Hopefully my last post/question. Rate these diamonds?

[valeria101]

Date: 11/19/2004 87:34 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer


I think that''s the one from the company that start with the ''A''? The one of the two we liked best?

If so...

I called them today and asked for the Sarin report. They said they would get it to me via email today. I haven''t gotten it yet. They said once they get that, and since the stone is on the west coast, they would then get the other two reports processing. (If any of that makes sense).

Also...The lady said the PriceScope speical price was ''Cash Wire'' only. Which I thought was weird, because that price was $7604.00 and the ''Cash Wire'' price on their site was only $7606.00. I can''t imagine they''re only giving a two dollar deal for this place...I assume she was mistaken since she didn''t really know what PriceScope was.

Yes, this is that

The prices posted are based on... what some applet in an internet site, no one looks at the before you do. So if this particular number fell in some singularity of their adjustment function --- this is what you get! Their webmaster should know about this, the lady at the phone would not. I think the bank wire discounts are suppoed to cover payment processing - so this is never allot of cash (ok, $2 is silly, I know).

The document processing route makes senes - Sarin and EGL reports will be in the posession of some wholesaler until A** gets them and the stone in for you.

 

[valeria101]

This is what my tracking chart looks like now....

 

[reena]

yeah CEP i probably should have included a disclaimer that i am no oval expert (or any other kind for that matter) . those were just a few i happened across that looked promising by the numbers . . . i was just trying to give you a sense of what going over on the stone instead of the bracelet/earrings could get you. (but you should listen to ana--she knows what she''s talking about!)

but that F/SI1 looks purty to me, if it''s eyeclean . . .

 

[stephinextremis]

Date: 11/19/2004 7:51:34 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer

Date: 11/19/2004 4:49:43 PM
Author: stephinextremis
I am jumping into this kind of late, but I promise, I read the ENTIRE THING

1) Stop and breathe. Relax. Slow down.


2) In my opinion (and I stress that it is only my opinion): I think you ought to get the diamond set in a very basic Tiffany-style setting in white gold. Unless she only ever wears yellow gold (which does not seem to be the case) or unless she grabbed you and said ''BUY ME A YELLOW GOLD ENGAGEMENT RING'', you ought to err on the side of caution. Also, a simple, bare-bones setting in white gold won''t cost you more than $100-150. Save the rest of the money budgeted for the ring, you''ll need it in step 2.



2) After you propose, tell her that you just couldn''t wait to put a ring on her finger, and that now you want to go shopping with her so that she can choose the setting of her dreams. You say she will be happy with whatever, but what girl wouldn''t like to hear that?! Then if she wants yellow gold, diamond-encrusted, or something with colored stones, SHE will be able to choose it. Then you''re sure she likes it!


3) I think that if you insist on getting the necklace and earrings/bracelet gifts also, you really should keep it simple and not go over your budget. It''s very true that you will have all the time in the world to buy gifts for her. I think the Tiffany silver items are gorgeous, quality, and very classy.


Hope this helps...


Stephanie

Hi Stephanie,

I just want to say two things...

It will most certainly help! And I really can''t believe you read the whole thing!! That''s too much to ask of anyone. You must be a very nice person!!

I think you MAY give me too much credit...I didn''t have a lot to do at work today! Just kidding

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Hey guys...Got an update...

Went to see my jeweler Saturday, and I'm really liking this guy! I'm thinking that he caught the hint that I'm educating myself (Thank you all) and am shopping him. And it looks as if he's responded. Plus, he's offering to change-out any setting I chose, which is a bonus. And as for the stone, I'm taking no more of a risk with him than any of the e-vendors. I get 10 days from him too, but with him, I get to see the stones without having to have them shipped to me. He's bringing-in multiple stones and setting for me to look at, at no cost. Anyway...On to where I stand today (And it's looking like I'm about done here)...

Things I'm set on...

White gold or Platinum setting.

Pear stone.

Inexpensive Tiffany Birthday and Christmas gifts that you guys showed me.


Now...Here's some info on two really interesting stone's (From the certs) he's going to bring-in for me to look at this Wednesday or this Saturday...


1)EGL...

1.71 carat

$7700.00

Pear Brilliant

10.45 x 6.74 x 4.43

G

SI2

Depth: 65.8
Table: 52.00
Crown: 18.00
Pavilion: 43.80
Girdle: Thin to Medium Faceted
Culet: None

Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good

Florecence: None





2) EGL...

