Likely candidate for MWM wedding set?

[Mara]

having some fun there JL ? hehee.

i would check into this one thoroughly but also keep looking around. you don''t just want to settle for something that isn''t EXACTLY what you want, esp since you do have the time. but this is a sweet size!

as for how much size you might be losing in the diameter, it could be a fair amount....dee jay was checking out a 3.57c stone and a 3.75c stone the other day and the 3.75c had a depth of something like 62% and the 3.57 had something like 60.5% and the 3.75 had the same mm diameter as the 3.57! So basically she would have paid for a 3.75c but really gotten a visual 3.50c. Anyway...just some food for thought. I know 3.75 is not the same as 2.63 but the bigger the stones get, the more the mm makes a difference IMO. I want bang for my buck.

 

[jadeleaves]

Date: 7/13/2006 12:32:40 AM
Author: Mara
having some fun there JL ? hehee.

i would check into this one thoroughly but also keep looking around. you don''t just want to settle for something that isn''t EXACTLY what you want, esp since you do have the time. but this is a sweet size!

as for how much size you might be losing in the diameter, it could be a fair amount....dee jay was checking out a 3.57c stone and a 3.75c stone the other day and the 3.75c had a depth of something like 62% and the 3.57 had something like 60.5% and the 3.75 had the same mm diameter as the 3.57! So basically she would have paid for a 3.75c but really gotten a visual 3.50c. Anyway...just some food for thought. I know 3.75 is not the same as 2.63 but the bigger the stones get, the more the mm makes a difference IMO. I want bang for my buck.

I was playing with the gem file and it''s absolutely mesmerising

Where would I find a chart for an average spread for the stone size?

Here''s an Isee2 pic:

 

[Ellen]

Jade, that''s a great score. If the BS is acceptable, I''d say there''s nothing to hold you back, except if you''re not happy with the spread! And I don''t think it would matter much...

 

[jadeleaves]

Bscope:

 

[jadeleaves]

Colorimeter:

 

[jadeleaves]

I love everything about the stone except the depth and the feathers!

But realistically, I know the difference in spread is minuscule - or is it?

The short lgf is similar to my 1.56 rb, and I love that stone, so I''m sure this one will rock my world too. But the spread! Jon is going to seek a 2nd opinion on the feathers because it looks like it does break the surface, and he''ll let me know tmr.

 

[Mara]

here''s a splitting hair Q...

this is a 2.63? what if it has the same visual spread as something like a 2.50c? would you pay less for the 2.5c?

i''d ask jonathan about that. i''m not sure if you would or not, but it at least bears asking...aka if it would be $1k or $2k less to get a 2.5c with a smaller depth than pay more for this one...just a thought.

this range IS slim pickins. i''m not trying to get you to not consider this stone, but i just am trying to put it all out there because this is how *I* think when i am shopping...it makes sense to cover all bases and make sure the stone is entirely mind clean. you DO have the time so i wouldn''t rush it....due diligence!!

and that BS is pretty sweet!

 

[jadeleaves]

Date: 7/13/2006 11:48:07 PM
Author: Mara
here''s a splitting hair Q...

this is a 2.63? what if it has the same visual spread as something like a 2.50c? would you pay less for the 2.5c?

i''d ask jonathan about that. i''m not sure if you would or not, but it at least bears asking...aka if it would be $1k or $2k less to get a 2.5c with a smaller depth than pay more for this one...just a thought.

this range IS slim pickins. i''m not trying to get you to not consider this stone, but i just am trying to put it all out there because this is how *I* think when i am shopping...it makes sense to cover all bases and make sure the stone is entirely mind clean. you DO have the time so i wouldn''t rush it....due diligence!!

and that BS is pretty sweet!

Yeah everything else looks great - the isee2, the bscope..

I am attaching a pic Jon sent me of a 2.46 and the 2.63. Visually I can''t tell the difference, but that''s not saying much too, I need to dig up the specs of the 2.46 - be right back!

