Hopefully my last post/question. Rate these diamonds?

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Hello everyone,

I'll make this as quick as I can...

Basically I've decided on a Pear shape stone with square diamonds in the setting. I've also decided to go relatively expensive on the setting...Around $2000. Obviously this leaves me around $7000 for the stone.

Here is what I'm happy with on the stone, based on my budget of around $7000.00, and I've made up my mind...

F (MAYBE a G if it's a very clear one)

SI2 (Or, SI1 if I can find a deal)

Around 1.65-1.85 on Carat.


I chose those parameters...Color and Clarity based on two facts:

I can easily see yellowness in stones, I've discovered. And I don't want to notice that yellowness for the next forever years.

I can live with flaws because I can't see them with a naked eye.


I'm still trying to go through my jeweler for this since he's been so good to me, but his inventory on Pears is limited. So, I'm considering ordering one online and then greasing his palm a bit to set it for me (As well as buying the setting, her earrings and bracelet from him). Hopefully I'll accomplish two things doing that...

Keep him happy and pay him for his trouble and get exactly what I want.


Now onto the stones I've found (And please, if you're real motivated, do a internet vendor search for: Pear, F-F, SI1-Si2, 1.65-2.0. It's a one page result with a wide price range.)

1.70
F
SI2
57.7%
58%
EGL
-
no
gd
gd
no
10.14x6.67x3.85
$3509
$5966*SP

= http://search.virtcert.com/cgi/u/1012/v.cgi?stock=2396028&_s=1012&_p=sdf348gd743&_c=&_fs=1&prestock=&_ln=ps





1.70
F
SI2
57.7%
58%
EGL
-
no
gd
gd
no
10.14x6.67x3.85
$3534
$6008*SP

= http://www.abazias.com/database/NewDiamondInfo.asp?stock=8225452&flag=pshttp://www.pricescope.com/origin.asp?id=390610&sh=5&prc=6008





1.70
F
SI2
57.7%
58%
EGL
-
no
gd
gd
no
10.14x6.67x3.85
$3690
$6273

= http://www.jewelryzone.com/details.php3?item=1107251



Now...Here is my only problem with those stones...

The Table is larger than the Depth on all. And I've learned here, that we want just the opposite. But maybe this is OK because they are Pear shaped?


And for an update on my jeweler, who many here thought might be not giving me good stones...Here are three that I've got prices on (Pear)...

1.86 - J - SI2 = $4300 (I won't go with this. It's too yellow. I've decided that I can't go any lower than F on Color).

1.85 - F - SI2 = $9200 (This seems high to me. But, some of the stone I in the search above are this price. Maybe it's a really good one?)

1.5 - G - SI2 = $6900 (I like this price but not the size...I want to go larger. This price makes me feel good about my jeweler because it falls at about the average of the internet prices).



Thanks again for all your help!!

 

[goldengirl]

CEP, you''ll be buying from someone who offers a return/exchange period, right? I''m concerned because you''ve selected a pear shape (which is either a love-it-or-hate-it kind of cut, unfortunately) and from what you''ve said, your gf has expressed a strong preference for square stones.

Whatever you decide, at least give her the option to switch it if it''s not what she wants.

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

She''ll love it.

She likes the pear shape and she''ll get square stone in the setting.


Plus...

Unless I buy from my jeweler''s inventory, I''m screwed anyway. If I order from the internet, I only get the 10 days, and if he special orders, I only get the 10 days. Either way, I''ll use those 10 days to evaluate the stone myself and then it''s mine.

She woudln''t return it anyway.

 

[reena]

so you''re doing what--pear center with princess sidestones? or, a pear with channel set princess stones in the band?

 

[treysar]

Have you SEEN an SI2 in person? I find that the inclusions in an si2 are way more obvious than the yellow in a H/I colored stone.

I love a nice pear - this is very exciting!! Good luck!

 

[Hest88]

Pears are hard, and you''ve got be careful it doesn''t have a strong bow-tie.

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

I''ve still got two potentials and to be honest, I''m not really sure what the proper names are. I do know she''ll like either.

And if I understand your question, I''m pretty sure my options are one of each. I''ll see them both this Wednesday and probably make my decision.

 

[Hest88]

CEP, best of luck to you. I hope you know what you''re looking for and hope that you find it.

 

[valeria101]

I see three links to the same stone! 1.7, F/SI2... posted by three different sellers.

With inclusion plot and IdealSCope picture infront there would be more to say about this one, of course. Otherwise, why not.

It makes no sense to talk allot about that 0.3% difference between table and depth - these are basically the same number, not that it says too much.
A copy of the EGL cert will add some detail: inclusions, girdle thickness, crown height... It should not be too hard to call it in once you decide which seller to go with.

