now that i''ve decided on a 5 stone ring....need more help on stone selection please...thin girdles?

[rocks&purses]

Thanks to all who helped me decide between a 5 stone, 7 stone, or eternity ring. Now, my quest is on for my stones. I already purchased one stone to start my ring and it is thin faceted. The girdle is only between 0.7 to 1.1. The next stone I am considering has a girdle of 0.9 to 1.4. I would love to have the same setting as Demelza''s on her 5 stone ring which is a Sasha Primak or something similar. Should I be afraid to have this setting with stones with thin girdles as it is a pretty open setting? Or should I be afraid in general of stones with thin girdles even with smaller stones? The first stone I already bought is 0.308 ct and the second one I am considering is 0.31. They are both ES on WF.

Thanks!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

that is pretty thin.

If the vendor is setting them and the girdles are not exposed then it is not your problem

 

[rocks&purses]

Thanks, Gary. I really appreciate your input. Yes, I plan to have them set the ring once I come up with all 5 stones which I plan to all buy from them too. Now, I am debating if I should return the first stone I already bought. I have a few more days of return window. The rep I work with there knows the setting I am interested in but was not told that the stone''s girdle might be too thin for that type setting. Return or not to return?

Thanks!

 

[rocks&purses]

Paging Demelza, Kcoursolle, and other 5 stone band owners . I am very interested in the look of the sasha primak like Demelza''s or Kcoursolle''s u prong setting which are both pretty open so you can admire and see the stones nicely. May I ask what the girdle measurements are on your stones? Esp. Kcoursolle as I think your stones are in the .30s range each which is similar to what I''m looking for. Are they thin, medium, slightly thick, or combo of any three?

Thanks so much!

 

[kcoursolle]

Let''s see here...what are the girdles of my stones?

Rock #1: 1.1-3.3% thin to medium faceted
Rock #2: .9-2.8% thin
Rock #3: .9-2.8% thin faceted
Rock #4: 1.1-3.4% thin to medium faceted
Rock #5: 1.4-4.6% thin to slightly thick faceted

I had WF set the stones and I do not wear any rings with the band. The band is also insured in case something should happen.

Here is the link to my stones in case you want more info: http://www.whiteflash.com/diamonds/Compare_Diamonds.aspx?idnos=114943,114949,116819,116827,155#

 

[rocks&purses]

Thanks so much, Kcoursolle. I really appreciate you taking the time to post the specs of your stones. Your ring is absolutely stunning! I am confused with the specs of 1.4 being called medium. I thought medium is supposed to be over 3? On 2 of your stones where you wrote thin and thin faceted, you wrote 0.9 to 2.8 but the sarin report on these stones say girdle min. 0.9, girdle max 1.4. Where did you get the 2.8? And since it''s under 3, shouldn''t it be still in the thin range? I am so confused

.

 

[kcoursolle]

Date: 12/5/2007 3:09:48 PM
Author: rocks&purses
Thanks so much, Kcoursolle. I really appreciate you taking the time to post the specs of your stones. Your ring is absolutely stunning! I am confused with the specs of 1.4 being called medium. I thought medium is supposed to be over 3? On 2 of your stones where you wrote thin and thin faceted, you wrote 0.9 to 2.8 but the sarin report on these stones say girdle min. 0.9, girdle max 1.4. Where did you get the 2.8? And since it''s under 3, shouldn''t it be still in the thin range? I am so confused

.

I posted the information from the AGS reports instead of the sarins. It''s pretty common for them to be off a little.

 

[rocks&purses]

Thanks, K. I understand that there''s usually a slight difference but isn''t it a big discrepancy between a 1.4 and 2.8? I also didn''t realize that the AGS report also includes the range. I''ll have to check mine.

Thanks again. Your input is much appreciated.

 

[rocks&purses]

I checked my AGS cert and it does have a much wider range that the sarin report. The AGS says 0.7%- 2.7%. I''m waiting to hear more about this from WF and hope to learn more. If anybody else has any comments/ suggestions, I would gladly listen Thanks!

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/6/2007 7:58:40 PM
Author: rocks&purses
I checked my AGS cert and it does have a much wider range that the sarin report. The AGS says 0.7%- 2.7%. I'm waiting to hear more about this from WF and hope to learn more. If anybody else has any comments/ suggestions, I would gladly listen Thanks!

Hi R&P.

I think I just emailed you but I'll make my comments here as well.

The GIA and AGS measure girdle thickness differently. The GIA measures only at the thinnest portions of the diamond - the 16 "valleys" - but the AGS measures thinnest/thickest places anywhere on the girdle (see graphic below). Logically, those results will range wider.

Our Sarin measures using the GIA approach. That's why the width of the measurement varies between it and your AGS report.

With your first diamond the Sarin cites 0.7-1.1%, which is the total width considering only the 16 valleys.
Meanwhile the AGS report cites 0.7-2.7%, which is the total width when every position on the girdle is considered.

With the second diamond the Sarin reports 0.9-1.4% while the AGS report gives 0.7-2.7%. Although 0.7 and 0.9 are different, this is an acceptable level of discrepancy between non-contact scanners (our Sarin and the AGS Sarin in this case). The thicker 2.7% from AGS is again logical, as every position is being considered.

Hope this explains it a bit. Here is a girdle thread from a few months ago with a fair number of graphics and photos that may interest you.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

John is correct about the silly international power point problem.
Sorry if I cause consternation

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 12/6/2007 9:04:01 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
John is correct about the silly international power point problem.
Sorry if I cause consternation

Maybe a fiber supplement Garry?








Ho ho ho.

 

[rocks&purses]

Thanks SO much, John. I just replied to your email