2.01 Carat

$7500.00

Pear

11.15 x 6.64 x 4.45

F

SI2

Depth: 67.0
Table: 51.0
Crown: 14.0
Pavillion: 47%
Girdle: Slightly Thick, Faceted

Polish: Good
Symmetry: Good to Very Good
Cullet: None

(What is this?) Graining: Very Slight

Florescence: None







Now....I want to try to describe the settings I'm interested-in (Hopefully, I can better describe what I was talking about when I said the setting had "Square" instead of "Round" stones. And remember...Susanne told me she likes square over round stones, thus my reason for considering this kind of setting)...

And please note...I'm still interested in the standard Tiffany settings, but won't list any here since they're all pretty basic. (I can't help it though...I REALLY like the below settings due to the side stones)...


This first one is a White Gold Engagement and Wedding set. It's the one with the "Square" side stones I've spoken of...

$2000.00

Princess Side Stones

1.37 Total Carats for both rings.

F-G

VS-SI

Wedding Ring has .82 Carats and features 4 of the "Princess Cut" stones plus very small ones running down the sides.

Engagement Ring has .55 Carats and features 1 of the "Princess Cut" stones to each side plus very small ones running down the sides.

Please note...After seeing this ring, the stones are not nearly as "Square" as I may have lead you to believe in previous posts. I think they will work with a pear, but PLEASE, let me know if you feel different!!







This next one came into the running yesterday. I like it, the side settings aren't nearly as "Square" and they're not "Round" either...

Bagguette side settings. This one is Platinum. But, if I go with this style, I'll probably get one with more carats, which might bring it down to White Gold due to cost...

$1325.00

Wedding and Engagement set. Total carats = .79

Wedding = Approx .39

Engagement = Approx .40






Now...THIS IS THE ONE THAT REALLY CAUGHT MY EYE WHEN FIRST LOOKING AT SETTINGS!! Due mainly to how many carates it is...

$2500.00 (This will REALLY stretch my budget!!)

White Gold

2.54 carats

Channel Set and Princess Cut

Engagement Ring = 10 stones at 1.15 carats

Wedding Ring = 12 stones at 1.39 carat


BUT!!! This is a LOT of ring!! And I think too "Thick" or "Wide" for Susanne's finger. So...I looked at one that I like just as much, that's a bit thinner (And less expensive too...Which also might allow me to go with Platinum instead of White Gold)...

White Gold = $1200.00

Platinum = APPROX $1800.00

It is the same as the above one, but has 1.27 total carats between the wedding and engagement settings.

I am really leaning towards this one!!



Anyway...There they are. I'm sorry that I don't have any pictures of the above settings, but hopefully, my description tells you what they are.

 

[cflutist]

CEP, both pears are too deep (3A) in my opinion. I would look for one in the 60-61% range.

Edited to add: the table is too small too in both stones.

Graining - visible indications of structural distortions in a gem. In diamonds, it often looks like faint lines running across facets and possibly crossing facet junctions.

Internal graining - internal indications of irregular crytsal growth. May appear milky, like faint lines or streaks, or may be colored or reflective.

Surface graining - surface indication of structural irregularity in a diamond. May resemble faint facet-junction lines.

 

[reena]

okay--a few things. re the stones you're looking at: my biggest concern is, ARE THEY EYECLEAN? while it's possible to find eyeclean SI2s, it is certainly not a given, esp at that carat weight. i guess you'll have to wait until he brings them in for you, but i wouldn't be shocked if one or both have visible inclusions. i am especially suspicious of the second stone--note that it is a full 0.3 carat larger AND a full color grade higher than #1, yet it is $200 cheaper. there is a reason for that; it's up to you to take a look at it and figure out what it is. perhaps a visible inclusion, perhaps a poor appearance, whatever. but be suspicious.

re: the numbers on the stones--most of the #s do appear to fall outside of ideal range on the gemappraisers chart. both stones do appear a tad deep (esp the second)--ideal range for pears is 59%-63%. 65% and 67% put you in the 3A category. also, i know very little about crown height, but according to the chart the 18% on the first stone also lands in 3A territory. however this is just a guide, so if you see the stones and you like the way they look, and if they're eyeclean, then you can just throw that chart out the window, i suppose.

my honest opinion? unless you're lucky enough to find a truly eyeclean SI2, i would either up the budget or go down in size to get a nicer stone. it might just be hard to find a really nice 2 carat F/G pear in the $8000 range. but hey--i hope that you prove me wrong.

re settings. it's hard to judge without pictures, but--i'm sorry my friend, you are just not going to convince me that a pear center stone is going to look good with princess cut sides. nope. doesn't work in my book. i suppose the channel set princess band is the lesser of two evils, but still--i'm not liking it. no squares and pears! please! now, the baguettes--that might be a little better... i can't really visualize it, but definitely less offensive than the S&P. however, my preference remains--and it will always remain--plain platinum solitaire. in this case CEP, less is more!!!!