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/15/2004 3:28:53 PM
Author: treysar
Have you SEEN an SI2 in person? I find that the inclusions in an si2 are way more obvious than the yellow in a H/I colored stone.

I love a nice pear - this is very exciting!! Good luck!

Yeah...That''s how I made up my mind. I can definately see the yellowness, but can''t really see the inclusions. By a WIDE margin!!

On this stone, I listed above specificlaly: 1.86 - J - SI2 = $4300 (I won''t go with this. It''s too yellow. I''ve decided that I can''t go any lower than F on Color).

This would have been such a good deal, but for the yellowness. I can''t see the inclusions at all, not even with my old man reading glasses, and BARELY with the loop. But, the yellowness sticks out like a sore thumb.

Long story short (Which I tried to do in my original post on this thread)...

I can see the yellowness of the stone on her finger when she sits next to me, and I assume she''ll be able too as well. And I can''t see the inclusions, even when focusing on them, and I assume she won''t be able too as well. Neither of us will take a loop to it. And neither of us will care what any report or anything else tells us about the inclusions.

(But I do understand some can be worse than others, and will look out for that. But please...Can we not talk about the clarity here? It''s the one thing I''m good at...I need help with the rest.)

 

[reena]

Date: 11/15/2004 3:28:53 PM
Author: treysar
Have you SEEN an SI2 in person? I find that the inclusions in an si2 are way more obvious than the yellow in a H/I colored stone.

I love a nice pear - this is very exciting!! Good luck!

i''ll echo this--be sure that you see the stone in person and that it doesn''t have obvious inclusions!!!!

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/15/2004 4

5:15 PM
Author: valeria101
I see three links to the same stone! 1.7, F/SI2... posted by three different sellers.

With inclusion plot and IdealSCope picture infront there would be more to say about this one, of course. Otherwise, why not.

It makes no sense to talk allot about that 0.3% difference between table and depth - these are basically the same number, not that it says too much.
A copy of the EGL cert will add some detail: inclusions, girdle thickness, crown height... It should not be too hard to call it in once you decide which seller to go with.

Well...That's good information! I didn't know that was possible? I'll keep an eye for that.


How about my basic question? I thought it was rule of thumb, like I said above, concening the depth and table. But these three stones (This one stone), it's reversed. How concerned should I be? Does that disqualify it automatically, like I ASSUMMED it would?? Or maybe pears are different than rounds and the same rules don't apply??

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/15/2004 4:14:18 PM
Author: reena

Date: 11/15/2004 3:28:53 PM
Author: treysar
Have you SEEN an SI2 in person? I find that the inclusions in an si2 are way more obvious than the yellow in a H/I colored stone.

I love a nice pear - this is very exciting!! Good luck!

i''ll echo this--be sure that you see the stone in person and that it doesn''t have obvious inclusions!!!!

I''ll see each one. I have the 10 days and I''ll take advantage of that time. I''ve been inspecting a lot. I can''t stress enough...Based on my budget, and the size of stone I want, I know for a fact that I can''t go with anything less than a F or maybe a G...And that means not much better than a SI1 or a SI2.

Call me crazy, but I''ve made up my mind based on a lot of research...Both on the internet (Thanks guys!!) and in person.


What do you think about the table and depth problem? Is there a differing rule of thumb on pears, maybe?

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/15/2004 3:28:53 PM
Author: treysar
Have you SEEN an SI2 in person? I find that the inclusions in an si2 are way more obvious than the yellow in a H/I colored stone.

It was absolutely, positively, no contest. Looking at a I next to a F, it was a slam-dunk!! The I was out of contension in a nano-second.

I understand inclusions are less uniform, and am able to look for them, and will do so, but honestly, with my naked eye, and even with reading glasses, I was unable to see them!!

And that''s while STARING! Let alone glancing at it, like most do.



Believe me...I was surprised at this finding as you guys seem to be here. I even made a post claiming as much...Maybe it''s just me...Maybe I''m an idiot. But after reading stuff here, I was convinced that I needed to go H-I-J and VS2. But after I''ve seen them in person, it''s just the opposite.

And I''ve made up my mind. (Thankfully!)

 

[reena]

it''s just a rule of thumb, not etched in stone. if you see the stone in person and you like it, then don''t worry about it.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/15/2004 4:14:58 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer
How concerned should I be? Does that disqualify it automatically, like I ASSUMMED it would?? Or maybe pears are different than rounds and the same rules don''t apply??

