shape
carat
color
clarity
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. PriceScope Upgrade Completed
    For issues, questions and comments click the link below
    https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/pricescope-upgraded-comments-and-issues.229551/

    Dismiss Notice

How important is girdle thickness for a tension set ring?

Discussion in 'RockyTalky' started by cerulean14, Oct 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. cerulean14
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    by cerulean14 » Oct 24, 2006
    Hi all,

    First time poster, several month reader and learner as I''ve been conducting my diamond search. Thank you to everyone for the immense, built up knowledge base. Many of you have already helped me out greatly without even knowing it!

    My girlfriend has a strong preference for a tension set ring, in particular a Gelin & Abaci TR-040, which if you''re interested, you can see a pic of here:

    http://www.sanibeldiamond.com/store/ga/womens/TR_040zoom.jpg

    I''ve browsed the forums here on everything to do with tension rings, looked at lots of other sources for info, etc. Two pieces of important information I''ve seen along the way include:

    1. Go for a minimum VS2 clarity, due to the side view and general more exposure of the diamond. Obvoiusly no surface inclusions or weaknesses.

    2. Avoid a thin girdle, due to the pressure from the tension setting.

    My question is more about #2. How important is this? The reason I ask is that, in searching for my ideal diamond, having to *further* narrow down everything to *only* a medium or medium to slightly thick faceted girdle really does reduce the number of "eligible" stones by quite a bit. I''m pretty particularly in most of my other specs, so if there is any leeway in terms of girdle thickness for a tension set ring, that would be fantastic. If, for example, there really should be no concern with a thin or thin to medium faceted girdle, this would open up a lot of possibilities for me.

    Thank you for any help or thoughts - feel free to ask for more info from me if it would help!

    -cerulean14
     
  2. Garry H (Cut Nut)
    Super_Ideal_Rock
    Trade

    Messages:
    13,875
    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2000
    by Garry H (Cut Nut) » Oct 24, 2006
    I would prefer slightly thick - and even thick can look very nice from the side - and sometimes there are some Thicks that are bargains.

    Medium is not very thick from a damage point of view.

    SI''s that have spread out rather than concentrated inclusions can be OK from the side view
     
  3. cerulean14
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    by cerulean14 » Oct 24, 2006
    Thanks, Gary. The issue for me seems to be that it''s tough to find a medium to slightly thick or slightly thick girdle given the other specs I''m looking for in the stone. When I search limiting to my other ideal specs, I seem to be able to find more stones in the range of thin/slightly thin to medium - perhaps about 10 times as many of those as of the medium to slightly thick variety. I''m beginning to wonder whether what I''m looking for in other aspects of the diamond may be in conflict with what is a preferred girdle thickness for a tension set ring. How I''ve been searching:

    1. Round, limitiing candidates to AGS000 or GIA equivalent
    2. VS2 or VS1, preference for VS2 for budget reasons
    3. GHI, preference for H since that fits within budget
    4. 1.2-1.3 carats; this is where the most "wiggle" room is
    5. Using HCA (thank you!) to ensure <2 for consideration

    When I search using the above, the majority of what I find are in the thing/slightly thin to medium range. Are these absolute no-go''s in terms of a tension setting? Any further thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks...
     
  4. JulieN
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    13,273
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2005
  5. cerulean14
    Rough_Rock

    Messages:
    17
    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2006
    by cerulean14 » Oct 25, 2006
    Thanks, Julie. I''ve seen the one in the link above in my searching (I''ve been all over places like niceice, whiteflash, uniondiamond, goodoldgold, etc.), and the G takes it out of my price range. I''m looking at trying to keep it to 8K or under. If it was an H, and ideally a little bit bigger (1.25-1.3), it might do the trick.

    I don''t mean to imply that stones with the specs I laid out above don''t exist, since I have found a few - but none that truly "spoke" to me - at least not yet. It just seems that when I search, a large majority of the ones I find end up being on the thinner side of girdle size rather than thicker. And apparently, this is a no-go in terms of tension-set rings (unless someone can say otherwise here?).

    Absolute ideal stone, at least in terms of specs prior to evaluating it with my eyes:

    AGS000 or GIA equivalent, incluing ideal polish, symmetry, no flourescence
    HCA near 1, at least <2
    H color
    VS2 clarity with no surface inclusions/weaknesses
    higher 1.2''s in terms of size
    medium or slightly thick girdle
    <$8K

    There is one from whiteflash that I''ve had "bookmarked" for a bit, here:

    http://www.whiteflash.com/round_ideal_cut/Round-Ideal-Cut-cut-diamond-78304.htm#

    It seems to fit all my specs, except it''s not listed as an ACA stone, but as a "regular" 4-star ideal cut, and I''m not sure why since it seems to fit in all other respects. "Ideally" - no pun intended, of course :) -, I don''t want to sacrifice on the cut, so I''ve been wary of pursuing this. Anyone have any ideas?
     
  6. belle
    Super_Ideal_Rock

    Messages:
    10,285
    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    by belle » Oct 25, 2006
    i think that diamond looks great cerulean (cool name!)
    you are not ''sacrificing'' on cut with that stone at all. it scores great on the hca and falls squarely in the box as an ags0 candidate. it will be a beauty.[​IMG]
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page