Edited to add: oops, cflutist--who really actually knows something about pears--beat me to it! listen to the woman!

 

[reena]

my friend, for $1600 more than that first stone (which amount you could easily take out of your fancy setting budget if you go for a simple solitaire

), you could have that 1.62 F/SI1 Vg/Vg that we were discussing earlier . . . (you''d want to call and check if it''s eyeclean, however . . .)

remember me, CEP?

Shape: Pear
Carat weight: 1.62
Color: F
Clarity: SI1

Depth %: 60.2
Table %: 58
Symetry: Very Good
Polish: Very Good
Girdle: M F
Culet: NO
Fluorescence: NON
Measurements: 10.39-6.74-4.06

cflutist, you know much more than i do--what do you think about this stone for our friend CEP?

 

[cflutist]

From the numbers alone, the stone in Reena''s last post is preferred over the other two pears. However there is something in diamond grading for fancy shapes that cannot be conveyed by numbers alone.

Almost all pears will show some bow-tie. I would prefer a pear with a "slight" bow-tie, over one with "noticeable", or "obvious". Bowties are especially common in shallow or very deep stones.

Things to look for under symmetry:

1. face-up balance, opposing parts should be mirror images of one another

2. culet placement (CP) - should be in line wih the bezel facets you use to measure the table

3. Uneven wings (UW) - the arching of opposing wings should be the same

4. Uneven shoulders (US) - the curvature of each shoulder should match the other

It is not enough for a fancy shape to be symmetrical, it should also be graceful and pleasing.
Much of the allure of fancy shapes lies in their girdle outline. The following reduce "shape appeal":

1. High or square shoulders (HS) - they should have a gently but distinctly rounder arch (you don''t want the pear to triangular)

2. Flat wings (FW) - they should form low arcs, but not so low as to look straight or flat

3. Bulged wings (BW) - the opposite of flat wings, these tend to make the stone look squat or fat.

4. Undefined points (UP) - bulged wings or small L:W ratios often cause undefined points

Bottom line, you really need to see pears (in person or via a picture) to judge some of the things mentioned above.
BTW, this stuff is from lesson 17 (Grading Fancy Shapes) of the GIA Diamond Grading class I took in 1989.

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Thanks for the info here...Great stuff from both of you!!

I''m worried about that 2 carat one too...Seems a bit too good to be true, plus, a 2 carat stone is almost too big!!

I wish the 1.7 was an F!!

 

[valeria101]

If I were to call in just one of these stones, it would be the 2 carat. Because of that misterious "grainign" - as far as I understand, that did contribute to the clarity grade, but the kind of clarity characteristic (not really "inclusion") never shows.

The stones seem decently large for their weight and price - so the extra depth does not seem to be much of a detraction. Besides, here's what David Atlas says about his AGA grades:

"Fancy shapes from the grade of 2B and better frequently have a very fine look to them and may combine all the right attributes successfully. "

Not that these two gys show any glasring issues. The very high crown would not have worked without the rather small tables - and these features should produce very fiery stones. I would expect a *spectacular* look from those numbers - as much as they can tell. You will see the stones, so no need to guess this time

You will get to try these stones in the settings. Which is great.

I cannot tell what they look like really. From what you right, the largest sounds "too much" and I wander if the baguettes would not look dead on the other. The first (with the small princess cuts) and the last (that you say is more dainty) sounds temting. But you will see... and bigger cannot be better for both diamond and setting - at some point they do compete (bad thing).

Now... about those cheap Tiffany (is this an oximoron !??) pieces, something dawned on me: one bracelet and matching earrings that is:

 

[baltneu]

Hey CEP---How did a cute lady like that end up with a thug like you?? JUST KIDDING

You are a handsome couple.

I don''t know much about pear shaped diamonds but the lastest ones posted are EGL cert, can you work with GIA or AGS certs? As you know there is a big disparity in grading, just my 2 cents.

Best of luck to the both of you. With all this work you are doing, are you proposing this Christmas? LOL

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/22/2004 6:45:43 AM
Author: valeria101
If I were to call in just one of these stones, it would be the 2 carat. Because of that misterious ''grainign'' - as far as I understand, that did contribute to the clarity grade, but the kind of clarity characteristic (not really ''inclusion'') never shows.

