINY SHINY metal, it may be best to pass. I have 14k white gold with rhodium plating and love the shiny look. now, i have to have it replated every few years, my chemical makeup just removes that rhodium plating fairly quickly. I probably should do it yearly. but that's the only complaint i have about WG.

    WF is extremely responsive but i really haven't seen a lot of posts on custom work. Adiamor, i think know the setting you are looking at it is SO full of metal and just doesn't look that refined. This Shane setting is already a lot of metal. You want to refine this setting and i just don't think the Adiamor setting gets you even partway there.

    As far as matching stones... i really don't think you should be overly concerned about it. if you were going with a J or K colored stone it would be more of an issue but for an H or even I... really no big deal.
     
    bmfang, sledge and rockysalamander like this.
  8. rockysalamander
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,721
    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    by rockysalamander » Aug 2, 2018
    Agree with this all. I'd go platinum, DK or HighPerformanceDiamonds custom, and get rid of the peghead. With a peg-head, you are reliant on a single soldered joint to hold the diamond to the ring. I look for 3-5 and an integrated head to provide better durability for a ring you'd wear all the time. You can still have the look of a ped-head, but where the shoulders are modified to contact the sides. Will post insp photos after work if someone does not beat me to it!

    See how the shoulders contact the prongs on the sides? And the prongs are integrated?
    [​IMG]

    Ignore the halo, but can you see how in this setting the prongs each emerge from different points from the ring? They are not all coming from a single point.
    [​IMG]

    This setting shows that you can add some detail to the gallery along with the notes above.
    [​IMG]
     
    bmfang and farrahlyn like this.
  9. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,166
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Aug 2, 2018
    FYI, I've had this conversation already -- WF doesn't do custom settings if you aren't buying the stone from them. So they may not be a contender if you go elsewhere for the stone.

    I assume DK has no issues with outside stones. As I've mentioned before, my stone came from BGD and DK never said a word about it -- outside how beautiful it was when it arrived. And that they were going to voluntarily upgrade my side stones to better match the beauty of my center stone. Which I assumed would increase my quote a little, but they held it the same. Speaking of that, I see where you were concerned about the matching side stones. When I spoke with DK, he understood I had an H VS2 center stone and ensured me it would all match, which it does perfectly.

    I'm not sure how Wink feels about using outside stones. He's such a cool cat and enthusiast that I could see him being okay with it, but another side says he may want to couple with one of his beautiful HPD/CBI center stones. I haven't had a direct conversation with him, so I'm just uncertain.

    FYI, @farrahlyn mentioned platinum, etc in my journey with DK. They use a special white gold (WG)/palladium alloy mix that is different than the yellow gold (YG) with rhodium plating that we typically call WG. The advantage is the DK WG/palladium alloy is a white metal and never requires re-plating.

    My biggest issue with normal WG is the re-plating but that is because my body chemicals eats through rhodium very fast (a few months). Because of my bad experiences, I really wanted platinum for my girl, but she was insistent on the "shiny" of WG. As we all know, platinum does patina over time, which I actually like but my girl doesn't. So I was very torn on what to do. DK finally convinced me to use their WG/palladium alloy as they said structurally it was the best metal for the design of my ring (the pave was the driving factor) and they continued to reassure me about their alloy being white and not needing re-plated. Now that it's done I would agree I made the right metal choice, and am very happy overall. I kind of got my cake and to eat it too.

    FYI, the cost difference on my setting to go to platinum was only a few hundred bucks premium as I had DK quote both ways.
     
    bmfang and farrahlyn like this.
  10. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,166
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Aug 2, 2018
    To me, it sounds like your mind is made up on that setting. I think it can be refined, but at this point I think it's safe to say your setting cost is around $3,200.

