Never done this before. Would love some feedback!

[Fizwawiz]

So I have been looking into engagement rings for my girlfriend for a few weeks and I think I am narrowing it all down. When we were in Boston this weekend I asked her if she wanted to go into a jewelry store and do some looking. Of course the first one we come across is a Tiffanys. Shes just finishing up her final year of physical therapy school and I am a self employed fisherman, neither of us have ever been in a serious relationship and so we had no idea how it was going to go. Turns out, tiffanys is ridiculously expensive, however the guy we had spent an hour and a half with us and was AMAZING! So then I had something to go on. So we went to Days jewlers the next day and looked around there and she fell in love with a name brand setting. Here is a link - http://www.daysjewelers.com/bridal-designers/michael-m/michael-m-engagement-rings/michael-m-diamond-setting-in-18kt-white-gold-1-2ct-tw-34446

The one we were looking at had little diamonds on the prongs (The four things holding the main diamond in place). We then proceeded to look at what they had for diamonds. After I told them that I wanted to spend more for a better quality diamond (they had a 1800$ one) They brought us to the Forevermark diamonds. My girlfriend really liked them, however I have a few issues with them. After researching them, I have come to the conclusion that they are not only a brand name so more expensive, but also they do their grading "in house" and dont have a GIA or anything. So who knows if I am getting what they say I am really getting. Theyre also all above my budget, so I went to the internet and have been looking. Only one site so far, but it seems pretty awesome. Here are the specs (roughly, open for suggestions of course!)

Cushion cut diamond. Excellent or ideal cut. DEF or G(maybe). FL-no lower than VS2 (i think, maybe SI1?) and somewhere between 0.95-1.15 carat. Excellent-good polish and symmetry and no fluorescence. I have read that you generally want less than 70% depth and table but I dont know if I really understand all that part of it. Also asked her if she wanted a more square or rectangle and she said a little rectangle, length over width, because otherwise it might look weird. After all that being said, I think I have found a pretty reasonable diamond. Here is a link. Please give any details or advice. I dont know if I can even put an internet bought diamond into that setting. Also I read about the difference in standard and modified, and I think we like modified, but I dont really know if theres a difference.

http://www.lumeradiamonds.com/diamonds/detail/57217884?f=svd

 

[Gypsy]

What is your budget.

We are well versed in cushion specs and happy to find you a winner. There's a lot of to them than you've listed. Performance is key and with cushions performance has nothing to do with the numbers on a lab report. It's all about faceting and light return. Fortunately we know how to evaluate that.

That's not the real picture of the stone. It's a sample image you can't buy cushions based on specs or sample images. And there are a lot more than "standard" and "modified" for cushion faceting and plots.

 

[Gypsy]

First of all, whoever told you that a depth of under 70 is a requirement of a good cut of cushion is wrong. Cushions have many different facet plots and each of them have different requirements for what they need in terms of depth, table and angles to achieve the best light performance. Also as long as a stone is not overblue (you just ask the vendor to check) there is nothing wrong with fluorescence.

I am good with cushions and can pick them well. And you are in luck. There are a TON of GLORIOUS cushions in your spec range right now at JA.

You need to narrow it down to three. Then ask them to put them on hold for you and provide you with an ASET image, where available.

In terms of size, you have to compare cushions based on dimensions, not weight. Okay? So when trying to figure out which stone is bigger, ignore weight and pay attention to measurements.

Personal favorite #1: http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-f-color-vs2-clarity-sku-576720
Personal favorite #2: http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-g-color-vs1-clarity-sku-749018 Stunning.
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-f-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-597767 Beautiful
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-g-color-vs2-clarity-sku-617756
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-g-color-vs1-clarity-sku-597858
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.01-carat-f-color-vvs2-clarity-sku-598122
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.01-carat-f-color-vs2-clarity-sku-659359

All of these should be eyeclean. Still it is best to double check that with the vendor representative on the VS2 stones. All other clarities will be eyeclean.


Honestly, I have not seen such a nice flock of stones to chose from in a long time. You are shopping at a great time.

 

[marymm]

For Fancy Shapes like cushions, I like to check out James Allen as they have close-up videos of their stones - you can also request up to 3 Aset images (https://www.pricescope.com/journal/aset-%E2%80%93-diamond-evaluation-tool).

