Hope this is the one... feedback on a 2.2 G VS1 Ideal?

[search4Magic]

I hope I am close to the finish line on my diamond hunt and just discovered this forum which I wish I would have known about months ago! I've tried to catch up on various threads here and think I've made good decisions but figure it couldn't hurt to check in with you all.

My gf is amazing, pragmatic, not really into makeup and jewelry but when she likes something her eye for quality and craftsmanship is amazing and I've been hunting for an engagement ring that would really speak to her. I started online and made a couple trips to De Beers and Tiffany to better understand what I was looking at. Initially I was focused on a "perfect" stone: D, IF or FL, ideal, etc. I felt this spoke to "quality" but the E, F and even G's I saw had absolutely no discernible color and there's only so many carats I can afford so I concluded to give a bit on color for a bit of carat and still have something that really spoke to quality. Same for clarity, even the VVS's seemed so perfect that a VS with a bit more carat could still be on the mark.

For craftsmanship, my instincts tell me round cut is the right cut for her and I started reading up on "personality" which lead me to all these dimensions and light performance and technical details that ultimately landed me on this forum. I decided to focus my energy on the jewelers that have a reputation for best quality in their "signature" diamonds and both Whiteflash and Brian Gavin were top contenders. I know there's passion in these forums for both camps and for my own reasons I landed with a preference for BGD. After much consideration I think this is the stone for her:

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/2.275-g-vs1-round-diamond-pags-104074586020

Thoughts?

 

[Sundial]

It is going to be gorgeous! I think you have made very sensible compromises on color and clarity to gain a nice size. You are buying a super ideal cut so no compromise there. I upgraded to a Brian Gavin Signature diamond myself last year and I couldn't be happier. How do you plan to set the stone?

 

[Andelain]

You nailed it. Perfect. No other way to look at it.


Now post pics when you get it set!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Beautiful stone!...

 

[Rockinruby]

Gorgeous stone! Have you decided on a setting?

 

[search4Magic]

Thanks, you all are amazing!

Following my goals of quality and craftsmanship, I am leaning towards the BGD twist solitaire setting. I had thought about three stone settings and some of the other more flashy options but felt they took away from the magic of the diamond.

What setting expresses elegant simplicity in your opinion?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Gorgeous diamond and my personal favorite color and clarity! Lucky lady!

Solitaires that I like the most: Classic Style Knife edge, Classic Style Half Round, Tapered Classic Style Half Round (platinum)...these are simple and allow the stone to be the star. Then put a diamond wedding band with it.

I would not recommend the Twist setting unless she has specifically shown you a similar one that she wants. That ring will not fit as well with a wedding band and I do not consider that a timeless style. But if it is what she has chosen, then by all means get it!

 

[Gypsy]

I adore that stone. Gorgeous.

I agree with Diamondseeker on the setting choice though. If she hasn't picked it herself, I would not go with the Twist.

I would recommend one of these these settings, in order of preference:

1. http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/elegance-platinum-5415p This is similar to the Cartier 1895 solitaire: http://assets.cartier.com/sites/assets/files/styles/cartier-1000-1000/public/catms/images/N4163600_2_cartier_engagement-rings-rings.png?itok=oX-MXqOw But in my opinion, more elegant. Also is its very classic without being as common as the Tiffany solitaire. I think it would be a good fit for how you describe your lady. I have several pieces by BGD and they have all appraised, by the tough PS appraisers we have, as excellent in terms of manufacturing and workmanship.

2. If you want something out of the common run of solitaires, then I recommend this setting: http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/pave-and-side-stones/lace-platinum-5934p-1 It's still a solitaire and will also allow a flush fit band (and the set with the matching band is stunning) which is important to a lot of women and it does have some extra 'bling' and interest to it. But it's not as out there as the Twist, and has broader appeal.

 

[search4Magic]

Diamondseeker, Gypsy, thank you both for your feedback on the Twist setting - my (bad) idea, not hers.

The lace Gypsy pointed out is really unique, I haven't seen anything like that before. It definitely speaks to craftsmanship but my sense is that it may be a bit askew of the "elegant simplicity" I'm seeking.

I like the Classic Truth and Melissa BGD settings. I think I'm partial to the 4 prong settings with just a bit of character at the base.

 

[Sundial]

I think either the Classic Truth or the Melissa setting would be a lovely choice. Personally I would stay away from the Twist and the Lace because although they are beautiful they seem less classic and timeless to me. Please let us see pictures of whatever you decide!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I like Classic Truth and Melissa both very much! I have a slight preference for 6 prong settings but almost included those two in my other post! Either would be gorgeous with a diamond wedding band. I also recommend platinum.

 

[Gypsy]

Classic Truth gets my vote.

Although I still think you should reconsider the Elegance.

 

[search4Magic]

Gypsy, thanks for the vote for Elegance, I think she'd love it! I'm on the fence between Classic Truth and Elegance. I'll sleep on it. Or flip a coin ...

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy, thanks for the vote for Elegance, I think she'd love it! I'm on the fence between Classic Truth and Elegance. I'll sleep on it. Or flip a coin ...

The elegance is inspired by the Cartier 1895 solitiare. http://assets.cartier.com/sites/assets/files/styles/cartier-1000-1000/public/catms/images/N4163600_2_cartier_engagement-rings-rings.png?itok=oX-MXqOw

I think it's more elegant than the Cartier, but that is what it is inspired by. I don't know if that helps or not, but I wanted to give you the information!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I like the Elegance better than the Classic Truth. BUT, be very sure you tell them you want nice claw prongs. The prongs in the website picture are not attractive to me. I am sure they can do nice, proportional claws, but you need to specify it.

 

[solgen]

Diamondseeker, Gypsy, thank you both for your feedback on the Twist setting - my (bad) idea, not hers.

The lace Gypsy pointed out is really unique, I haven't seen anything like that before. It definitely speaks to craftsmanship but my sense is that it may be a bit askew of the "elegant simplicity" I'm seeking.

I like the Classic Truth and Melissa BGD settings. I think I'm partial to the 4 prong settings with just a bit of character at the base.

Given the size of your diamond a 6 or even 8 prong setting will likely be more secure. They also help accentuate the roundness and thus the size of the diamond IMO. Claw prongs as mention also help.

I like the Melanie setting which is similar to the Melissa but it has the claw prongs. It also has cathedral style knife edge shank which IMO makes the band appear thinner. If they had a 6 prong head I'd probably have went with it.


But an of the settings mentioned should fulfill your criteria.

 

[Gypsy]

Oh yes, definitely specify claw prongs.