I''m getting ready to buy my GF an engagement ring, and I was actually very interested in getting a Tiffany at first because she had expressed that she would like one (some time back). She''s since mentioned that she really doesn''t care either way. But I still figured that their stones were top notch, so it might be a good choice anyway.
After reading here all day, I thought I had come to the determination that the ACA H&A would be cheaper (equals bigger stone for my budget = important to GF!) and would be a better stone.
I''m trying to find out as much as I can about the rest of the stones out there though, and I''ve come across the Leo. I expected to search here and find numerous posts about how it''s not all it''s cracked up to be and how the ACA H&A blows it away. But searching here hasn''t given that information at all. All I''ve been able to dig up is that the Leo CAN look really good, but the cuts are inconsistent.
What I really want to know, is, does the "best" looking Leo look better than the ACA H&A? Or, does the ACA H&A always look better, but the Leo, in it''s best form, can come close? Or are they so close that it is only personal preference making the determination? I wouldn''t mind having to rummage through for a good Leo, if they are actually better. (I''m just looking for the best possible looking stone for the money!) I''m particularly asking because I think the ACA H&A costs considerably more than the Leo?
After reading here all day, I thought I had come to the determination that the ACA H&A would be cheaper (equals bigger stone for my budget = important to GF!) and would be a better stone.
I''m trying to find out as much as I can about the rest of the stones out there though, and I''ve come across the Leo. I expected to search here and find numerous posts about how it''s not all it''s cracked up to be and how the ACA H&A blows it away. But searching here hasn''t given that information at all. All I''ve been able to dig up is that the Leo CAN look really good, but the cuts are inconsistent.
What I really want to know, is, does the "best" looking Leo look better than the ACA H&A? Or, does the ACA H&A always look better, but the Leo, in it''s best form, can come close? Or are they so close that it is only personal preference making the determination? I wouldn''t mind having to rummage through for a good Leo, if they are actually better. (I''m just looking for the best possible looking stone for the money!) I''m particularly asking because I think the ACA H&A costs considerably more than the Leo?