Here are several rectangular cushions I came across in a quick browse of 0.91-1.15ct, D-G colors, below $5K:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.01-carat-d-color-si1-clarity-sku-726453
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-e-color-vs2-clarity-sku-488047
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-f-color-vs2-clarity-sku-576720
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/0.91-carat-g-color-if-clarity-sku-683530

And, just for comparison purposes, here are links to settings which are similar in style to the one you linked to (and any of these could be customized by the vendor to your preferences):

http://www.brilliantlyengaged.com/claudette-bpid-1271-45.html
http://www.brilliantlyengaged.com/terri-bpid-1265-45.html
http://www.brilliantlyengaged.com/adrienne-bpid-1239-45.html
https://www.victorcanera.com/rings/engagement/the-jocelyn-pave-solitaire
https://www.victorcanera.com/rings/engagement/the-alaria-solitaire-with-flush-stems
http://www.stevenkirsch.com/engagement/solitaire/r0208.html


You'll get a lot more helpful info if you provide your total budget for diamond and setting. If you have color/clarity preferences, please let us know that, and also whether you are definitely getting that Michael M setting or if that is the setting design you're after.

 

[Gypsy]

For Fancy Shapes like cushions, I like to check out James Allen as they have close-up videos of their stones - you can also request up to 3 Aset images (https://www.pricescope.com/journal/aset-%E2%80%93-diamond-evaluation-tool).

Here are several rectangular cushions I came across which in a quick search of 0.91-1.15ct, D-G colors, below $5K:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.01-carat-d-color-si1-clarity-sku-726453
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-e-color-vs2-clarity-sku-488047
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-f-color-vs2-clarity-sku-576720
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-e-color-vs2-clarity-sku-488047


You'll get a lot more helpful info if you provide your total budget for diamond and setting. If you have color/clarity preferences, please let us know that, and also whether you are definitely getting that Michael M setting or if that is the setting design you're after.

First two and the last one have a lot of mush and do not have crisp facets. The 3rd choice is exactly what you need to look for in a cushion.

 

[marymm]

For Fancy Shapes like cushions, I like to check out James Allen as they have close-up videos of their stones - you can also request up to 3 Aset images (https://www.pricescope.com/journal/aset-%E2%80%93-diamond-evaluation-tool).

Here are several rectangular cushions I came across which in a quick search of 0.91-1.15ct, D-G colors, below $5K:

http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.01-carat-d-color-si1-clarity-sku-726453
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-e-color-vs2-clarity-sku-488047
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-f-color-vs2-clarity-sku-576720
http://www.jamesallen.com/loose-diamonds/cushion-cut/1.00-carat-e-color-vs2-clarity-sku-488047


You'll get a lot more helpful info if you provide your total budget for diamond and setting. If you have color/clarity preferences, please let us know that, and also whether you are definitely getting that Michael M setting or if that is the setting design you're after.

First two and the last one have a lot of mush and do not have crisp facets. The 3rd choice is exactly what you need to look for in a cushion.

OP - please know Gypsy is an extremely knowledgeable PSer and an expert at translating videos... I highly recommend you read and study her posts in general, and particularly with regard to her evaluation of the cushions I had posted - I am (sincerely) relieved my short list included the #576720 stone which is Gypsy-endorsed.

 

[Fizwawiz]

Sorry about not adding my budget. I meant to just forgot! I was hoping to keep it around 6000-7000 for both setting and diamond combined but will take everything into consideration. I am not set on that Setting I linked, as I don't know if I can buy a diamond offline and have it put in that setting. So open for suggestions on that also! Thank you for the help

 

[Gypsy]

You can have her dream setting.

This is what you would do.

You would buy your stone from James Allen. Have them send it to you so you can see it. And you would send a copy of your GIA report to vendor that is order your setting, so they can have the setting made to fit your stone.

Then you would pick up the setting. And send the stone and setting back to JA and they would set your stone in the setting you provide to them.

It is always best to have your stone vendor set your stone. So no matter where you get your setting. You get JA to set it.


I do think that Micheal M setting is extremely overpriced though, personally. I would negotiate that or shop around at different retailers for it. For 3,200 I would expect platinum at least.

 

[Gypsy]

OP - please know Gypsy is an extremely knowledgeable PSer and an expert at translating videos... I highly recommend you read and study her posts in general, and particularly with regard to her evaluation of the cushions I had posted - I am (sincerely) relieved my short list included the #576720 stone which is Gypsy-endorsed.

Thank you Marymm

 

[MollyMalone]

Michael M's web site doesn't show that semi-mount as being available for a cushion. And even if it were, I honestly would hate to see you pay so much of your budget -- and therefore have less money for the center stone -- for a semi-mount that is white gold (not platinum) with the melee diamonds listed as being just .25 in total carat weight. Sometimes, designer/brand rings are so unique in design that one must pay the inflated price in order to slip the ring on the finger, but this Michael M semi-mount doesn't look to fall into that category.