    This leaves us about $11,800 for the diamond and you are wanting to stick with around 7.5mm H SI1+ with excellent cut. This will be tough to meet. Here are some options and additional thoughts:

    As you will see, you are dropping in color requirements to maintain size & budget. While carat weight sounds more substantial, actual dimensions are 0.10mm difference at most, or 1/256th of an inch. I'd choose the WF ACA 1.543 from these two as I prefer better color and the size difference will not be visible to the naked eye:

    HPD/CBI 1.60ct J VS2, 7.50x7.55mm, $11,737 wire
    https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10087

    WF ACA 1.543ct I VS2, 7.43x7.45mm, $12,101 wire
    https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-1466947.htm


    Choices are getting tougher. Basically we are $1,000 over your target budget. The BGD 1.724 is massive with VS1 clarity (love that) but at the expense of J color. However, the one I like here in this grouping is the WF 1.694 H SI1. It's got nearly the same size, yet you get 2 bumps in color and a better upgrade policy (more on that later) -- but you do need to talk with WF and confirm it's eye clean, as it says "inquire" on their website. The inclusions look to be white, so depending on your vision sensitivity and willingness to drop an extra $1k, I think this is a worthwhile hold while you decide.

    BGD 1.724 J VS1, 7.67x7.69mm, $12,771 wire
    https://www.briangavindiamonds.com/...ls/1.724-j-vs1-round-diamond-ags-104100834016

    HPD/CBI 1.55ct I SI1, 7.46x7.48mm, $12,921 wire

    https://www.hpdiamonds.com/en-us/diamonddetail/HPD10261

    WF ACA 1.694ct H SI1, 7.60x7.62mm, $13,089 wire (potential eye clean issue)
    https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3565128.htm

    WF ACA 1.527ct H SI1, 7.37x7.39mm, $13,099 wire
    https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4011141.htm

    WF Premium Select 1.56ct H VS2, 7.47x7.50mm, $12,900 wire (good images, nice color & clarity, gets you the size -- just not my preference for angles, etc)
    https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3855517.htm


    Looking at the other end of the spectrum, I backed down the size requirements a little to better meet color, clarity and budget constraints. As you can see we are hitting very close and the size differences aren't too drastic (7.25mm vs 7.50mm on average). Here I would take the G because I think the color will have a larger impact than VS2 clarity. If driven by dollars, I'd take the Expert Selection H.

    WF ACA 1.446 G SI1, 7.22x7.25mm, $12,136 wire
    https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3983288.htm

    WF ACA 1.443ct H VS2, 7.25x7.29mm, $12,028 wire
    https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-3947713.htm

    WF Expert Selection 1.437ct H VS2, 7.20x7.24mm, $11,614 wire (great bang for buck)
    https://www.whiteflash.com/loose-diamonds/round-cut-loose-diamond-4015033.htm
     
    


    


  11. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,166
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Aug 2, 2018
    To make your final diamond decision I think you need some additional information:

    Upgrade Programs
    • WF & HPD = Spend $1 more and get full credit on original stone. No other requirements.
    • BGD = Spend $1 more and upgrade 2 of the 3: color, carat or clarity and get full credit on original stone.
    • JA & Many Other Online Retailers = Spend 2x the original purchase to get full credit.

    Color

    Only you can answer this, but if you prefer white or "colorless" most people consider D-G to be an acceptable range. Extremely sensitive people and those in Asian culture would likely eliminate G's and some might nix F's.

    A good portion of people are okay with H's. I fall in this category and what I bought my girl. But this is generally the area where people start debating rather it's okay or not. Consequently, you can find some good bargains in the H range.

    As you begin to dip into I's and J's, more people can see the difference. These stones aren't "yellow" by any stretch but they do exhibit slightly more tint from the SIDES of the diamond. From the top view, they still face up very white especially in super ideal cut stones like I listed above for you. Also, it should be noted at this level, color grading gets more subjective. Sometimes you will find a "high I" meaning it's almost H, or possibly a "low I" meaning it's almost J.