The stones seem decently large for their weight and price - so the extra depth does not seem to be much of a detraction. Besides, here''s what David Atlas says about his AGA grades:

''Fancy shapes from the grade of 2B and better frequently have a very fine look to them and may combine all the right attributes successfully. ''

Not that these two gys show any glasring issues. The very high crown would not have worked without the rather small tables - and these features should produce very fiery stones. I would expect a *spectacular* look from those numbers - as much as they can tell. You will see the stones, so no need to guess this time

You will get to try these stones in the settings. Which is great.

I cannot tell what they look like really. From what you right, the largest sounds ''too much'' and I wander if the baguettes would not look dead on the other. The first (with the small princess cuts) and the last (that you say is more dainty) sounds temting. But you will see... and bigger cannot be better for both diamond and setting - at some point they do compete (bad thing).

Now... about those cheap Tiffany (is this an oximoron !??) pieces, something dawned on me: one bracelet and matching earrings that is:

Ana,

Are you saying the "Graining" might be a GOOD THING??

Also...Are you saying the thickness of these stones might be a GOOD THING??

And most importantly...Are you saying these stones might have above average "Brilliance"?????

If so, I can''t tell you how happy that makes me!!!! You have no idea!! From a "Comfort" stand-point as well as a "Doing the right thing" stand-point, I really want to buy from this jeweler.


I don''t know if this will make sense, but I think we''ll both be OK with some inclusions. I''ve seen a few stones, and some had BAD inclusions, but I can''t see them with my bare eye. Not even after looking through the loop and staring at it. And not even with the old man reading glasses I recently bought.

And her eyes are no better than mine.

I made a post concerning this, and I want to make it clear...We''ll never have this thing appraised as a way to "Value" it. Yes...I''ll take it to an appraiser for insurance reasons, and that will be the only reason. So...That has lead me to state that I want an "F" and a SI1 or SI2 are fine with me (The color stands-out like a sore thumb to me...Thus the "F").

I''m wondering if many here are looking at this from an expert''s point of veiw and forgetting just how "Novice" the rest of the world really is?


Anyway Ana...Hopefull my above assumptions are correct. Hopefully you''re telling me the stone''s I''m looking at on Wednesday might not only be "OK", they might be something special????


(And please...Give me a link to that bracelet and earrings??)

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/22/2004 6:45:43 AM
Author: valeria101

Not that these two gys show any glasring issues. The very high crown would not have worked without the rather small tables - and these features should produce very fiery stones. I would expect a *spectacular* look from those numbers - as much as they can tell. You will see the stones, so no need to guess this time

Oh...Something else...

Any tips on telling me how I can identify this potential "Spectacularness"???

I''m sitting here thinking...Of the stones I''ve seen (20 or 30?), I''ve not noticed a damned difference in any of them (Except for the color).

How do I tell???

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/21/2004 1:49:33 PM
Author: cflutist
From the numbers alone, the stone in Reena''s last post is preferred over the other two pears. However there is something in diamond grading for fancy shapes that cannot be conveyed by numbers alone.


Almost all pears will show some bow-tie. I would prefer a pear with a ''slight'' bow-tie, over one with ''noticeable'', or ''obvious''. Bowties are especially common in shallow or very deep stones.


Things to look for under symmetry:


1. face-up balance, opposing parts should be mirror images of one another



2. culet placement (CP) - should be in line wih the bezel facets you use to measure the table


3. Uneven wings (UW) - the arching of opposing wings should be the same


4. Uneven shoulders (US) - the curvature of each shoulder should match the other


It is not enough for a fancy shape to be symmetrical, it should also be graceful and pleasing.

Much of the allure of fancy shapes lies in their girdle outline. The following reduce ''shape appeal'':


1. High or square shoulders (HS) - they should have a gently but distinctly rounder arch (you don''t want the pear to triangular)


2. Flat wings (FW) - they should form low arcs, but not so low as to look straight or flat


3. Bulged wings (BW) - the opposite of flat wings, these tend to make the stone look squat or fat.


4. Undefined points (UP) - bulged wings or small L:W ratios often cause undefined points


Bottom line, you really need to see pears (in person or via a picture) to judge some of the things mentioned above.

BTW, this stuff is from lesson 17 (Grading Fancy Shapes) of the GIA Diamond Grading class I took in 1989.

Thanks for the tips!!