Rules of thumb are not all that great... In this case, 57.7 is so close to 58 that the difference really means nothing to any rule of thumb.
I would use those AGA charts as they come, no more rules of thumb... There is allot of wisedom into those silly looking numbers, and staying in the first three categories (not to say first two) is the simplest rule of thumb that I would dare use. It''s just me, of course.
Without all detail in there, AGA calls this a potential "International Fine Cut", bordering on the higher class, BTW - the name sounds good and the numbers do too.

Of the three sellers posted, at least DCD provides professional looking pictures of their stones. It would be nice to see this before commiting to buy.

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/15/2004 4:25:52 PM
Author: reena
it''s just a rule of thumb, not etched in stone. if you see the stone in person and you like it, then don''t worry about it.

But, I''ve read (As per as has been suggested) that a stone needs to have a Depth that is larger than the Table. Something like 63% to 58% is preferable. Otherwise, the light, when it enters the stone and starts to bounce around, doesn''t reflect as well. And therefore the stone doesn''t look as good.

NOW YOU GUYS ARE SAYING IT DOESN''T REALLY MATTER????

Am I conveying my confusion in an understandable manor?

(And remember...To tell you the truth, I can''t tell if I like "The Cut" of any damned stone or not...Even after trying to teach myslef...So ALL I have is the fact that I can see the color, I can inspect the inclusions to be sure I''m OK with them or not, and can then remember what I''ve read about cut. ie: DEPTH AND TABLE!!

Not mad...Just trying to explain my frustration with my attempts at finding the perfect stone.

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/15/2004 4:29

4 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 11/15/2004 4:14:58 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer
How concerned should I be? Does that disqualify it automatically, like I ASSUMMED it would?? Or maybe pears are different than rounds and the same rules don''t apply??

Rules of thumb are not all that great... In this case, 57.7 is so close to 58 that the difference really means nothing to any rule of thumb.

But...

I understand that 57.7 and 58 are close enough to NOT worry about, but that''s not my concern...

I''m comparing what''s SUPPOSED to be "Prefered"...

The first number, the Depth, which is 57.7 should be a 63 (Or there abouts) if the second number, the Table is 58.

Because, again, I''ve learned that the Depth should be about 10% (Or there abouts) larger than the Table.


Is there a problem? Am I not explaining my question/concern properly???

 

[Patty]

CEP, Yes, several vendors often list the same stone and that''s what you have here.

I know NOTHING about pears but my advice would be to see how the stone looks to your eye in various lighting situations. Look for the "bow tie" effect. Do a search on bow ties if you are not sure what it is...My understanding is that most fancy shapes show at least some bow tie, but you don''t want it to be obvious.

As for clarity, I''m with you 100%. I cannot see inclusions in my I-1 stones even though I know that they are there. My friend has an I-1 stone that I''m sure is not ideal cut and I STILL cannot see any inclusions in hers. I understand why you are willing to go down on clarity in order to go up on color.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/15/2004 4:434 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer


Because, again, I''ve learned that the Depth should be about 10% (Or there abouts) larger than the Table.

You do explain it very clearly, only i have a bit of trouble understanding why these should be of concern at all. Let''s see if I can explain what I mean:

As far as I know, these numbers are meant to convey two or three different types of info about a diamond:
- would there be any durability issues? Can it be set and worn without much chance of damage?
- do I like the shape?
- would the qualities of the material show well (that is light return, brilliance and fire)

The table and depth numbers alone are not too informative about any of these. Extrreme values can warn about some issue though and this is why they get banned into the bottom AGA categories. Say, a small table and shallow crown mean that the crown angle is unusualy steep so the girdle can get easily chipped, or extreme depth makes the stone look small and dark, or a shallow pavilion guarantees loss of brilliance up to the point of making one wander if that is a diamond or not... But your 58/58 simply say - ok, the basics are fine, let''s hear the rest

Hope this makes sense.

 

[perry]

CEP:

No problem here with you wanting to get an F, or better. We all get to decide on which one of the 4 C''s we wish to focus on and how much of a compromise we make on the others.

I am glad that you found something to focus on.

As others have said, I believe that you are looking at the same diamond that is in some wholesalers inventory, but seeing how much 3 different vendors would sell it for.

Concerning the clarity issue. All grades are "relative" and it may be true that you may not be able to see a "good" SI2, that does not mean that you will not be able to see a "bad" SI2. Just be sure that you get a good look at it. Personally, this is the very reason why I have set my limit at VS2. I know that I will not be able to notice a bad VS2 much.

Best of luck with your propositon.

Perry

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/15/2004 7:10:55 PM
Author: valeria101

Date: 11/15/2004 4:434 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer


Because, again, I''ve learned that the Depth should be about 10% (Or there abouts) larger than the Table.