    It is also worth noting that color grading is performed on the SIDES of the diamond, where we least look. This is why many people will consider going down in color to maximize the other C's. Either way, here is a picture that is worth a thousand words, and an article for you to read if you want additional information:

    https://www.whiteflash.com/about-di...laboratory-color-grading-of-diamonds-1249.htm

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]


    Size
    It takes about 0.20mm difference before the (normal) human eye can detect a size difference. And even then the difference is very minimal, about 1/128th of an inch. A good site to compare diamond sizes is www.diamdb.com as you can put in your ACTUAL ring size and ACTUAL dimensions of the diamond to get a very accurate representation.

    My own personal opinion is that I too like a bigger diamond but I also think some people get silly about squeezing every last mm (or more typically, carat weight) out of a stone. What really matters is does it fit all your other criteria and/or does the size difference leave a MEMORABLE impression. When comparing side by side, it's easy to see differences but if you couldn't tell the two stones apart when looked at separately or doesn't leave you with an impression of "wow, that is so much bigger" than I'm not a fan of going bigger just for the sake of doing so. Instead, I'd rather stay in budget or use those dollars to upgrade other attributes like cut, color or clarity that may be more important to me.

    I've used this site to create a few comparisons for you:

    WF 1.543ct vs HPD 1.60ct (using ACTUAL dimensions)
    https://www.diamdb.com/compare/1.54ct-round-7.43x7.45x4.56-vs-1.6ct-round-7.50x7.55x4.61/
    Capture.PNG

    WF 1.543ct vs WF 1.694 (using ACTUAL dimensions)
    https://www.diamdb.com/compare/1.54ct-round-7.43x7.45x4.56-vs-1.69ct-round-7.60x7.62x4.71/
    Capture2.PNG

    WF 1.543ct vs WF 1.446ct (using ACTUAL dimensions)
    https://www.diamdb.com/compare/1.54ct-round-7.43x7.45x4.56-vs-1.45ct-round-7.22x7.25x4.47/
    Capture3.PNG

    HPD 1.60ct vs WF 1.446ct (using ACTUAL dimensions) - ran this as the 1.60ct is nearly identical to your "ideal" dimensions of 7.50x7.50mm
    https://www.diamdb.com/compare/1.6ct-round-7.50x7.55x4.61-vs-1.45ct-round-7.22x7.25x4.47/
    Capture4.PNG
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2018
    bmfang likes this.
  12. rockysalamander
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,721
    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    sledge likes this.
  13. farrahlyn
    Brilliant_Rock

    Messages:
    1,170
    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2015
    by farrahlyn » Aug 2, 2018
    going NON super ideal as @sledge covered those very well, this is what i found:

    1.61 I VS1 $10,388
    https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

    1.56 G SI1 $11,737
    https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

    1.7 E SI2 $11,360
    Depending on how you feel about clarity, this could be a hard no but thought i'd still throw it out there. I'd still want it checked out to make sure there is nothing on the table that is not shown that is impeding light return.
    https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...e-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-3312047

    1.63 G SI2 $11,270
    Ok, another iffy stone on clarity. The inclusion is in a spot that the arrow really kinda hides it face up. it can definitely be seen from the side... not sure, you'd have to ask how far away the inclusion is visible. This is a toss up for me but i like the angles so thought its worth a mention....
    https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...g-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-5278193

    1.60 I SI1 $11,210 AGS000
    https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...color-si1-clarity-true-hearts-cut-sku-4197602 :love::love:

    1.64 I VS1 $11,910
    https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...i-color-vs1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-5313227
     
    sledge likes this.
  14. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,166
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Aug 2, 2018
    Thanks @farrahlyn, it was tough with the criteria. I had planned on getting to the NON super ideals, but hadn't made time yet. Thanks for covering. I briefly glanced over them and had a few comments.

    1.61 I VS1 $10,388
    https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

    57 table, 35CA, 40.8PA - lands you in ideal territory but about 33% chance it falls to excellent depending on actual GIA rounding/averaging


    1.56 G SI1 $11,737
    https://www.bluenile.com/diamond-de...AMONDS&track=viewDiamondDetails&action=newTab

    57 table, 34.5CA, 40.6PA - puts you deeper in ideal territory. Allowing a little oddity for GIA rounding/averaging (1 degree each direction) about 90% chance being ideal and 10% excellent. Don't like the indented natural on the cert. Also additional whisps, clouds, pinpoints & surface graining not shown which concerns me with being eye clean and not cloudy/hazzy.


