no pic, but it''s coming... i HAVE to share!!!

[dietvanillacoke]

i''m new here... i''ve been lurking for a few weeks, but never posted yet since i''m not engaged yet. my bf and i have been looking for a stone for a few months now, and just today he put a hold on the stone i think we''re gonna get from union diamond!!! i''m SO excited!!! i just HAVE to share. i''ve been involved with the whole process, but now that we''ve finalized a decision i have to wait at least a month or two to actually see it for the first time... AHH!! i''m gonna go crazy!!!

we''re on a budget so we''ve fooled around with HI/J, VS/SI, GIA/EGL... you name it, we''ve considered the pros and cons. it''s been a really stressful time because we both want the perfect stone ... as i know EVERYONE does! but i think we''ve finally landed the ONE. i''ve read good and bad things about union diamond, but the lady my bf is working with (the director of sales there) is super nice and this stone has never been touched. it was GIA certified just two weeks ago and isn''t even up on their site yet. he told her what he wanted, and she went into the safe and came out with this! plus it''s laser inscribed so we can be sure of no switcheroos.

here are the specs:
round brilliant
1.2 C
GIA (laser inscribed)
J
VS2
62.5% depth
58% table
slightly thick to thick faceted girdle
no culet
EX pol
VG sym
med. blue flourescence (works with J color, faces up white)

Here''s a pic from bluenile.com of the setting style (shown with a 1 C center stone).

 

[Tybee]

Congratulations to you!
That''s my setting too (or at least the one I''ve chosen, we haven''t gotten as far as a diamond yet...but I keep looking and hoping.)
I hope you don''t go crazy waiting. It''s so exciting!!

 

[sevens one]

Hey DietVC- clever name

Welcome.
That ring is going to be cool. I like that setting. Med Blue Fluor= Great>

 

[sciencegeek]

Nice work with the J/ medium blue fluor

I had to look around for awhile to get a stone with fluorescence.

 

[dietvanillacoke]

thanks guys!!!!

really?? the blue is good?? i don''t know much about this stuff, it''s my bf who''s the expert... haha. he''s such a geek but i love him for it!!!

the only thing we were wary of was the J (we were looking at H and I for a while) but he claims the flourescence makes up for it.

i can''t WAIT to see this stone....!!!!!

 

[headlight]

The med. fluor is great with the J color.
However, I don''t want to burst your bubble, but just something to keep in mind is that the stone is on the deeper side and that along with the thick girdle means the stone might not have the best spread for its carat weight (thus appearing like a smaller stone).
You might want to compare that stone with others of similar carat weight to see if you see a size difference, face up. Do you have the measurements of the stone? Also, do you have any crown or pavillion info?

 

[dietvanillacoke]

tybee- really?? the same setting?? awesome!! i think it is SO pretty... i would love a plain setting too but this seems like the perfect way to work in sidestones to accentuate the center stone.

headlight- thanks for your input. i don''t have the GIA cert in front of me (my bf has it in his email) so i''ll ask him and get back to you.

thanks again guys

 

[dietvanillacoke]

ooookay. asked my bf about the stuff and he replied back with a bunch of mumbo jumbo that i do not understand. but maybe you guys can decipher. i''ll quote directly.


Our stone''s measurements are 6.73 x 4.20 mm .. with a variation of 0.05 (basically meaning that the diameter can fluctuate between 6.73 and 6.68, five hundredths of a millimeter. 75% of all round cut diamonds are cut with an unacceptable level of width variation, thus they instituted acceptable ranges of variation of width. The limits of acceptable variation for our stone weight is about 0.12 - 0.13 mm, and ours is 0.05: near perfect.


I was then curious as to see how our diamond compared in size to other 1.20 carat diamonds. I did comparisons of similar diamond dimensions in the 1.20 carat range, and it was impossible to draw a bead on the width measurements: every cut varied: there were stones that were smaller in width, but larger in depth, and still others that were wider at the crown and shorter in the pavilion: again, all varying by no more than about 0.06 to 0.10 smaller (for stones below our level) to larger (for the 5 figure diamonds). a tenth of a millimeter variation.


Learned also that girdle only cuts the weight out when it goes from thick to extremely thick (more than 4% of the total depth). Ours falls within ideal range.


The depth is 62.5%, and table is 58%. Measurements again: 6.68 to 6.73 x4.20.


(oh, and what''s more exciting is that Tulcowsky''s modern ideal specifications are slated to be set at 59% table percentage too. craziness. geekiness.)

 

[headlight]

It really should be closer to 7.0 mm, so it is, in fact, a little smaller spread for its carat weight. But, if you love the stone then go for it. Everyone (unless you''re Donald Trump) has to "give up" a little something somewhere... for some people they will go a little lower on color grade, for others they will go down in clarity, etc. If everything else about this stone is calling out to you and it fits within your budget, then don''t let this bother you... unless it IS something that bothers you in which case you should look at other stones. But, this is something you should be made aware of so you can make an informed decision.
I''m not sure who is giving you this info (the person trying to sell this stone???), as you ideally want a medium girdle, and nothing more than "slightly" thick.
Also, Tolkowsky''s table %age is not 59% but rather 53%.

 

[dietvanillacoke]

thanks for the info, headlight. i really do appreciate it.

the info is coming from my bf, who is taking it from the GIA certificate and his research from the internet.

i think you''re right, everything else about this stone is calling out to us, and we do have a budget of just $5k for the entire ring, so i think this is the ONE! we were initially looking at stones at just above 1.0 C so this 1.2 being a little smaller spread won''t be too much of a problem. my main concern with the stone is that it''s sparkly as all hell, white looking, and clean looking. his main concerns are the same, plus the GIA cert and laser inscription.

there is so much to learn when it comes to diamonds... i''m glad pricescope exists !!

 

[dietvanillacoke]

Here are pics!!!! of the stone, and a sample pic of the setting it''ll be in (with the matching wedding band).

specs once again:
1.2 C
J
VS2
med. blue fluorescence
(you can read more up above.)

 

[MelissaSue]

What A GORGEOUS stone! can''t wait to see it set and on your hand!! Its gonna look awesome.

 

[sevens one]

Lovely,
Nothing like looking at a loose stone.

 

[reena]

beautiful stone and soooooo white!!!! congratulations!