Can you tell me one simple thing?

What way is the pear stone supposed to face? Is the point towards the finger nail or towards the pack of the hand?

 

[cflutist]

Most people wear it pointing towards the finger nail but I suppose you could set it anyway you like.

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/22/2004 4:15:14 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer


Anyway Ana...Hopefull my above assumptions are correct. Hopefully you're telling me the stone's I'm looking at on Wednesday might not only be 'OK', they might be something special????

Right. That is what I meant. Those characteristics (proportions, graining) are not definite "bads" - there is a full half to that glass.

The numbers may not be straight by the book (not toooooo far, IMO), but it sounds like this is for a good cause - I would expect these stones to have fire simmilar to old cut rounds due to the proportions of their pavilion, and this is nice - in my mind. I cannot see the diamnds with you though. That is just my instinct talking with the same numbers infront as everyone else.

The bracelet and earrings are listed here .LINK

 

[valeria101]

Date: 11/22/2004 4:27:42 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer


Any tips on telling me how I can identify this potential ''Spectacularness''???

Sometimes I HATE this computer screen! Feal free to conclude that I must be taking these things toooo seriously for my own good and completely exagerate the sligth differences of diamnds'' looks - you would not be too far from the mark

Now that I''m thinking... the "spectacular" bit I was referring to is "fire": the property of a cut diamnd to reflect color light (like a prism). Some diamons are way better at this than other. I tend to prefer the fiery diamnds, just because virtually no other preious stone is fiery (some are, but few, and too soft to wear well). So fiery diamonds stand out IMO, and non-fiery ones make me think - you know, white sapphire looks the same for 1/100 of cost

For example, princess or radiant cuts with large tables (go over 75% and that''s "large") lack fire, even if they are very brilliant. If there is one in the store, you could use it for comparison. Baguettes are "dead" - there is little fire or brilliance to them... Yout two pear cuts should handle light very differently. But if there is no difference that you can see - no reason to think twice: you are not buying for me

It''s better to look at diamonds in a couple of different light conditions. After all, you would not be taking the jewelers'' zillion spotlights home... It is enough to play with the gems a bit, place them between two fingers and shift them in the light... and, under some shadow (away from the counter, or with your back to the main light source). I bet that once strong, direct lighting is off, one stone will look more lively than the other. One always does - it is difficult to match diamonds after all.

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Thanks again ana!

I''ll be going to see the stones on Wednesay evening. Then maybe again on Friday. Hopefully we''ll have a bit of sun here on Friday so I can take them outside, but it doesn''t look like it. My jeweler is pretty good about showing me all the different lighting...Hopefully I''ll be able to see some differences.

As for the settings...Well...I''m going to be able to check them out with the stone and that''s good. I have just one basic question or anyone who wants to answer...

Should a pear be set with round side stones/accent stones ONLY? Or, is somethign like the channel set princess cut stones I listed about OK sometimes?

 

[srn5977]

Is this the type of setting your talking about...IMO a pear with channel princesses look fine...(I couldn''t get a picture to upload - I''ll see if this works...

http://www.bluenile.com/product_details.asp?oid=4088&filter_id=1

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Very similar (If not exact...Sorry, I''m just going by memory, and I have no experience to help me remember the appearances of anything)...

And thanks for the vote for this style of setting for a pear, that makes me feel better.

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Oh....And it looks like my setting is a lot better deal....

Date: 11/21/2004 12:21:25 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer




Now...THIS IS THE ONE THAT REALLY CAUGHT MY EYE WHEN FIRST LOOKING AT SETTINGS!! Due mainly to how many carates it is...

$2500.00 (This will REALLY stretch my budget!!)

White Gold

2.54 carats

Channel Set and Princess Cut

Engagement Ring = 10 stones at 1.15 carats

Wedding Ring = 12 stones at 1.39 carat


BUT!!! This is a LOT of ring!! And I think too 'Thick' or 'Wide' for Susanne's finger. So...I looked at one that I like just as much, that's a bit thinner (And less expensive too...Which also might allow me to go with Platinum instead of White Gold)...

White Gold = $1200.00

Platinum = APPROX $1800.00

It is the same as the above one, but has 1.27 total carats between the wedding and engagement settings.

I am really leaning towards this one!!

Now...Here is the one you found...





Engagement Ring...

Stock number: 2691

Metal: 950 platinum

Width: 3.3mm

Prong metal: Platinum

Number of princess diamonds: 10

Minimum carat total weight: 0.50

Average color: H

Average clarity: SI1

Setting type: Channel setting

Individual price: $2,000.00






Wedding Band...