 

[Fizwawiz]

That may be the case. I can certainly do more research and try and find a different setting. The lady at days is going to be in touch with me tomorrow morning, she said she was going to contact Michael m about pricing it as platinum and she seemed to think it was fine with a cushion. I believe the one my girlfriend tried on was actually a cushion in the setting. But I could definitely be mistaken!

 

[Gypsy]

I love this setting Marymm posted:
http://www.brilliantlyengaged.com/adrienne-bpid-1239-45.html


Victor Canera's settings are going to be out of budget, unfortunately. I'll see what I can find that looks like a nice fit.

 

[Gypsy]

http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/pave-and-side-stones/fishtail-pave-with-truth-head-18k-white-gold-5360w18
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/pave-and-side-stones/fishtail-pave-with-straight-head-platinum-5354p
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/pave-and-side-stones/fishtail-pave-with-novela-head-platinum-5768p
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/pave-and-side-stones/eternal-grace-with-pave-platinum-5822p (this one has stones in the basket)
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/pave-and-side-stones/legera-pave-platinum-5861p (personal favorite)
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/pave-and-side-stones/lace-18k-white-gold-5934w18-1 (another personal favorite)
ANY of these would be a great choice.

 

[Fizwawiz]

Found a better page with some pictures. This is the one she liked in the store. http://www.robbinsbrothers.com/Engagement-Rings/Ring-With-Sidestones/Michael-M--i35888.ring

And here is almost the same thing except more diamonds and designs
http://www.robbinsbrothers.com/Engagement-Rings/Ring-With-Sidestones/Michael-M--i72046.ring

 

[sharonyanddave]

First of all, whoever told you that a depth of under 70 is a requirement of a good cut of cushion is wrong.

I don't think they are wrong. If you want it to faceup its weight than it is desireable to be under 70%.

There are some rare exceptions to that (cushette(not produced anymore to my knowledge) and some of the deeper square cushion hearts and arrows diamonds but then they both faceup a bit small for their weight and there are alternatives with just as good optics.

I haven't seen a cushion design yet where there is a good reason for any discriminating buyer to buy a cushion beyond 70%. 70% is the equivalent of a ~61% depth round in a perfectly square cushion with hearts and arrows, and that is as deep as a cushion should ever be, most modern cushions are more shallow. The ideal angles don't change when you switch to a fancy shape, Tolkowsky is still ideal for cushions as well as rounds.

 

[MollyMalone]

That may be the case. I can certainly do more research and try and find a different setting. The lady at days is going to be in touch with me tomorrow morning, she said she was going to contact Michael m about pricing it as platinum and she seemed to think it was fine with a cushion. I believe the one my girlfriend tried on was actually a cushion in the setting. But I could definitely be mistaken!

A square (or nearly so) cushion could work, but it's sounded as if your girlfriend has a strong preference for a decidedly rectangular one?

In any event, do clarify with Day's what their mount pricing & policies are re "outside" stones, I.e., a center stone provided by the customer. Some jewelers won't accept outside stones, or will charge the full "sticker price" for the semi-mount when they otherwise would give you a discount on the semi-mount.

I do think it will be less hassle for you -- should you purchase the center stone from an online vendor -- to have the online diamond vendor supply the setting & mount the diamond. That's not always realistic or even possible, but since neither the cushion nor the kind of semi-mount you two are considering is outside the mainstream, I'm hopeful you could make this a one-stop purchase, so to speak

P.S. Is she planning on wearing her e-ring to work as a physical therapist; the answer to that question might have a bearing on feedback folks here offer re the ring design.

 

[Gypsy]

First of all, whoever told you that a depth of under 70 is a requirement of a good cut of cushion is wrong.

I don't think they are wrong. If you want it to faceup its weight than it is desireable to be under 70%.

There are some rare exceptions to that (cushette(not produced anymore to my knowledge) and some of the deeper square cushion hearts and arrows diamonds but then they both faceup a bit small for their weight and there are alternatives with just as good optics.

I haven't seen a cushion design yet where there is a good reason for any discriminating buyer to buy a cushion beyond 70%. 70% is the equivalent of a ~61% depth round in a perfectly square cushion with hearts and arrows, and that is as deep as a cushion should ever be, most modern cushions are more shallow. The ideal angles don't change when you switch to a fancy shape, Tolkowsky is still ideal for cushions as well as rounds.

You buy diamonds for thier appearance nd performance. Performance is determined by faceting and how all the angles work together. Disqualifing a perfectly lovely stone because it is deeper than 70 is ignorant. And 61 is not the holy grail with rounds either. Depths up to 62.4 are perfectly fine. As for the impact to spread. Assuming girdle and crown height are the same the spread difference in two stones one with a 69 depth and one with a 71 depth in a one carat cushion is not going to be greater than .2mm which is the standard for a visual difference in.spread. So yes, it is wrong to disqualify a cushion from consideration soley because of depth.

