How is this 2.6? Please help, esp. Mara!

[mrssalvo]

teagreen,

the royal crown retail at solomonbrothers for $1425...link..so not much price difference at all then...

ETA: oops, just realized that link is the RC for a marquise. if you scroll down they show the RC in WG for $700...

anyway, looks like the RC is about the same price as the ring WF put together for you give or take a few $'s.

 

[leeenie]

Date: 7/20/2006 11:58:10 PM
Author: mrssalvo
teagreen,

the royal crown retail at solomonbrothers for $1425...link..so not much price difference at all then...

ETA: oops, just realized that link is the RC for a marquis. if you scroll down they show the RC in WG for $700...

anyway, looks like the RC is about the same price as the ring WF put together for you give or take a few $''s.

ok, thanks! good to know. you are so quick at finding things.

 

[mrssalvo]

Date: 7/21/2006 12:01:45 AM
Author: teagreen

Date: 7/20/2006 11:58:10 PM

Author: mrssalvo

teagreen,


the royal crown retail at solomonbrothers for $1425...link..so not much price difference at all then...


ETA: oops, just realized that link is the RC for a marquise. if you scroll down they show the RC in WG for $700...


anyway, looks like the RC is about the same price as the ring WF put together for you give or take a few $''s.

ok, thanks! good to know. you are so quick at finding things.

it''s a sickness

seriously teagreen, if you are unhappy with your stone, you should return it. I think every stone has a personality and even though the #''s can be perfect it might not be the one that speaks to you. It''s bothered you since you got it. if it were me, once I noticed something it would keep bugging me. You''ve compared to another stone that was more pleasing to your eye so i think you need to go with that one or see if WF can find you another that might work better.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 7/21/2006 12:08:12 AM
Author: mrssalvo

Date: 7/21/2006 12:01:45 AM

Author: teagreen

Date: 7/20/2006 11:58:10 PM


Author: mrssalvo


teagreen,



the royal crown retail at solomonbrothers for $1425...link..so not much price difference at all then...



ETA: oops, just realized that link is the RC for a marquise. if you scroll down they show the RC in WG for $700...



anyway, looks like the RC is about the same price as the ring WF put together for you give or take a few $''s.

ok, thanks! good to know. you are so quick at finding things.

it''s a sickness

seriously teagreen, if you are unhappy with your stone, you should return it. I think every stone has a personality and even though the #''s can be perfect it might not be the one that speaks to you. It''s bothered you since you got it. if it were me, once I noticed something it would keep bugging me. You''ve compared to another stone that was more pleasing to your eye so i think you need to go with that one or see if WF can find you another that might work better.

I have to agree with Mrs. S. You''ve never seemed 100% thrilled with the stone and it would be a shame for you to keep something you don''t absolutely love when you still have the chance to return it. If you prefer the 2.6 (which you really loved from the beginning, if I recall), stick with that. OR see if WF has another stone that perhaps you might like better. If you like the look of the 2.6 better and it''s whiter, perhaps that''s your answer there. Are you happy with the setting or are you wishing you had gone with one of the designer solitaires you mentioned? I suspect the 2.6 could probably fit in the current head. Anyway, good luck and keep us posted on what you decide!!

 

[leeenie]

mrss & dem, thanks for your input.

it''s weird, i thought i would be more blown away by the WF stone, since it''s an ACA, but i wasn''t. i mean, it looks amazing in certain lighting (parking garage elevator), but in everyday lighting like in the car, at home, at the office, it''s nice, but not mind-blowing. maybe it''s because of the wider arrows in the larger-sized stone that creates the darker area? is that unusual?

i am happy with the setting, and i like it more than the royal crown or anything else i think is out there, and the 2.60 has nearly the same exact dimensions, so it will fit...

i have to decide tomorrow; i will call WF.

 

[Demelza]

Date: 7/21/2006 12:50:44 AM
Author: teagreen
mrss & dem, thanks for your input.


it''s weird, i thought i would be more blown away by the WF stone, since it''s an ACA, but i wasn''t. i mean, it looks amazing in certain lighting (parking garage elevator), but in everyday lighting like in the car, at home, at the office, it''s nice, but not mind-blowing. maybe it''s because of the wider arrows in the larger-sized stone that creates the darker area? is that unusual?


i am happy with the setting, and i like it more than the royal crown or anything else i think is out there, and the 2.60 has nearly the same exact dimensions, so it will fit...


i have to decide tomorrow; i will call WF.