    1.7 E SI2 $11,360
    Depending on how you feel about clarity, this could be a hard no but thought i'd still throw it out there. I'd still want it checked out to make sure there is nothing on the table that is not shown that is impeding light return.
    https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...e-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-3312047

    56 table, 36CA & 40.6PA - lands in ideal territory with about 33% chance falling into excellent using same standards as already noted. Not sure how I feel about that 36 crown though. Love the E color but a little concerned with effects of medium flour with it. Also as already noted, an SI2 and magnified it looks nasty on the table.

    If a contender, confirm eye clean and if it comes back okay ask for idealscope image.



    1.63 G SI2 $11,270
    Ok, another iffy stone on clarity. The inclusion is in a spot that the arrow really kinda hides it face up. it can definitely be seen from the side... not sure, you'd have to ask how far away the inclusion is visible. This is a toss up for me but i like the angles so thought its worth a mention....
    https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...g-color-si2-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-5278193

    Same table, CA & PA as above so similar concerns with potential cut. Similar concerns with being eye clean; however, as already noted, the black crystal is somewhat hidden by the arrows.

    If this is a go, I'd also want idealscope images on this, preferably ASET if available but unlikely since JA.



    1.60 I SI1 $11,210 AGS000
    https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...color-si1-clarity-true-hearts-cut-sku-4197602 :love::love:

    Nice find and great value. Dimensions work out to be about the same as the WF ACA 1.543ct VS2. The WF stone is about $1,000 more. The JA stone has medium flour which accounts for some of the discount, but on a true hearts stone I assume would be no issues at all and actually help the I color.


    1.64 I VS1 $11,910
    https://www.jamesallen.com/loose-di...i-color-vs1-clarity-excellent-cut-sku-5313227

    57 table, 35CA, 40.8PA - lands in ideal territory and trying to account for GIA rounding/averaging and only has 1 box, or roughly 10% chance, of going excellent. Very nice clarity. Might be worth putting on hold and requesting idealscope & ASET images.
     
    bmfang likes this.
  15. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,166
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Aug 2, 2018
    I went back and looked at your inspiration piece. Taking some of the comments @rockysalamander and @farrahlyn had made I started sketching up some stuff in my head for you. Hands down, those two ladies are way better than I am at this but I could see modifying this ring in such a way it keeps some of the attributes you like will softening it up and giving it some flow.

    FYI, when I mention narrowing or skinnying up different areas, I don't think it takes much. The advantage is that by doing so in that middle where the rounds & baguettes are, you may reduce enough in size where you can add that extra baguette I drew in without additional cost. Also I like extending the areas in red so you kill that peg head (looks way off to me) and extending diamonds part of the way up to give it a little more bling.

    Feel free to slaughter the idea. :lol:

    InkedIMG_3879_LI.jpg
     
    bmfang, farrahlyn and rockysalamander like this.
    


    


  16. ClemsonPurdue
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    68
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2018
    by ClemsonPurdue » Aug 2, 2018
    Great ideas and so much to digest. I have company tonight, but I’ll go through all these options in the morning.
     
    rockysalamander likes this.
  17. rockysalamander
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,721
    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
  18. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    54,632
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » Aug 2, 2018
    I am late to your thread, but which one of you is the Clemson half? We have lots of relatives who've gone there!

