Precious stone needed for gorgeous new home...needn't be perfect!

[tlfiore]

Hi PSers. I'll spare the details and cut to the chase 'cause most of the wonderful industry regulars (and regulars) know my dilemma. I'll link here in case anyone cares (smile):
https://www.pricescope.com/communit...-of-it-in-search-of-a-smaller-diamond.234986/

So I am searching for a new "old" diamond for my brand new CvB setting, which is a masterpiece. The diamond for which the setting was made doesn't work, IMHO.

The extremely helpful and thoughtful @rockysalamander said this, which is spot on:
by rockysalamander "I think for the setting you may also find that crown height affects how well it sits and you may be both spread and height sensitive, so I think the crown/table proportions may be part of what is visually throwing you."

Caysie sent me setting stats and I definitely need an approximate 2.0 ct diamond that is minimally 8.1 mm x 8.1 mm x 5.25 mm (approx.). I do not want to go much larger than this, if I can help it. I like warmth and color, but...

I prefer an old diamond...OEC, Mine Cut, Cushion Cut...but again, I'm open. It's more about how the final project will look versus finding the perfect stone. I'm very sensitive to how the diamond will finally sit in the setting.


I think the diamond sits a wee-bit too high in the setting. Isn't the setting glorious?


This is a Glamour Shot. I prefer seeing less muffin-top or mushroom cloud and more shoulder!


So, please educate me, so I can find a great stone for my new setting. Hopefully, I'll work with Erica at LAD. Before I had the dimensions from Caysie, Erica sent me this:
http://www.loveaffairdiamonds.com/2-23ct-old-european-cut-diamond-gia-k-vvs2/

From GIA Report:
8.15 - 8.25 x 5.36 mm
2.23 carat
K, VVS2,
Cut...Fair,
Depth...65.4 %
Table...47 %
Crown Angle...36.5°
Crown Height...19.5%
Pavilion Angle...41.4°
Pavilion Depth...42.5%
Star Length...40%
Lower Half...70%
Girdle ...Extremely Thin to Slightly Thick, 3.5%
Culet...Slightly Large

What do you all think? I know I'll get input, so thank you! I want to learn so I can own a great diamond!
And I've got a question about MRB diamonds...regarding spread & crown, etc.
Thanks in advance for all input!!

 

[rockysalamander]

Do you have the stats for the diamond you had removed?

Edited to add. Your current diamond has a rather low crown, by old cut standards. I wonder if going for a high crown and tiny table will help with the proportions. That high crown would pull the arc of the sides upward more. With that in mind, I really like the 2.23 K VVS2 from LAD.

 

[rockysalamander]

Top - 2.23 K.
Bottom - 1.95 I VS1 from her site, which is between your current diamond's low crown and the K's very high pillowy crown. .

So, what do you think about having a taller crown? Does this seem to appeal? It would be more diamond above the prongs, but with a small table, the behavior would be different. You'd get a more continuous flow from the shank to the table.

 

[tlfiore]

Do you have the stats for the diamond you had removed?

Yes...of course...I should have thought of that...you are the BOMB...thank you:
Measurements

From GIA Report (which isn't as through as the LAD one)
8.32 - 8.44 x 5.45 mm
2.43 carat
Q-R
VS1
Cut, Polish , Symmetry...good, good, good
Depth...65.1 %
Table...49 %
Crown Angle...??
Crown Height...??
Pavilion Angle...??
Pavilion Depth...??
Star Length...??
Lower Half...70%
Girdle ...Thin to Medium
Culet...Large

@rockysalamander Unfortunately, I don't see any of the other diamond specs listed.

Here's a link to the GIA Report, in case I'm not reading it correctly:
https://www.gia.edu/report-check?reportno=6187296623

Thanks! Looking forward to your input!!

 

[tlfiore]

Top - 2.23 K.
Bottom - 1.95 I VS1 from her site, which is between your current diamond's low crown and the K's very high pillowy crown. .

So, what do you think about having a taller crown? Does this seem to appeal? It would be more diamond above the prongs, but with a small table, the behavior would be different. You'd get a more continuous flow from the shank to the table.

Is the 1.95 from LAD?? I think it is. She sent me info about this diamond but given the stats Caysie sent me about the settings head, I thought I needed an exact 8.1 mm stone

"...a more continuous flow from the shank to the table." Maybe this is what's missing? I like the idea of a more continuous flow, shank to table.