 

[jadeleaves]

These are the specs for the J stone:

Carat Weight: 2.468ct
Color: J
Clarity: VVS1
AGS Cut Grade: Ideal*
GIA Cut Grade: Excellent*
Optical Symmetry: Near Ideal
Polish: Ideal
Symmetry: Ideal
Fluorescence: Medium
Girdle: 1.19%
Culet: None
Lab Report: AGS
Lab Report #: 7443207
In House: Yes
Width: 8.74mm
Length: 8.77mm
Depth: 5.33mm
Table Percentage: 55.93%
Depth Percentage: 60.94%
Crown ∠: 34.35°
Crown Depth: 15.05%
Pavilion ∠: 40.85°
Pavilion Depth: 43.12%
Upper Girdle ∠: 42.03°
Lower Girdle ∠: 42.14°

ETA: By the way the picture was sent because I asked Jon abt how the short lgf will affect the scintillation, and he showed me the pic to show the difference between the minor facet construction.

 

[Mara]

the difference in mm average between that 2.46 and the 2.63 is .10mm. in a stone that size the .10mm won't matter and probably won't even be visible.

and that's what i'm saying about paying more for depth that you don't even see....

i'd keep this 2.63 as an option (assuming the feather doenst reach the surface) but have him keep looking around.

 

[jadeleaves]

Date: 7/14/2006 12:02:19 AM
Author: Mara
the difference in mm average between that 2.46 and the 2.63 is .10mm. in a stone that size the .10mm won''t matter and probably won''t even be visible.

and that''s what i''m saying about paying more for depth that you don''t even see....

i''d keep this 2.63 as an option (assuming the feather doenst reach the surface) but have him keep looking around.

The feather appears to break the surface, but "looks to be healed".

I know I shouldn''t feel bad, but because Jon always go to so much effort to give me as much info as possible, I feel like I''m wasting his time sometimes

if I turn down what seems like a perfectly great stone because of 1/100th of a mm

- I know he''s more than happy to keep looking if that''s what I want to do though, that''s why he''s the best!

I''ll wait and see what the story is with the feathers.

OHH BY THE WAY, Mara, I''ll spring for $500 on that other asscher ring if you''re in for $10.

Shoot me already!!

 

[Mara]

hahah sweet, we''re up to $560 on the asscher ring!!

in terms of the 1/100 of a mm...it''s not just that you are losing spread, but what extra are you paying. for example if that J VVS was the same color and clarity as the 2.63..i''d be interested in knowing how it would be priced. example is if you are paying $2k more for the 2.46 to 2.63 jump but yet it looks basically the same then what is the point of paying more?...that BUGS ME. but i''m psycho. HAHAHA.

anyway REALLY splitting hairs at this point. just for fun. because there''s no good TV on!!!!!!

 

[Gypsy]

$570-- I''ll match Mara''s 10.

 

[jadeleaves]

Wicked - only $$39430 to go!! (Edited to amend amount with G's contribution!)

Yeah but it's fun splitting hairs - I swear most of us here have some sort of OCD (okok I speak for myself!)

Also, because I have high hopes that this will be my FOREVER wedding set stone, I want to get something I will be happy with in the long run. There is a nice 3.06 H Si1 available too, but it's 14k more!

- if only the AUD/USD exchange rate is better!! The width on that rock is 9.34ish though

 

[Mara]

lol JL re the OCD...i think PS'ers definitely got it bad.

i agree about the forever stone thing making nuances important. that is how i felt about this stone i have now. it could very well be my forever stone. i was very lucky that WF got this stone in that had everything i wanted, even slight fluor (med would have been better) as a perk. it could have been a little bigger but couldn't it always? hehee. i love the idea of upgrading and maybe at year 10 it will seem 'okay' to spend another $15k or whatever it costs then on an upgrade, but we won't know til we get there! definitely right now to me that sounds insane. 3 stone here i come! hehe.

