More diamond choices....

[Mara]

go for 1.4!!

we ALL know how quickly DSS sets in...right?!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think the 1.4 is about 7.2 mm, the 1.23 is about 6.9 mm, and the 1.0 is probably 6.5 mm (which is the size I now have).

 

[Mara]

The 1.4 should be more like 7.3mm-ish depending on depth.

 

[Mara]

here are two comparison shots that have been previously posted that i saved to my hard drive...maybe this will help a little too.

oh and the sizes are 1c, 1.21c, 1.5c and 2c.

 

[Mara]

and val posted this one a long time ago. hmm though this one doesn't start with a 1c. so not sure how helpful.

 

[Rhino]

Date: 5/27/2006 2:52:43 PM
Author: Mara
The 1.4 should be more like 7.3mm-ish depending on depth.

You''re good.

7.20 is the average diameter on the 1.40 H SI1 used in that shot. 7.10 is the average on the 1.35ct.

 

[belle]

mara, that second pic is great! i had not seen it before.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Gotta love diamond pictures!!! Thanks for posting them, Mara. I''ll probably set it like those in the first pic because I won''t be able to deal with choosing a setting after the ordeal of choosing a diamond. So it does help to see many views of different sizes for sure!

Jon at GoodOldGold has been exceptional about giving me pictures and he has been very prompt as well!

 

[Sundial]

Those are all interesting size comparison pictures guys - thanks for posting them! DS I think all of those diamonds have the potential to be quite beautiful. My opinion would be to get the smaller cheaper one so that you aren''t paying for clarity you don''t need OR wait until you find the perfect 1.4 carat with the specs you want. Only you can decide if the size difference is that big a deal to you or not. I wish you all success however you decide to go!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Sundial, thanks for your thoughts! When I was originally considering a 3-stone, I was going to make yours my size model! But once I decided to stay with a solitaire, I felt like I should up the size of the center stone just a little. That last one I tried was 1.44 and 7.25mm, and it seemed pretty big. So I was able to set that as my maximum. I tried on a 1.4 at Tiffany''s and liked it as well. I just sort of set the minimum at 7.1mm even though I haven''t tried on a stone that size!!! But I do agree with you that the pricing of H VS1 in general is most desirable within my specs. I actually looked at that H VS1 1.66 from Wink first, but it was not quite ideal cut and I did not think I''d ever be happy with that as long as I stay on PS....land of the ideal cuts!! But I did get an appreciation for H and VS1, because I would have never thought of going below G before that.

 

[Sundial]

I understand where you are coming from. When I started my upgrade search I was thinking of ordering a platinum 3-stone ring online with a 1.5 carat G VS2 center stone and .5 each matching sidestones. My old diamond is SI2 and you can see a tiny black inclusion if you look closely. Like you I was having a hard time finding a diamond within my budget that met my parameters. In the meantime my husband ended up paired with our jeweler in a golf tournament and came home with my Hearts on Fire 3-stone! Now I have a 1.24 carat F SI1 center stone and .5 each G VS2 sidestones in white gold pave. Although I had admired this setting at the jewelers I was a little freaked out at first that it did not meet my strict requirements and of course he greatly overpaid for Hearts on Fire, but I quickly grew to love it and I have yet to find an inclusion in that SI1. I have also noticed that I cannot tell any difference between my F diamond and my H earrings. I am like you though, now that I have found pricescope I will not be happy with anything less than an ideal cut!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Well Sundial, if a husband has to make a mistake with a surprise ring, I''d say hearts on fire would be one of the best mistakes he could possibly make...Tiffany''s would be the other! Lol!

 

[Sundial]

Well I am having fun reliving my upgrade quest through you, so keep us posted on what you decide! We will all be here to cheer you on!!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I really, really appreciate that, Sundial! This is one of those times I wish I had your email address.

 

[Sundial]

I know, I don''t know how to exchange this information now

.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Date: 5/27/2006 12:32:36 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Dem, it is mostly a mind clean thing on the clarity. I just had the best stone here to look at and it was an H VS2 1.44!!! It had two things I didn''t like and that is why I returned it. The table was 54 which just looked too small to me, and the VS2 was because of little feathers. Feathers are cracks and that just bothers me! Let me add one other factor. My mothers stone is IF and my sisters-in-law have H VVS1 and H VVS2. These are the only people who will have the nerve to ask me color and clarity, and I will be happier being able to say VS1 or up. That is secondary, of course, but it has a tiny bit of influence.

DS2006
buy a nice VS2 and when they ask,tell them its a VVS 2

they can''t tell any way.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Lol, DF!

But somebody needs to buy those poor ol'' lonely VS1''s and VVS''s!

 

[strmrdr]

All 4 sounds like nice diamonds but it sounds like they arent what your looking for.
My preference would be one of the classic style diamonds but the NL WF are ok.

Dont buy unless everything about it makes you heart do pitter-patter and it sounds like if it isnt atleast 1.4 you might be "mind big" dissapointed.

What does Jon/Tim say is in the pipeline?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thanks, Storm! In my heart I know you are right...it''s worth waiting for the best one! Well, Jon just got in a 1.39 F VS1 (pictured above), but being an F, we are talking the mid $13,000 range. I feel like I''d be equally happy with a G VS1 and that would take a good bit off the price. I might be happy with an H which would be even less. There''s no point in paying a big premium for something I don''t need (because the extra money will go toward my next project, H&A studs!). I''d probably go for his 1.35 HVVS1 if we could drop the clarity a grade or so. I am asking him what else might be coming, though.

Something else I have noticed is that WF apparently tries to cut their diamonds in the 60 range for depth so they have a little larger diameter than other ideals. Do you think this is a pro or con or just neutral? Their 1.31 is a larger diameter than GOG''s 1.35.

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 5/29/2006 1:47:21 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Something else I have noticed is that WF apparently tries to cut their diamonds in the 60 range for depth so they have a little larger diameter than other ideals. Do you think this is a pro or con or just neutral? Their 1.31 is a larger diameter than GOG''s 1.35.

better spread is a good thing but not a major thing to me.
Id rather have my prefered angles and a little deeper than one that has slightly better spread when Im buying for myself.
The difference isnt usaly that great and not enough to be visible anyway in most cases when comparing apples to apples.
While it is a consideration its not a huge one to me.
I do think its a plus that WF does that

for them and certainly a point in their favor.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Thanks, Storm! One advantage of GOG is that they analyze color and his H is close to G. Do you see much difference in G and H? Is G worth paying for? I do like the idea of finding a high H, too.

 

[Mara]

i'd keep searching til you find what you REALLY want DS....color, clarity, size, cut! it is important to be mind happy for sure.

i personally like the 60 depths because i am an unabashed size whore and it CAN make a difference sometimes esp in the larger stone sizes. when i was looking, i'd see 2.3c stones that were 61.5 or similar in depth, and they'd be something like .15mm SMALLER than a similarly sized well cut 60.5 with great angles, specs etc. and since i am all about getting the largest thing possible for the $$ as long as the cut quality is the same, esp in larger stones i will always go for a 60s depth stone. i mean why would i want to pay the same $$ for .15mm less? esp if i want as big looking as possible? maybe the difference is not 'visually' there but for me it was a mental thing. i would say if you CAN find one, fabulous, if not then maybe it's not a big deal to you. for stones under 1c i would say the difference is not a big deal at all. but the larger the stone, the larger the loss of mm can be.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Mara, I agree that we may as well go for the greatest diameter we can (within ideal) since that is what can be seen, not the weight! That''s kind of why I always say I want close to 7.2mm...that can be a carat weight of 1.33 or 1.4 and still be an ideal cut.