Stock number: 2692

Metal: 950 platinum

Width: 3.2mm

Number of princess diamonds: 12

Minimum carat total weight: 0.55

Average color: H

Average clarity: SI1

Setting type: Channel setting

Individual price: $1,575.00

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Hey...Here is is with a pear stone...

 

[reena]

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Hey thanks Reena!

What kind of side stone are in that last one?


(And remember, I am only shying away from round for one reason...Susanne''s passing comment that she doesn''t like round stones.)

 

[reena]

good taste, CEP, the last one is my favorite of the bunch, too. i think those are trillions on the sides. if you are determined not to go with a simple solitaire, then a plain platinum setting with either trillion or pear sidestones would be my choice. BTW all of these settings are from blue nile, but i''m sure any jeweler could make them for you.

also, i think that you are taking her comment that she does not like round stones waaaaaaaaay too far. i personally was vehemently opposed to having a round brilliant center stone for my engagement ring. no way, no how. (at the time i did not like RBs at all; after hanging out here, i now like them very much. but i digress.) but that does not mean that i would have been opposed to having round diamonds in my e-ring setting as sidestones, or having RB earrings/pendants/etc. in fact, my e-ring setting DOES contain tiny round diamonds--dozens of them. i have a 3 stone pendant with round stones. i have round studs. for xmas, i am considering a circle pendant made up of tiny RBs. i want an round brilliant shared prong eternity band for my wedding band. do you see what i''m saying here? it''s one thing to not want an RB as your center stone; it''s quite another to abhor all forms of round brilliant diamonds in every possible context.

all that being said, i still prefer pears or trillions for your pear.

 

[Hest88]

Of Reena''s picts, I like the first one and the last one. I also agree that when a gal says she doesn''t like round stones she''s usually talking about the center stone. I don''t want to confuse you further, though, so do what you think is best. However, that last setting with the trillions is going to be pricier, which may cut into your budget.

 

[reena]

Date: 11/23/2004 12:57:53 PM
Author: Hest88
Of Reena''s picts, I like the first one and the last one. I also agree that when a gal says she doesn''t like round stones she''s usually talking about the center stone. I don''t want to confuse you further, though, so do what you think is best. However, that last setting with the trillions is going to be pricier, which may cut into your budget.

good point. in which case i think im still pulling for the solitaire. that leaves more money for the stone.

 

[orbaya]

OY!!!

I''m getting sooooo dizzy reading this thread!

There have been 267 replies (not including this one) and all we''ve narrowed down is the shape?!?! I''m certainly very indecisive...ask hubby... but even for me this is getting crazy. Sorry to be so blunt but someone needs to say it. I know you want this ring to be absolutely perfect and I don''t fault you for that at all! But make a decision already!!

Besides, this thread needs to end so I stop getting sucked in LOL!

I hope you aren''t this way with every decision you have to make. Poor girl...

BTW, I 100% agree with Reena...go with a simple solitare and then you can pick out a kick-a$$ wrap or setting later. I know I would have fun doing that with my hubby!

 

[Christmas Eve Proposer]

Date: 11/23/2004 1:30:36 PM
Author: orbaya
OY!!!

I''m getting sooooo dizzy reading this thread!

There have been 267 replies (not including this one) and all we''ve narrowed down is the shape?!?! I''m certainly very indecisive...ask hubby... but even for me this is getting crazy. Sorry to be so blunt but someone needs to say it. I know you want this ring to be absolutely perfect and I don''t fault you for that at all! But make a decision already!!

Besides, this thread needs to end so I stop getting sucked in LOL!

I hope you aren''t this way with every decision you have to make. Poor girl...

BTW, I 100% agree with Reena...go with a simple solitare and then you can pick out a kick-a$$ wrap or setting later. I know I would have fun doing that with my hubby!

Actually, I''m very decisive on other things. But...

This is "Forever".

She''s not much into jewelry, so I don''t have much to go on except for what she does have is mostly silver, and I don''t want to risk ruining the surprise by asking her.

And most of all...

I''ve never noticed diamonds or any kind of jewelry in my life...Just not interested.


Think of something you''ve never given an ounce of interest. Now imagine spending 10 grand on it. Now imagine trying to make sure it''s perfect for someone else, not you...Someone who deserves the world, and more. Now imagine that thing is the single most important thing in the world, and will remain so for the next 50 years. Now imagine trying to purchase that thing online, without ****Really**** being able to inspect it.