    The problem with the setting you love is that it appears to be scaled for a large center stone. So I probably would slim it down just a bit to make it more in proportion to your center stone size. I'd also remove the peg head. I don't recommend alternating rounds and emerald cuts in the center row, because that will leave gaps that will collect gunk! I'd have the outer sides bead set with rounds, and the center channel I'd do maybe carre cuts (square emeralds) that sit next to each other without gaps. And I'd change the head to get rid of the peg head. This ring has the potential to be far better than the one you saw with some design improvements, and David Klass can do it if you have some help here with the CADs. I'll take a look to see if I can find anything close.
     
    rockysalamander likes this.
  19. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    54,632
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » Aug 2, 2018
    Ignore the metal color and center stone shape and imagine round and platinum. I think this one is much nicer looking than the Jared ring and more updated. It also is not so wide that it overwhelms the center stone. This one can be made with baguettes in the center which I really like.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,166
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Aug 2, 2018
    Agree. Nice find. Very refined and more eloquent looking than the original. It should help the center stone stand out and not take away from it. Although I think the OP is worried a smaller ring won't look good on her finger.
     
  21. rockysalamander
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,721
    Joined:
    May 20, 2016
    by rockysalamander » Aug 3, 2018
    Another option for a center row that has both baguette and round, but not alterate. Then, border this with bead or fish-tail on the outer rows.

    upload_2018-8-3_6-15-18.png
     
    bmfang, eapj, farrahlyn and 2 others like this.
  22. Matthews1127
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    4,175
    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2017
    by Matthews1127 » Aug 3, 2018
    So far, this is my favorite design that covers the finger, but let’s the center take the spotlight! Very beautiful!!! :love:
     
    lovedogs and rockysalamander like this.
  23. ClemsonPurdue
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    68
    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2018
    by ClemsonPurdue » Aug 3, 2018
    Ok, just now getting a chance to process all this and reply...

    Setting: I really like the setting @diamondseeker2006 posted. (@diamondseeker2006 - My boyfriend graduated from Clemson in 2010. He grew up in Spartanburg, SC.) It definitely seems more finished on the inside and a bit more proportioned to the center stone size I will have. In looking back at my original inspiration piece on the Shane site, I found this one on the "something similar":

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    Original inspiration piece:
    [​IMG]

    So, here's what I'm thinking. I have the designer create the ring in proportion to the size diamond I choose. Bigger than the "something similar" but smaller than the original inspiration piece. I still want the 3 round and 2 baguettes alternating down the center channel like the original inspiration piece. I think the profile view of the "something similar" is much nicer without the peg head, plus it adds the extra bling on the side. I like how the bottom row of rounds is almost on a 45 degree angle. This profile view is closer to what you recommended @rockysalamander What do you all think of the combination of these two rings in the correct proportion to the diamond? I'll definitely need some help once I get into the CAD drawings to review.

    Next question is who to use for the design. I got a few quotes for the original inspiration piece.

    David Klass - $3200 for 14k white gold with H color, SI clarity
    Adiamor - $4250 for 14k white gold
    Whiteflash - $4700 for 14k white gold with 1.35ctw A CUT ABOVE Diamond Melee (F/G VS) and 0.30ctw Baguettes (G/H VS2)

    My reason for getting quotes from Whiteflash and Adiamor is that I was considering diamonds from both companies. Based on the above, I'm considering going with David Klass based on price and the flexibility to get the diamond from anywhere. Should I also reach out to High Performance Diamonds for a quote? Is that Wink?

    I also liked what @sledge and @farrahlyn shared about platinum versus white gold. It sounds like the David Klass white gold may be the way to go because of it not needing re-plated as often. I do want shiny. If I order a ring online and do need to get it re-plated every few years, do I send it back to the designer or just find a local jeweler to do it?

    Assuming I end up getting the setting squared away, my next item to figure out is the diamond. I really need help on this guys because I've never seen any of these amazing, incredible, out-of-this world, Whiteflash and Brian Gavin diamonds that you all describe. Lol. So my question is... are these diamonds worth the premium knowing that size is really important to me? You guys shared a lot of diamonds which I looked at.

