Poll: One $3k stone, 3 x $1k stones or 30 x $100 stones?

[Coralfish]

Hi guys

What would you want to do, or perhaps have done, in an ideal world, with a $3000 gemstone kitty.

Please feel free to vote without reading blurb below but I have gone into more detail in case anyone cares to read on.

(Please note: in description below, adjectives 'expensive' and 'inexpensive' are simply used as relative terms to help distinguish between the different categories in relation to one another).

Perhaps you started off buying $100-$200 stones and have accumulated a lot and with hindsight would do it differently. Or perhaps you bought a $3k gem and with hindsight would have got more out of a number of more inexpensive gemstones, or three or four quite expensive ones. Or perhaps you've bought a number of inexpensive gems and have enjoyed the process of owning/collecting/setting and owning the different species. Or perhaps some other iteration I have failed to mention.

Has anyone done one of the poll and going back would do it differently.

Or has anyone done one of the poll and is pleased with their choice.

Or has anyone done one of the poll and it was right at the time, and now they would do a different choice (if so which one and why).

Or would anyone prefer to see a different starter amount or any other parameters tweaked.

I think there are distinct advantages to all three options so would like to see and hear what your opinions are and what your experiences have been.

I think I am mainly talking about coloured stones but actually we can include diamonds too if they are relevant to your choice.

 

[NKOTB]

Either 3 x 1k stones or one 3k stone. It depends on how much you want to spend on settings, and how many colours are your favourites. If I had one favourite colour, and wanted a particular custom setting, then I would definitely go with one 3k stone. However, if I had a few favourite colours, and was okay with smaller stones or maybe not trade ideal, I'd go with three 1k stones.

 

[1001smiles]

I've had all of the above, and now I would prefer a vacation!

 

[lilmosun]

My actual choice would be in the middle of the $100 and $1000 option - 6 stones x $500 would be my likely choice. There are few stones that I want to set under $100 and most of my regrets have been in that range. On the other hand, $1000 would be on the high end for me to spend on a single stone and I would need more than 3

Great question as I have occasionally wondered if I should've saved for a few killer rings instead of having so many that are mid-range. For me, jewelry is an accessory that I like changing up daily so I am happier with the variety.

 

[T L]

It depends, I've bought some $100 stones that were more beautiful and desirable than some $3000 stones. However if you're sure that the quality actually matches the price, something that doesn't always happen in the colored gemstone world, then I would go for the $3K stone IF I could afford it.

 

[puppyguts]

I agree with lilmosun. I'd be in the middle & more likely to buy 6 × $500 stones

But would save & spend more if the stone was worth it to me.

 

[Gloria27]

Voted for the middle one but IRL I choose the third one 'cause I want a little out of everything (on a budget) and got some amazing deals, stones that would cost much more than what I paid for, like a cameo that turned out to be a signed piece worth at least 10 times more, 2.8 ct morganite for 30% of it's original price (waited til the price dropped and snatched it- I enjoyed the hunt) and the list goes on.
Currently waiting for my 1,5 ct chryso, got it for about 50 dollars (it was euros, but it's about the same)
Plus the more expensive the stone, the more I would worry about everything including shipping and setting it...

IF I had 3000$ to spend on one stone, I would not go for a 1ct stone, I'd try to get at least a 2ct stone, something bigger to look at

 

[Acinom]

I voted the middele option as great stones can be found in the 400-1000 range. Also, I love to vary my colored stone rings. I also did the first option without regret as I have a few stones of 3000 USD and up.
Great question!

 

[chrono]

Option 1 or 2, depending on the cost/colour of the stone. There are some amazing bargains out there for $1K but there are also some where you just have to bite the bullet and pay the $3K.

 

[SparkliesLuver]

I voted for option 1, but it really depends what color(s) you're looking for and in what size(s). Like Chrono said, there are some amazing bargains for $1k if you have the time and patience to search, but there are also some where you just have to bite the bullet and pay $3k.

 

[picante27]

I voted for option 1. I'm the kind of person that wears the same jewelry pretty much everyday. The only time I change it up is for a special occasions. I'd rather have one super nice dream ring that I can wear all the time. Though I am delving into option 2 lately and going to have a couple less expensive pendants made that I can change up depending on my mood.

 

[deskjockey]

2!

I don't wear a lot of jewelry, and tend to prefer smaller, imperfect stones. I also don't like things that are too big (though a $3000 pretty blue sapphire might well not be very big, LOL).