What is the return policy on the 2.6? Is there any way you can see that stone in a variety of lighting conditions before committing to purchase?

It''s very possible that you just aren''t a big fan of ACAs or H&As in general. I know some people find the kind of sparkle they exhibit almost too organized. I''m not sure what impact fatter arrows would have on light performance, but I wouldn''t think it would make the stone look dark?? I''ll be interested to hear what you find out and what you decide. Good luck!!!

Oh, and it''s great you like the setting!! Now it''s just a matter of finding the right stone! And you will, I''m sure.

 

[leeenie]

Date: 7/21/2006 1:15:07 AM
Author: Demelza

What is the return policy on the 2.6? Is there any way you can see that stone in a variety of lighting conditions before committing to purchase?

It''s very possible that you just aren''t a big fan of ACAs or H&As in general. I know some people find the kind of sparkle they exhibit almost too organized. I''m not sure what impact fatter arrows would have on light performance, but I wouldn''t think it would make the stone look dark?? I''ll be interested to hear what you find out and what you decide. Good luck!!!

Oh, and it''s great you like the setting!! Now it''s just a matter of finding the right stone! And you will, I''m sure.

I don''t think it''s a problem with the organized pattern of the stone - more like since arrows look darker, when they are wider, there is a larger darker area overall near the center in some lighting conditions. From arm''s length away, since the bases of the arrows (near the center of the stone) are so wide, they sort of blend together and may account for the lack of contrast/"haziness" I was seeing?

There is no formal return policy on the 2.6...I saw both of them in office lighting, which is where I will be spending most of my time (eek), and I could see the difference in the arrow widths/darkness.

 

[Mara]

teagreen, in the end you have to go with what makes you happy....i have been absolutely thrilled with my superideal purchases and probably could never own anything else now in terms of a round purchase...i personally don''t like thinner arrows all that much but it''s just a preference thing. i don''t like fatter arrows either. i like them in the middle of thinner and fatter, which is what my stone has. i honestly think EVERY DAY how much i adore this stone and how it''s my favorite in terms of it''s fabulous personality. it blows anything i have ever seen elsewhere out of the water, even my old stones. i think sometimes you can get lucky and other times stones just don''t speak to you. but in the end you have to be 100000% happy with your stone and ring...so do whatever makes you happy!

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 7/21/2006 1:22:55 AM
Author: teagreen

I don''t think it''s a problem with the organized pattern of the stone - more like since arrows look darker, when they are wider, there is a larger darker area overall near the center in some lighting conditions. From arm''s length away, since the bases of the arrows (near the center of the stone) are so wide, they sort of blend together and may account for the lack of contrast/''haziness'' I was seeing?

There is no formal return policy on the 2.6...I saw both of them in office lighting, which is where I will be spending most of my time (eek), and I could see the difference in the arrow widths/darkness.

TG
sooo....you did compare the stones side by side?

 

[leeenie]

Date: 7/21/2006 1:33:18 AM
Author: Mara
teagreen, in the end you have to go with what makes you happy....i have been absolutely thrilled with my superideal purchases and probably could never own anything else now in terms of a round purchase...i personally don''t like thinner arrows all that much but it''s just a preference thing. i don''t like fatter arrows either. i like them in the middle of thinner and fatter, which is what my stone has. i honestly think EVERY DAY how much i adore this stone and how it''s my favorite in terms of it''s fabulous personality. it blows anything i have ever seen elsewhere out of the water, even my old stones. i think sometimes you can get lucky and other times stones just don''t speak to you. but in the end you have to be 100000% happy with your stone and ring...so do whatever makes you happy!

I think my stone has arrows a tad too fat for my taste...I wish I could compare it with yours!
It''s interesting that even though the numbers on my stone are considered "superideal," I can''t really discern a difference in cut quality with the non-superideal 2.6, and width of arrows is not captured by the numbers.