You do explain it very clearly, only i have a bit of trouble understanding why these should be of concern at all. Let''s see if I can explain what I mean:

As far as I know, these numbers are meant to convey two or three different types of info about a diamond:
- would there be any durability issues? Can it be set and worn without much chance of damage?
- do I like the shape?
- would the qualities of the material show well (that is light return, brilliance and fire)

The table and depth numbers alone are not too informative about any of these. Extrreme values can warn about some issue though and this is why they get banned into the bottom AGA categories. Say, a small table and shallow crown mean that the crown angle is unusualy steep so the girdle can get easily chipped, or extreme depth makes the stone look small and dark, or a shallow pavilion guarantees loss of brilliance up to the point of making one wander if that is a diamond or not... But your 58/58 simply say - ok, the basics are fine, let''s hear the rest

Hope this makes sense.

Thanks for helping it make sense!!

So, basically, the 10% thing is not that big of a deal? Or at least, I shouldn''t automatically discount any given stone if the Table and Depth are close to the same?

And to be honest...

I''ve looked at a lot of stones with differing "Cuts", and have not noticed any difference. I''m not saying that there are not differences, only than I''m not experienced enough to notice them.


Thanks to all the help here, I''m getting closer, anyway!!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/16/2004 11:20:55 AM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer

So, basically, the 10% thing is not that big of a deal? Or at least, I shouldn''t automatically discount any given stone if the Table and Depth are close to the same?

Yep, that''s what I was trying to say.

Of course you should not hunt down some technical benchmarks that make NO difference FOR YOU. What on Earth can be wrong with getting one stone that speaks to you at the right price ? Just make sure it is suitable for wearing (durability, again - but that is really not a big deal - the vast majority of diamonds pass this test) and this is it, IMO.

 

[valeria101]

I am quite sure that you (or anyone!) would make the obvious choice between two extreme examples like those in the picture below.

IMO, there is no better, fool-proof shopping tool than keeping the image of a beautifully cut diamond in mind. That kind of knowledge and your own taste is all it takes, every time.

This is not just me talking - it is common practice for professional gem buyers to keep their samples at hand (small gems of perfect color and cut to match with the merchandise of interest in the same light at hand. For example... read the comments on this small, perfect thing.). Garry tried to do the same when offering his Ideal Scope with a set of ideal cut CZ as sample. Seeing is believing. There is no better grading tool than a trained eye

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Good example! And yes, even I can see the difference in those two. Which reminds me...

I saw two round stones next to a pear one, and the one thing I noticed was how the round ones had more "Silver" or "Gray" to them (Which, in my language, would be the reflections found within the cut showing) than the Pear.

Like this example (But my pear was not as bad, of course).

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/16/2004 7:42:13 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer

I saw two round stones next to a pear one, and the one thing I noticed was how the round ones had more ''Silver'' or ''Gray'' to them (Which, in my language, would be the reflections found within the cut showing) than the Pear.

I suspect others would call that "contrast brilliance" in the rounds - those would probably show some more black under the Ideal Scope, than the pear - if it has any. I would expect a good amount of fire from a pear cut, even if not as bright as a round...

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/15/2004 3:21:36 PM
Author: reena
so you''re doing what--pear center with princess sidestones? or, a pear with channel set princess stones in the band?

Reena,

I would like your opinion...I''m going to look at a pear stone and these two settings (I think) tonight.

My question is...

Generally speaking, will a pear stone look OK in these settings, or am I doing somehing...."Different" again?


Thanks in advance for the advice!

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/17/2004 8:34:38 AM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer

Generally speaking, will a pear stone look OK in these settings, or am I doing somehing....'Different' again?

Not sure what some substantial square sides next to a pear would look like, but a princess set channel band is just a strype of diamonds - it goes with anything, IMO.
Besides, "different" is neither good nor bad. The version below is not too different, just very elegant IMO.

 

[valeria101]

On the other hand... I am a bit at a loss at making up anything with two princess sides and a pear

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Thank you so much Valarie, you''ve been so helpful!

I''m looking at one setting that has stones wrapping around the sides, and those stones are in small square settings (I''m sorry, I don''t know the name). I comes with a wedding band too...It''s $2500. I''m sure, that if I like it, the pear will look great on it.

The other one was special ordered for me to look at...And I''ve only seen a drawing of it, done by my jeweler. But basically, it''s one of those settings with the two stones to the side of the main stone. It''s a fairly common setting.

I''ll see both tonight, maybe I''ll take the company digital camera? (just had that idea), and post pictures of them!!

At least then I can stop trying to describe them, which I am sure is leading to confusion...