Help!! she wants trills. with round center

[candide]

Hi-

I was lucky enough to find a beautiful round 2.86 H VS2 center that is 0.6 on HCA EX.

I know that in the end of the day I need to get WHAT SHE WANTS. But I also know that trills. are a pretty dead cut, and many people don''t think they look great with round center (I sure don''t like it).

I have tried to gently steer her away from it, by showing her other options. She is rellay the type who gets an idea in her head from the way begining (like a friend of hers had trills WITH A PRINCESS, so she decides she needs trills).

1) What do you think of steering her away more?
2) What do you think of tapered bags. as a comprimise
3) Where could I get a nice matched pair of trills?
4) What are idea depth and table for a pair so they dont LOOK GLASSY
5) Her "second choice" was a shank with an elegant pave on the upper third, no trills. What do you think of getting "second choices"

Any thoughts on any and all of these questions would be great. It''s just I would hate to spend months finding a great center and have it be killed by some dead trills. on the side.

Thanks
Jon

 

[aljdewey]

Jon:




My suggestion: give it to her in a simple, inexpensive solitaire setting and tell her that you want her help in choosing the permanent setting.




My guess is she'll change her mind when she sees how dead those stones look next to her beautiful SCREAMER of a stone (especially when you point that out while shopping together for the setting!)




Sometimes it's easier to let a woman change her own mind than to try changing it for her, capice?

 

[detta]

Go to the site www.adiamondisforever.com and she can build her own engagement ring and see exactly how a round would look with any type stones on the side. It helped me decide what I would like. Good luck.

 

[Fancy]

I thought trillions were a brillaint cut? With that said though, I don't like the triangles next to the round ... there is a picture here on the forum of the most beautfiul round flanked by two pears ... take a look and see what you think .. it's a stunner.

As for baguettes, I wouldn't put that cut next to a brilliant cut either.

Have you thought about putting a small round on each side .. I've seen that and love that too.

As for "second choices" ... I agree that you should have her decide what is her first choice and then get that one, even if in the end, it's not what you like. I am a big believer in giving a girl the dimaond engagement ring of HER dreams ... so if after showing her alternatives, she still loves the trillions, I would say you should get her that.

Sounds like she is getting a beuatiful and HUGE rock no matter what. Post a picture!!!!

 

[valeria101]

Trilliants are great near a round, but there is atrick: MOST trilliants are badly cut. They are shallow (this has something to do with this shape allowing cutters to use some specific, thin, otherwise useless, triangular rough called macle). Find a couple of good quality trilliants (with decent, at least 50% depth) and they would look just fine near a round. Also, there are a few missleading names for triangular side stones: trilliants, trilions, trianges... I guess 'trilliant' is a brand (not terribly enforced). However, insist on good, deeper-cut trilliants (these have a more rounded profile as oposed to their very pointy cousin cuts mentioned) and your problem should vanish!

PS: the problem with that 'adiamondisforever.com' design software is that it implies that all diamonds are D-IF and perfect cut. Also, the width of the 'band' you can show for the chosen center+sides combination is such that even 2 caraters look tiny! Good selling point, huh?

If any trills look shady for you, try a pair of tiny hart cuts: if small they should not look all that different on the ring (the notch gets near and under the round) but those tend to get better treatment from the cutter... I would say.

 

[valeria101]

----------------
On 10/6/2003 1:38:18 PM candide wrote:

Hi-

1) What do you think of steering her away more?
Bad move... I personally love MY choices!

2) What do you think of tapered bags. as a comprimise
Baguettes are even less sparkly than trills, so what is the point here?

3) Where could I get a nice matched pair of trills?
Tricky this: how about GOG? The jeweler making the settig should worry about this, not you.

4) What are idea depth and table for a pair so they dont LOOK GLASSY
Table: moot point. Depth: 50% to 55%, if you can find such things!

5) Her 'second choice' was a shank with an elegant pave on the upper third, no trills. What do you think of getting 'second choices'.
How far was this second choice from the first? Pave is now a trend in jewelry, and latest jewelry businees news say that it is here to stay for another seazon, but afterwards? This is trendy, trills have been trendy for longer, I guess. Also, it seems that new techniques are being developed and marketed for pave, promissing (and showing) more precision and spectacularly even, tight fields of small stones which I do find in Milan and TelAviv, but not the the current stocks of popular engagement rings in the US... So, pave might still be fashionable next year but look a whole lot better than your ring... Well, I would not like this at all! Side stones (I guess in consequesnce of the above) give a more enduring look.

Just my thoughts in a nut shell

 

[Giangi]

Ditto to Ana. Most trilliants/trillions have 20-40% depth AND thick to extremely thick girdles. Finding a well cut pair will be hard, but not impossible. Just take your time and try to compare as many stones as possible. As a guideline, stay within 50-65 table and depth. No very thick or ex.thick girdles, as they're essentially ''fat'' and you're paying for something you can't see. I can thell you that a VERY well cut trilliant can be very attractive... They just are not easy to come by.

 

[mike04456]

----------------
On 10/6/2003 3:42:18 PM valeria101 wrote:





I guess 'trilliant' is a brand (not terribly enforced). However, insist on good, deeper-cut trilliants (these have a more rounded profile as oposed to their very pointy cousin cuts mentioned) and your problem should vanish!

----------------

The names for triangular cuts are a little tricky. Trillion and trilliant were both originally brand names but neither was successfully registered as a trademark because of widespread generic usage. The company that made trillions came up with a new name, Trielle, but the cut is basically the same (it was patented at one time but the patent has expired). They are supposedly the best-cut triangles, although that depends on who you ask. A shallow triangle makes the most efficient use of macle rough but won't be as brilliant. A deeper cut uses up more rough, so will consequently be more expensive.

There are some new branded triangles I have seen recently but I can't remember the names at the moment.

 

[valeria101]

Hm... and I thought I would know where to look for diamonds online! However, I just remembered about another person who pays attention to those triangular things. WWW
The picture at the link below is not very artistic and also wants to demonstrate inclusions and other triangle failures, but brings home the respective jeweler's point about flat triange cuts (the center) versus deeper, rounded trillions (or whatever name). I guess that you could drop a line at the respective shop.

What a difference depth can make in a triangle-like cut? I could not resist showing the example below. Oups that is not the dimond example I had in mind

... However, hope the above link helps.