It''s good that you are so happy with your stone, I wish I felt that way about mine!

 

[leeenie]

Date: 7/21/2006 1:36:13 AM
Author: Dancing Fire

Date: 7/21/2006 1:22:55 AM
Author: teagreen


I don''t think it''s a problem with the organized pattern of the stone - more like since arrows look darker, when they are wider, there is a larger darker area overall near the center in some lighting conditions. From arm''s length away, since the bases of the arrows (near the center of the stone) are so wide, they sort of blend together and may account for the lack of contrast/''haziness'' I was seeing?

There is no formal return policy on the 2.6...I saw both of them in office lighting, which is where I will be spending most of my time (eek), and I could see the difference in the arrow widths/darkness.

TG
sooo....you did compare the stones side by side?

Yes I did. What are you trying to ask? (Not being mean, I honestly want to know!)

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/21/2006 1:42:59 AM
Author: teagreen

I think my stone has arrows a tad too fat for my taste...I wish I could compare it with yours!
It's interesting that even though the numbers on my stone are considered 'superideal,' I can't really discern a difference in cut quality with the non-superideal 2.6, and width of arrows is not captured by the numbers.

It's good that you are so happy with your stone, I wish I felt that way about mine!

TeaGreen I researched the data and ran some numbers for you. The largest difference is in the crown angle, 34.6 on the 2.575 and 35.5 on the 2.60 (which could actually be 35.3-35.7 since GIA rounds by half a degree.

The minor facets, which play a significant role in minor character differences, are also very different: Lower girdle lengths are right at 75% on the 2.575 and 80%* on the 2.60 (which could actually be from 78-82% with rounding) and Stars are 51% on th 2.575 and 45% on the 2.60 (43-47% w/ rounding).

They both have traditional brillianteering and are both nice configurations. If you're seeing arrows on the 2.60 it sounds like the optical symmetry is fine though - as noted earlier - some people may be attuned to chaotic symmetry just as others are attracted to orderly patterns. It's certain that the minor facets and high crown angle on the 2.60 are contributing to any differences your eyes are seeing.

The bottom line is that it's most important to find a look that speaks to you! There are many beautiful diamonds out there. In any case, I thought you might like to see the numbers.

*For AGSL/DiamCalc purists that's 76.9% and 81.5% LGH

 

[leeenie]

Date: 7/21/2006 2:19:07 PM
Author: JohnQuixote

Date: 7/21/2006 1:42:59 AM
Author: teagreen

I think my stone has arrows a tad too fat for my taste...I wish I could compare it with yours!
It''s interesting that even though the numbers on my stone are considered ''superideal,'' I can''t really discern a difference in cut quality with the non-superideal 2.6, and width of arrows is not captured by the numbers.

It''s good that you are so happy with your stone, I wish I felt that way about mine!

TeaGreen I researched the data and ran some numbers for you. The largest difference is in the crown angle, 34.6 on the 2.575 and 35.5 on the 2.60 (which could actually be 35.3-35.7 since GIA rounds by half a degree.

The minor facets, which play a significant role in minor character differences, are also very different: Lower girdle lengths are right at 75% on the 2.575 and 80%* on the 2.60 (which could actually be from 78-82% with rounding) and Stars are 51% on th 2.575 and 45% on the 2.60 (43-47% w/ rounding).

They both have traditional brillianteering and are both nice configurations. If you''re seeing arrows on the 2.60 it sounds like the optical symmetry is fine though - as noted earlier - some people may be attuned to chaotic symmetry just as others are attracted to orderly patterns. It''s certain that the minor facets and high crown angle on the 2.60 are contributing to any differences your eyes are seeing.

The bottom line is that it''s most important to find a look that speaks to you! There are many beautiful diamonds out there. In any case, I thought you might like to see the numbers.

*For AGSL/DiamCalc purists that''s 76.9% and 81.5% LGH

John, thank you for the information. Nice to meet you, by the way - you may be one of the few at WF I haven''t spoken with!

I am not familiar with how girdle lengths and star lengths work (what is the percentage out of?), all I know is what I could see with my eyes.