When I aimlessly window shop (which I do too much), most of what I really like seems to be between 800-1200, for me that would be a big splurge But I'd definitely rather get three wildly different stones than one really really nice one. Though I don't wear a lot of jewelry I do like options

 

[niter]

I changed my vote. Originally, I had said one $3000 stone because in an ideal world it would be a gift and ideally that piece would be permanent feature. For example, if I was gifted $3000 diamond studs, I probably would rarely swap them out for something else. That amount seems once in a lifetime.

However, because I have my wedding set and cannot foreseeably buy another ring, I would be inclined for $3000 worth of smaller stones because I also cannot imagine wearing $3000 in ONE necklace.

 

[Michael_E]

I voted for the 30 x $100 stones, mostly because no one else had and that category looked lonely. In all honesty I'd probably buy 3000 x $1 stones, cover my body with them and make a male belly dancing video to put on You Tube. It would be very embarrassing, (not for me, but to watch), but might go viral and I'd get my one moment of fame!

 

[Coralfish]

I voted for the 30 x $100 stones, mostly because no one else had and that category looked lonely. In all honesty I'd probably buy 3000 x $1 stones, cover my body with them and make a male belly dancing video to put on You Tube. It would be very embarrassing, (not for me, but to watch), but might go viral and I'd get my one moment of fame!

Mr E that might be the greatest post I have ever read on pricescope

I've had all of the above, and now I would prefer a vacation!

I remember fortekitty on an ancient thread was weighing up possibly a spinel with a cruise or something. And someone in Pearls posted a pic of her feet on a sun lounger looking out to a beach as motivation for not caving into a PP sale!!

In thinking about how to answer the question myself I've realised it's actually quite difficult isn't it! I mean, sometimes one doesn't really have a strategy as such. You fall for a stone, and sometimes it's inexpensive and sometimes it is not. TL made a good point so far as, as long as you are pretty much getting what you pay for, you can stay happy. I think as long as we return what we are not deeply in love with and make sure we are paying as fair a price as we can after having done some research, we can't go too far wrong and will accumulate stones we feel only positive things about.

Actually, thinking about it myself, degree of enjoyment of a stone doesn't bear the obvious relationship with price paid. It somewhat both surprises me, and invalidates my original question!

 

[arkieb1]

I voted for 3 x $1000 stones that way if you get bored you can swap them. If it was me I would go for three decent quality $1000.00 stones or a mix like 2 x $1K stones and then several hundred dollar stones that way you have a variety of what you can wear, unless of course you want something like a ruby or sapphire then spend the whole budget on one decent stone.

 

[dk168]

It depends, and I have done all 3.

As in lots of cheap and cheerful, a few mid-range and one or two top end; just like everything else in life.

I shall save up for a copper-bearing tourmaline, a mid-blue sapphire, and a Tsavorite.

DK

 

[Deathspi]

I voted for option 2 but really, I'm all over the place. I've bought some cheap stones that I love, and some expensive ones that I didn't. The most expensive stone I ever bought was awful in person, which made me realize even more that spending lots of money doesn't necessarily mean you're getting nice stone. Like the rest of them, you have to make sure you know what you're buying!

 

[partgypsy]

My answer would really depend on what time of life I'm in. Right this moment, I would use all 3K on one piece.
In general though I would love to retain a kitty, and probably spend 2K on 1-3 special pieces, and remaining amount on fun pieces (jewelry) that would range anywhere from $15 to $150 each. I'd also want to use some of that money to set already existing gemstones, than buy more gemstones.

 

[distracts]

It depends on what you're looking for at the time, really. Sometimes I spend less, but sometimes I spend more. I try to only buy if a stone really grabs me and holds my attention, whether it's a $100 stone or a more expensive stone (well, the only $3k stone I have is my engagement ring stone). For instance, I love zircons, which aren't pricey, and have gotten some lovely precision-cut ones for $100-$200 that I wear pretty frequently. I wouldn't have traded them for, say, a $3k zircon, because that would be a much larger stone than I would regularly wear. For those it was better to go for several smaller stones for ring/earrings/pendant suite (5.5mm earrings, 6mm pendant, and 7-something mm ring).