 

[jadeleaves]

Date: 7/14/2006 12:33:10 AM
Author: Mara
3 stone here i come! hehe.

You''ll need at least 1 ct sidestones each to get the proportions u like in a 3 stone ring - spend it on the main rock instead

 

[jadeleaves]

OHH.MY.LORD.

I asked Jon to take a picture of my 1.56 G Si1 next to the 2.63 I Si1 so that I can look at the difference in color, and even though I know in my mind that the jump from 1.56 to 2.63 is significant, I wasn''t prepared at all for the size difference!

Can you see the difference in tint between the 2 stones?

I haven''t heard back with regards to the feather because Jon is waiting on someone else''s opinion, but look at the size! Even a converted size whore like me is shocked

 

[Demelza]

Holy cow!!! The size difference is GIGANTIC!!! And the stone looks gorgeous! It''s VERY subtle, but I do see a slight difference in color. What I mostly notice, though, is the size. Can''t wait to hear what Jonathan says about the inclusion. What are your thoughts about the diameter? Did Jonathan say you were losing much because of the depth?

 

[jadeleaves]

Date: 7/15/2006 12:17:24 AM
Author: Demelza
Holy cow!!! The size difference is GIGANTIC!!! And the stone looks gorgeous! It''s VERY subtle, but I do see a slight difference in color. What I mostly notice, though, is the size. Can''t wait to hear what Jonathan says about the inclusion. What are your thoughts about the diameter? Did Jonathan say you were losing much because of the depth?

Hello!

Jon said that on closer inspection "it appears the feather does reach the surface, but looks to be healed". He tried to get a 2nd opinion from an appraiser but I dont think he has had luck reaching him yet, and Jon''s on vacation now. He has left instructions with Tim to let me know asap though.

With regards to depth, I didn''t really ask how much I''ll lose, because it really depends on what I''m comparing it to. What he did say was that it is a sweet crown/pavilion/table angle combo and it ''sings to him''.

I like the look of it, but the feathers sounds a little scary, especially after reading up on open feathers here.

I can notice a warmer tint to the I stone, but it doesn''t bother me at all, which is surprising, because I had always thought G was my sweet spot! I showed the picture to hubby, and in the face up view (bottom pic in the collage) he said the bigger stone looked whiter, but in the other pics he could see that it''s ''not as bluey'' (his words).

I still can''t get over the size!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Wow, wow, wow, that is a big stone!!! Now my 1.63 has officially shrunk!!! The color of that I looks good...must be on the high end. It surely is a beautiful stone! I''ll be interested to hear what they say about the feather.

 

[jadeleaves]

Date: 7/15/2006 12:48:03 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Wow, wow, wow, that is a big stone!!! Now my 1.63 has officially shrunk!!! The color of that I looks good...must be on the high end. It surely is a beautiful stone! I''ll be interested to hear what they say about the feather.

Oohhh you''ve changed your avatar to your beautiful new rock! *heehee* DSS doesn''t take long to set in eh? i thought there was no such thing as TOO big, but I might have to reconsider.

I will update on the feathers when I get news!

I think Mark Morrell will need to be consulted on what he thinks, since he will be setting the stone. Jon has offered to speak to Mark abt the feathers too, but I think he''ll wait till he gets his 2nd opinion.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi JadeL
I think those are models of the ASET Gilbertsonscope etc
Not real 3D scans.
You should ask Jonathon to explain it all to you - but the stone has fairly short lower girdles and will have a lot of fire but slightly less light return because of that - the stars are too thin in you models I think?

 

[jadeleaves]

Date: 7/15/2006 1:10:10 AM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Hi JadeL

I think those are models of the ASET Gilbertsonscope etc

Not real 3D scans.

Hi Garry!

Yes those are generated images from the gem advisor file.

I''m happy with the look of the stone, the only thing bothering me are the feathers now!