To be fair, the 2.575 is a technically perfect stone and there is nothing "wrong" with it - it''s just a matter of personal taste. It turns out that my eye prefers a cut that is different from what falls under ACA "superideal," which I did not expect at all. (also, the star proportions (arrow widths) may not be factored into "superideal-ness," even though they can account for visual differences?)

 

[Rod]

Teagreen........Super Ideal, ACA, etc., are labels that don't add up to squat if your eyes and heart don't agree it's the stone that sets your heart on fire. I remember when I was shopping for my stone. My jeweler brought in all kinds of stones in the 1 carat range for my evaluation. Even though I had spent a lot of time learning, the stone that spoke to me was not super ideal. It wasn't ACA. It only rated Very Good by GIA's new grading system and was........gasp, a 60/60 type stone. But it sang the high note in my eyes. And when viewed in multiple lighting conditions it performed (better) for me than stones with super ideal proportions.

My point is, don't let academics cloud your vision. If you're not absolutely in love with this stone and it seems you are not. Return it and get the one that you are in love with.

Good luck...........

 

[Dee*Jay]

Teagreen, my current (temporary) stone is actually not ideal by any means. It has a shallow pavilion angle (40.4) and only scores a .6 on the HCA but it sparkles like mad and I'm enjoying it. I think one of the things I like about it, and you hit upon it yourself, is the longer lower girdle facets making narrower arrows. At first I thought this was a "bad" thing (my LGFs are 85%) but now that I've seen a lot of stones I find that I actually prefer this.

Bottom line, you and your girlfriend (soon to be fiance!) must love the stone no matter what the numbers say. After all, you're wearing the diamond and not the paper!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 7/21/2006 3:16:14 PM
Author: teagreen
John, thank you for the information. Nice to meet you, by the way - you may be one of the few at WF I haven't spoken with!

I am not familiar with how girdle lengths and star lengths work (what is the percentage out of?), all I know is what I could see with my eyes.

To be fair, the 2.575 is a technically perfect stone and there is nothing 'wrong' with it - it's just a matter of personal taste. It turns out that my eye prefers a cut that is different from what falls under ACA 'superideal,' which I did not expect at all. (also, the star proportions (arrow widths) may not be factored into 'superideal-ness,' even though they can account for visual differences?)

TeaGreen, nice to meet you too!

I'm just a transfer away if you ever want to say hi when you're talking to your regulars here - I'd enjoy making your acquaintance. Thanks for the comments. Brian designed ACA to appeal to the widest audience possible - but there are many tastes and your eyes (and tastes) are your own.

The advice you're getting here is the same I'd give: You should absolutely have a diamond that speaks to you. As an example; I have a friend who manages a jewelry store that carries AGS ideal cuts. His wife of many years has a preference for the non-optically-symmetrical, shallow diamond she owns. He's offered numerous times to get her an ideal or superideal, but her eyes are not attuned to what are considered commonly agreed-upon paradigms. This is not any insult to ideal diamonds, it's taste...just like it's not an insult to the chef if there's a bit too much cayenne in the sauce: Some like it spicy, some like it mild, some like it medium. The point is - get what you like (and you're really not seeing something off the beaten 'ideal' path...the 2.60 has nice numbers).

To answer your query: Brian is very exacting, so the stars and lower girdles do fall within a range. That range varies and the lower girdles on the 2.575 are on the low side of his ACA formula.

Here is some info on lower girdles.

The lower girdle facets have great influence on the life and character of a diamond, particularly if the diamond has good patterning (optical symmetry). The pavilion main facets are the engines driving light return. In a well cut diamond they are the symmetrical, bottommost facets which draw their light from the highest angles. Between each of the 8 pavilion mains are 2 lower girdle facets. The distance these lower girdles run from girdle to culet determine how thick, or narrow, the all-important pavilion mains are: Short lower girdles result in wider pavilion mains. Long lower girdles result in narrow pavilion mains. On most commercial round brilliants the lower girdle facet average range between 75-85% in height, with the majority at the upper side of this range.

You can tell much about lower girdles through an ideal-scope image.

Here are examples of the crown views of diamonds with lower girdle heights at 75, 80 and 85%. Those are heights however. On an AGS or GIA report this would correlate to roughly 73, 78.5 and 84% lower girdle length...