I think there are some things you can do to determine what's best for you-

- figure out what stone sizes you like. I like things in the 1-3 carat range, and prefer around 6.4-7.5mm
- figure out what types of stones you like
- figure out what colors you like in each type
- have a vision of your ideal jewelry wardrobe and wishlist, and know roughly how much money it would take to achieve
- Either prioritize accordingly and hunt for the stones, or do what I do and have an idea of what you want and just wait around and see what turns up

And then there's the issue of settings. I'm terrible at getting things set - I'd rather have a new sparkly bit of color than another setting pretty much every time, lol.

I voted for the 30 x $100 stones, mostly because no one else had and that category looked lonely. In all honesty I'd probably buy 3000 x $1 stones, cover my body with them and make a male belly dancing video to put on You Tube. It would be very embarrassing, (not for me, but to watch), but might go viral and I'd get my one moment of fame!

Come on, Michael, we want a live performance!

 

[Jajabis]

I think it all depends on what you like.

With 30 stones, you can create a setting into many shapes and designs.
With 3 stones, you limit the options of what you can do. I'd recommend getting a 1.5-2k stone with some cheaper ones on the side.

With 1 stone, you put you're best value return. With the price on a single stone, you make the unique stone your own.


I voted for the 1 stone because you can always add onto it later down the road. It will look amazing by itself. The others need a amazing setting to stand out.

 

[Michael_E]

Come on, Michael, we want a live performance!

Trust me, you don't want a live performance. Did you ever see Raiders of the Lost Ark...the part where the bad guys opened the ark and melted, screaming, into little puddles? Well the same thing would happen to anyone seeing a live performance of me doing anything resembling belly dancing.

 

[OTL]

I voted for No.1, but in reality I buy both 1&2,
Both 1&2 will have nice ones depend on what kind of stones.
For some specimen you can't even get a nice one for the first choice like sapphires and rubies, etc I'd have to save up more for the quality I like.

 

[ElleK]

I voted for the 30 x $100 stones, mostly because no one else had and that category looked lonely. In all honesty I'd probably buy 3000 x $1 stones, cover my body with them and make a male belly dancing video to put on You Tube. It would be very embarrassing, (not for me, but to watch), but might go viral and I'd get my one moment of fame!

I'd buy 3000 $1 stones and send them to Michael...this sounds like it would be epic.

(If the above wasn't an option, I'd probably go with 1 $3,000, 3 $1000, or 6 $500 gems.)

 

[LD]

I can't answer this because it's impossible to say. For example, do you like statement jewellery and so would blow your budget on a big piece or would you prefer to have a matching ring and earrings or are you after a certain stone that has a rarity? If you're after a rare stone then you'll need all your budget for one item. If you're not looking for a rare stone then you could make your money go a long way!

 

[partgypsy]

I voted for the 30 x $100 stones, mostly because no one else had and that category looked lonely. In all honesty I'd probably buy 3000 x $1 stones, cover my body with them and make a male belly dancing video to put on You Tube. It would be very embarrassing, (not for me, but to watch), but might go viral and I'd get my one moment of fame!

I'd buy 3000 $1 stones and send them to Michael...this sounds like it would be epic.

(If the above wasn't an option, I'd probably go with 1 $3,000, 3 $1000, or 6 $500 gems.)

He has to dance singing "it's raining gems" to the tune of "it's raining men"

 

[ElleK]

I voted for the 30 x $100 stones, mostly because no one else had and that category looked lonely. In all honesty I'd probably buy 3000 x $1 stones, cover my body with them and make a male belly dancing video to put on You Tube. It would be very embarrassing, (not for me, but to watch), but might go viral and I'd get my one moment of fame!

I'd buy 3000 $1 stones and send them to Michael...this sounds like it would be epic.

(If the above wasn't an option, I'd probably go with 1 $3,000, 3 $1000, or 6 $500 gems.)

He has to dance singing "it's raining gems" to the tune of "it's raining men"

This is getting better and better. What a fantastic idea!

 

[cinnamonstick]

Voted one 3k
Something is to be said about my "nice pieces" of jewelry vs my others. Lately it seems I'm appreciating buying less, ans spending $ on better quality items/more precious (when I can). I have also found that my more expensive items seem to test time better. Maybe bc I just know they r more special?....plus u can sell it later if needed....

I also tend to gravitate toward larger of jewelry pieces in general when I can $

 

[elle_71125]

Just wanted to chime in with my 2 cents.
I voted for 3 1k stones. My second choice would be 1 3K stone.

 

[iLander]

Definitely 3 $1K stones for me. You still have to set the things, and as much as I like colored stones, it's hard for me to justify spending close to $5K for one ring.