    1) Cut - You guys had a lot of comments on what proportions are considered ideal versus excellent, then there's the Whiteflash grading system, and I saw Heart/Arrows diamond too. It's very confusing, and I'm trying to figure out what impact the super premium cuts have. I really think I'd be content with a GIA excellent cut that falls into your recommended proportions category if that means substantial cost savings or larger size. But how do I know without ever seeing the GIA excellent next to a hearts and arrows or Whiteflash ideal? I really think I need to narrow my focus on the cut because it is creating too many options and confusing me. Like do I go with @sledge list of super ideal of @farrahlyn list of JA/BN?

    2) Color - Since my diamond will be visible from the side, I'm considering drawing the line at H. You all sent some I's which look great and certainly offer value, but I don't want to see even a hint of yellow from the side. It would maybe be different in another setting where you can't see the side of the diamond? Do you think that the diamond being able to be seen from the side pushes me to target an H color?

    3) Clarity - I do not care what clarity is long as it is 100% eye clean. I'd love to find an SI1 that is eye clean. I inquired about the Whiteflash 1.694 H SI1 Hearts and Arrows because I thought that could be a good contender but the crystal in the table is visible from 10" away they said.

    And lastly, bigger is better for me on size! And value is important. I want to feel like I found a great deal. :love::love::love:
     
    Matthews1127 likes this.
  24. Golden_bird
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    405
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2017
    by Golden_bird » Aug 3, 2018
    You should see some diamonds in person ,in different lighting situations to figure out your color sensitivity ! I can see and lots of ppl can see a tint in H from the side in some lighting conditions! Esp if the setting is very open ! But if you close it with a basket ,it will be 95%white :roll
     
    Matthews1127 and ClemsonPurdue like this.
  25. Golden_bird
    Shiny_Rock

    Messages:
    405
    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2017
    by Golden_bird » Aug 3, 2018
    I have Gia H and ags I ,and to me, they look equally yellowish from the side ! But when I put my I in bezel ,it’s completly white and in closed basket H ,and now it’s white in most of light conditions
     
    Matthews1127 and ClemsonPurdue like this.
  26. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    54,632
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » Aug 3, 2018
    I like the side view of the last ring you posted! I'd go with platinum and G-H VS diamonds in the setting. If you really want white gold, go with 18k palladium white gold. White gold is kind of a pain because it is plated to look white and you eventually have to have it replated periodically.

    Use DK for the setting and buy the diamond from wherever you find the best one. I prefer Whiteflash personally, but I understand if you'd like to get a larger stone. Just stay within these measurements and you should be okay. Look only at GIA Excellent cut if you aren't going with a superideal cut.

    table: 54-58
    depth: 60-62.3
    crown angle: 34-35.0 (sometimes up to 35.5 will work if the pav angle is 40.6)
    pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9

    (I am old enough to be your bf's mother, lol, but I actually went to college in the town he is from and so did my husband. Lots of connections in that part of the state!)
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2018
  27. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,166
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Aug 3, 2018
    A few thoughts:
    • I agree the alternate setting looks much nicer and refined. I do really like the diamonds on the side and basket areas.
    • When adding more stones to the side & basket, you will increase the cost. All the pricing you currently have does not include stones in these areas so you need to be cognizant of this.
    • While I don't think this modified piece is "small" it seems to have good balance between the right size and clunky like the original piece. Like clothing, it's better to have a well tailored and properly fitting suit than one too large despite your body type.
    • Aesthetic preference aside, keep in mind the larger piece will cost more because it weighs more and the diamonds have to be larger. It is cheaper to provide a larger quantity of smaller diamonds that smaller quantity of larger stones.
    • You need to go into a store and look at diamonds in-person to see how color sensitive you are. Most people are okay with H, but this just recently backfired on me and I'm going through my own struggles on a custom setting I designed for my girl. She is picking up a slight tint because the sides of the diamond are so exposed. Two ways to deal with this -- increase color or do as @Golden_bird suggested and hide more of the side. Since diamonds are a zero sum game, going higher color means sacrificing elsewhere and you don't have much wiggle room so you may want to consider hiding some of the side to be safe.
    Attached are some ideas on how to modify that last setting and a few more comments that go along with it:
    • I would only swap out 2 rounds for 2 bags on each side.
    • This is still a peghead (single point of connection). We want to make that stronger and more beautiful. See my sketches believe and the inspiration piece for additional reference of how to kill the peghead and extend the prongs from the shaft so you have a minimum of 4 points of connection.
    • Add 1 bag on each side in the center to help tie-in your other side bags. I'm trying to keep them to a minimum as they are expensive.
    • Consider adding that optional piece so you can do 6 prong. Two advantages: more secure & will help hide the side of the diamond so it takes attention way from the tint (diamonds are graded for color on the sides FYI, so this is where they will show.