 

[Gypsy]

Found a better page with some pictures. This is the one she liked in the store. http://www.robbinsbrothers.com/Engagement-Rings/Ring-With-Sidestones/Michael-M--i35888.ring

And here is almost the same thing except more diamonds and designs
http://www.robbinsbrothers.com/Engagement-Rings/Ring-With-Sidestones/Michael-M--i72046.ring

So she likes the diamonds in the basket. Well, those will rub up against her wedding band. But if she likes that look, personally I'd have brilliantly engaged custom design a similar ri g for you. It will be high quality as thier work is fantastic and definitely more budget friendly. Plus they have a great eye for cushions and can source you the perfect stone so you can get it all done in one stop.

 

[Sphene]

If your girlfriend is heavy on her hands the pave is not a great setting stones maybe lost.

 

[Fizwawiz]

So I may have confused some. My girlfriend isn't really sure what shape (square or rectangle) she wants. We talked last night and she's fine with a square or something small rectangle. Sorry if I lead you to believe she wants very rectangle. We were looking at this website
http://www.lumeradiamonds.com/diamond-education/cushion-cut-diamond And the 1.10 ratio is the one she liked. She will also not be using this ring while at work. It's too dangerous and she's already accepted that she won't want to wear it. She was not interested in any of the settings that made the stone "stick out". The low profile settings were more desirable to her. Lastly, she is a size 6 and has fairly small hands. Which is why I'm not too worried about going more than 1 carat.

 

[Fizwawiz]

I wasn't really a fan of the pave because of the prongs. They looked kind of weird. Seemed very different from the Michael M one. I'm curious as to what I can find today. I'll be looking all day for the perfect setting!

 

[Fizwawiz]

Found a better page with some pictures. This is the one she liked in the store. http://www.robbinsbrothers.com/Engagement-Rings/Ring-With-Sidestones/Michael-M--i35888.ring

And here is almost the same thing except more diamonds and designs
http://www.robbinsbrothers.com/Engagement-Rings/Ring-With-Sidestones/Michael-M--i72046.ring

So she likes the diamonds in the basket. Well, those will rub up against her wedding band. But if she likes that look, personally I'd have brilliantly engaged custom design a similar ri g for you. It will be high quality as thier work is fantastic and definitely more budget friendly. Plus they have a great eye for cushions and can source you the perfect stone so you can get it all done in one stop.

That sounds like it might be a great idea. So I should get in touch with brilliantly engaged and see what they come up with?

 

[telephone89]

So I may have confused some. My girlfriend isn't really sure what shape (square or rectangle) she wants. We talked last night and she's fine with a square or something small rectangle. Sorry if I lead you to believe she wants very rectangle. We were looking at this website
http://www.lumeradiamonds.com/diamond-education/cushion-cut-diamond And the 1.10 ratio is the one she liked. She will also not be using this ring while at work. It's too dangerous and she's already accepted that she won't want to wear it. She was not interested in any of the settings that made the stone "stick out". The low profile settings were more desirable to her. Lastly, she is a size 6 and has fairly small hands. Which is why I'm not too worried about going more than 1 carat.

The inspiration setting you've posted is VERY high. It is not low profile at all. Just as an FYI.

Did she like any of the tiffany settings? Lots of tiffany repos out there.

 

[Fizwawiz]

So I may have confused some. My girlfriend isn't really sure what shape (square or rectangle) she wants. We talked last night and she's fine with a square or something small rectangle. Sorry if I lead you to believe she wants very rectangle. We were looking at this website
http://www.lumeradiamonds.com/diamond-education/cushion-cut-diamond And the 1.10 ratio is the one she liked. She will also not be using this ring while at work. It's too dangerous and she's already accepted that she won't want to wear it. She was not interested in any of the settings that made the stone "stick out". The low profile settings were more desirable to her. Lastly, she is a size 6 and has fairly small hands. Which is why I'm not too worried about going more than 1 carat.

The inspiration setting you've posted is VERY high. It is not low profile at all. Just as an FYI.

Did she like any of the tiffany settings? Lots of tiffany repos out there.