For reference, the 2.575's lower girdles would be at 76.9 on this graphic (between 75 & 80) and the 2.60 would be at 81.5 (between the 80 & 85% examples). These software models assume perfect optical symmetry.

In simplistic terms, short lower girdles (wide pavilion mains) enhance performance in indirect/soft lighting conditions. Long lower girdles (narrow pavilion mains) enhance performance in very bright lighting conditions. The above assumes robust major proportions and good optical symmetry as prerequisites. It's also possible to get a balance of qualities on either end: Overall configuration has everything to do with the visual balance acquired.

The stars play a role, but as Brian often says "It's all in the hearts..."

meaning that what ocurs in the pavilion is the driving force behind overall light return and performance. It sounds like both of these diamonds you're looking at have nice pavilions.

Stars: I've seen nice diamonds with different star lengths; with short stars the upper girdles and crown mains have a bit more area so the reflections are a bit shifted, but its nothing major. To get picky I ran some simulations on basic 3D models with these angles at star lengths 45 through 60 and, as suspected, there is negligible overall difference in a technical sense.

I never cease to be fascinated by the many variations in these details and the many nuances of human taste. It keeps life interesting!

 

[Dancing Fire]

i like the median size arrows (80% lgf) not too fat,not too skinny. when we get together with my SIL,i love to compare her 8* with fat arrows vs my wife''s median size arrows.

 

[Mara]

Date: 7/21/2006 6:56:08 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
i like the median size arrows (80% lgf) not too fat,not too skinny. when we get together with my SIL,i love to compare her 8* with fat arrows vs my wife's median size arrows.

yeah i think that my pref is typically more in the 80's too...i was just thinking the other day that dem's new stone looks like it has fatter arrows which reminds me of eightstars.

 

[leeenie]

Rod & DeeJay, thanks for the support. (btw, I''m not a pre-proposing boyfriend, I''m picking the stone for myself

)

John, thank you so much for the information. I find all of it fascinating as well; if I ever have a second career, this would be it.

I had never learned about or considered lower girdle facets as part of a stone''s performance. It''s good to know I wasn''t imagining things with the lower girldes of the 2.575 being on the lower end of the range, causing wider arrows.

Is there any relationship between lower girdle length/height and brilliance and fire in general?

 

[Dee*Jay]

Date: 7/21/2006 9:02:08 PM
Author: teagreen
Rod & DeeJay, thanks for the support. (btw, I''m not a pre-proposing boyfriend, I''m picking the stone for myself

)

My apologies--I must not have been paying close enough attention!

As for the LGFs, I *think* they have more to do with creating contrast. (I only make this statement based on what I''ve seen with my own eyes. If there is some more scientific aspect to it I hope the experts will chime in and correct me because I surely don''t want to lead you down the path of bad inforamtion.)

 

[Rod]

Date: 7/21/2006 9:02:08 PM
Author: teagreen
Rod & DeeJay, thanks for the support. b(tw, I''m not a pre-proposing boyfriend, I''m picking the stone for myself

)

John, thank you so much for the information. I find all of it fascinating as well; if I ever have a second career, this would be it.

I had never learned about or considered lower girdle facets as part of a stone''s performance. It''s good to know I wasn''t imagining things with the lower girldes of the 2.575 being on the lower end of the range, causing wider arrows.

Is there any relationship between lower girdle length/height and brilliance and fire in general?

How terrific for you!!!! And wow a 2.6 carat stone!!!!! I have a friend who has one over 2 carats. Of course I was afraid a stone that big wouldn''t work for a guy, but now that I have my 1 carat center, flanked by 1/3 carat brothers on each side, shrinkage has set in and I look forward to the day I can consider a 2 carat pet for me too!!

 

[3hearts]

oh teagreen,

i''m sorry you''re not in love with your aca

but i know how you feel. i love heart shape stones and bought one (spent ALOT of $$$ - way before i knew about PS), it never really sparkled. it drove me crazy, so i stopped wearing it, even while my hubby was still paying for it, boy was he PO because the sale was final.

anyways, at least you have options, go with your instincts and get the stone that says ''buy me''

please keep us posted.

lyn