    InkedRound-Diamond-Classic-Cathedral-Engagement-Ring-in-14k-White-Gold_41071352_A1_LI.jpg

    InkedRound-Diamond-Classic-Cathedral-Engagement-Ring-in-14k-White-Gold_41071352_A2_LI.jpg

    Additional visual cue for how to make those prongs do what I'm trying to draw above (this one includes the optional piece for the 6 prong:

    20180210_150626.jpg
     
  28. lovedogs
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    7,734
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2014
    by lovedogs » Aug 3, 2018
    Agree with @diamondseeker2006 that I really like the side view of the "something similar" setting you posted. also agree w others that the peg head of the original is one of the parts that makes the setting look less elegant/refined/finished. The 2nd one doesn't have that, so the overall aesthetic is more pleasing, IMHO.
     
    Matthews1127 likes this.
  29. sledge
    Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    3,166
    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2018
    by sledge » Aug 3, 2018
    Ack, my brain is fried. Almost forget a few things.

    On the WG, you just need to ask WF and Adiamor what specific materials they are using. I'm guessing standard yellow gold w/ rhodium plating. I already went into the nuts & bolts, but for me that isn't an acceptable solution. I would consider the WG/palladium alloy from DK to be of higher quality and value than traditional YG/rhodoium plating. Just my 2 cents though.

    As far as the diamonds, it really comes down to how you prioritize the 5 C's: cost, color, carat, clarity and cut. Most here prioritize cut as the highest. It sounds like you putting carat as your #1. If size is what matters most to you then BN, Adiamor, JA and others may be better options. You can find some very beautiful GIA XXX stones for cheaper.

    The options I listed are considered super ideals. They were all hearts & arrows (H&A) collections meaning they have the best symmetry precision. Additionally, they are AGS graded by complex 3D modeling to confirm cut grade. GIA stones uses older antiquated 2D techniques with bizarre rounding & averaging of angles & percentages that are reported on the certificates and will sometimes look different in person than one would expect by the angle & percentages.

    In addition to the computer generated ASET the 3D model kicks out on the AGS cert, these super ideal stones will have separate ASET & idealscope images to confirm light performance that confirms the angles & percentages shown on the AGS certificate do indeed work together as they should. The H&A images will confirm the symmetry.

    Additionally, most super ideal vendors offer better upgrade programs, but not always. It just depends on the specific "virtual inventory" dealer you are trying to buy from. Also, because of the precision cutting super ideals will tend to look bigger and face up whiter than non-super ideals.

    Generally speaking, the pecking order goes...

    AGS 000 > AGS 0 > GIA XXX

    Whatever your choice, we will help guide you to the perfect stone that meets your criteria and budget constraints.
     
  30. diamondseeker2006
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    54,632
    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    by diamondseeker2006 » Aug 3, 2018
    Yikes, sledge! WF and Adiamor do not use yellow gold plated to make white gold. No one does this. The fact that pure yellow gold is used in making white gold is why the gold plus alloy still looks slightly yellow and has to be plated with rhodium to look white.

    Now I agree on superideals being the best modern round brilliants. But there are extremely well cut stones occasionally that are graded by GIA. In fact, my very first superideal cut was graded by GIA, and it had the images to prove it was a top of the line H&A stone. All AGS 000 stones aren't equal, either. You are right that a well cut stone (not just superideal cuts) may face up larger than one that is less well cut.
     

Share This Page