The Michael M one you mean? We went in on Friday and she loved it. Maybe it was high and I didn't notice. Thank you for the concern. And yes she did like a Tiffany setting very much, it was just too expensive. I can contact the guy from tiffanys and see what the item number was. Didn't think of that

 

[Fizwawiz]

So I may have confused some. My girlfriend isn't really sure what shape (square or rectangle) she wants. We talked last night and she's fine with a square or something small rectangle. Sorry if I lead you to believe she wants very rectangle. We were looking at this website
http://www.lumeradiamonds.com/diamond-education/cushion-cut-diamond And the 1.10 ratio is the one she liked. She will also not be using this ring while at work. It's too dangerous and she's already accepted that she won't want to wear it. She was not interested in any of the settings that made the stone "stick out". The low profile settings were more desirable to her. Lastly, she is a size 6 and has fairly small hands. Which is why I'm not too worried about going more than 1 carat.

The inspiration setting you've posted is VERY high. It is not low profile at all. Just as an FYI.

Did she like any of the tiffany settings? Lots of tiffany repos out there.

Here is the Tiffany setting she liked. The only issue we had with it was the wedding band would be too far apart due to hitting the diamonds basket.

http://m.tiffany.com/engagement/rings/tiffany-novo-2389?gridpos=12/832

And then I stumbled upon this very similar James Allen setting

http://www.jamesallen.com/mobile/engagement-rings/pave/14k-white-gold-2.0mm-art-nouveau-pave-set-diamond-engagement-ring-item-627?a_aid=dmnd1357

 

[Gypsy]

Found a better page with some pictures. This is the one she liked in the store. http://www.robbinsbrothers.com/Engagement-Rings/Ring-With-Sidestones/Michael-M--i35888.ring

And here is almost the same thing except more diamonds and designs
http://www.robbinsbrothers.com/Engagement-Rings/Ring-With-Sidestones/Michael-M--i72046.ring

So she likes the diamonds in the basket. Well, those will rub up against her wedding band. But if she likes that look, personally I'd have brilliantly engaged custom design a similar ri g for you. It will be high quality as thier work is fantastic and defnitely more budget friendly. Plus they have a great eye for cushions and can source you the perfect stone so you can get it all done in one stop.

That sounds like it might be a great idea. So I should get in touch with brilliantly engaged and see what they come up with?

Yes, and tell them PS referred you (some vendors have PS discounts). They are best on the phone.

Tell them you want a rectangular modern cushion with excellent performance . No crushed ice faceting. G or better. SI or better and eyeclean. Also ask for their email. Send them pictures of inspiration (Michael M) ring. Tell them you want something similar, in a CAD custom project) and that you lady really likes the pave on the basket. They can't copy it exactly but will send you CADs and you can post them here and we can help you with them. Also tell them you want ASET scope images of the stones they find you and post them here.

Okay?

 

[Gypsy]

Here is the Tiffany setting she liked. The only issue we had with it was the wedding band would be too far apart due to hitting the diamonds basket.

http://m.tiffany.com/engagement/rings/tiffany-novo-2389?gridpos=12/832

This is the best Novo type setting, IMO. [URL='/user']/user[/URL] allows for a flush fit band.

If you wanted it, you could easily have BGD make it according to your GIA lab report and send it to JA for you. And then JA would send the ring to you. Alternately, BGD could source the cushion for you (you would tell them the same thing I wrote for you to tell JA). They are a great vendor as well.

Also Brilliantly Engaged has a couple Novo types as well.

 

[Fizwawiz]

Here is the Tiffany setting she liked. The only issue we had with it was the wedding band would be too far apart due to hitting the diamonds basket.

http://m.tiffany.com/engagement/rings/tiffany-novo-2389?gridpos=12/832

This is the best Novo type setting, IMO. [URL='/user']/user[/URL] allows for a flush fit band.

If you wanted it, you could easily have BGD make it according to your GIA lab report and send it to JA for you. And then JA would send the ring to you. Alternately, BGD could source the cushion for you (you would tell them the same thing I wrote for you to tell JA). They are a great vendor as well.

Also Brilliantly Engaged has a couple Novo types as well.

Sounds like I have options!

 

[telephone89]

I think going with a novo type setting will be safer (but I don't love the JA one you posted) than the Michael M. I'm not sure which one Gypsy was recommending (link doesn't work!) but any of the vendors would be able to make a lovely setting in a similar style. Its classic and stunning, and should still come in for less than the Michael m (did I read that correctly - 5k for that setting?).

 

[Fizwawiz]

I think going with a novo type setting will be safer (but I don't love the JA one you posted) than the Michael M. I'm not sure which one Gypsy was recommending (link doesn't work!) but any of the vendors would be able to make a lovely setting in a similar style. Its classic and stunning, and should still come in for less than the Michael m (did I read that correctly - 5k for that setting?).

3180 for the setting. Days wanted 6700 for their forever mark diamond as well