Might you have a photo of something similarly set, so I can see a visual of your suggestion? Oh gosh...you are something else...I cannot thank you enough!

 

[tlfiore]

@rockysalamander I keep saying "the diamond must sit lower, it's muffin top, etc." Perhaps it's exactly what you identified that makes the profile look choppy or out-of-proportion (to my eye).

Not sure how a "higher crown" will translate into a lower set appearance...more aligned to the shank, etc. I think that would make a huge difference, don't you??

Oh wait...I'm studying that stone...I think I see EXACTLY what you are saying! YES! Yes I think I see it! That may be precisely the problem (along with the color) of the current diamond in the CvB setting. Yes! I think I see it now! The 2.43 lacks "flow."

And what a gorgeous diamond the 1.95 is...I like it more than the larger one, frankly!

 

[rockysalamander]

The more I look at this ring, the more I have a crazy idea to propose...that I think LAD can carry off. So, go with my crazy for a minute. What if the center has metal ring between it and the shoulders...like a vintage collet (or bezel). That would give you visual relieve/definition between the diamond and shoulders. That will also serve to "contain" the muffin top.

LAD's Artemis is a great example of the bezel portion. So, this has a very high crown and tiny table so the shoulders flow up and over the stone. The flower is tiny from the top due to the small table.

But, see that bezel?


That is the visual relief element. It frames the stone.



So, if the setting can be modified, you would add the bezel onto the existing shank by attaching it to the prongs...it would kinda float over the top of the lyre on the gallery...so no change to the gallery. But, if the prongs need to remain, just make the bezel a collet (like a turtlenecK) and set the prongs over the bezel.
This would have the added benefit of allowing you do protect the girdle of the stone.

https://loveaffairdiamonds.smugmug....gs/The-XArtemist-Solitaire-e-Featur/i-G5JprQx

So, you get something like this (I borrowed the Artemis head, so this is the diamond from that setting, but the K is close...not quite as steep and tiny table)....
(SEE PIC IN NEXT MESSAGE)

 

[rockysalamander]

 

[rockysalamander]

Last franken ring mock up

 

[tlfiore]

WoW...I am speechless and I cannot thank you enough for the thought and effort you've put into this diamond dilemma. Thank you!

So, it is rare for me to be speechless but I am. Your idea is a very interesting one! The antique style Colette does solve the choppiness and lack of flow...also contains the muffin-top look!

I've always loved that look, btw. The look of some metal around the stone...not quite a bezel but more of a basket. Let me grab a few pics that may help:

The inspiration ring that I initially fell in love with...see the lower diamond?


Inspiration ring...smaller, lower stone...see the shoulders!?!?!?!?


Inspiration ring.

Look at this ring! HUGE stone (not for me) but see how low it sits? Love it!


Another of my all time favorite settings. See how LOW (yet wide) the diamond sits/is???
Love this setting.

I WANTED some LIFT, so I would have the option to wear my ring with a channel wedding band I have (thus the photo with the inspiration ring and a similar band). And I fell in love with the lyres or harps on the inspiration ring (symbols of eternity, peace, harmony, music). But I thought the entire thing would be lower, I guess.

I thought the gallery would appear more like a basket...perhaps cradle the diamond a bit more. See, THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED when the Ann Arbor jeweler plopped the 7.75 mm x 7.85 mm x whatever (the 1.80 carat) into the setting...but that was waaaay too low, too small for the setting for sure.

I love my setting and I think the right diamond will change things.

Thoughts? Ideas??

 

[tlfiore]

Just one last note that might help. And as I look at Caysie's drawings, I totally get what you are saying about the "flow" of the ring's shank & shoulders to the top and table of the diamond:


One of Caysie's original drawings of the "lyre gallery"...see the beautiful slope?


My ring has a larger "step." Can't it be the wrong diamond???

I actually love the profile of my setting. The gallery is beautiful. And the milgrain, which looks a bit harsh in my huge photo, is gorgeous and actually pulls in and blends all the gorgeous details of the gallery. It's a lovely setting.

 

[nala]

I'm so confused. Didn't Caysie have your stone before she custom made your setting? If so, how could the outcome be so incompatible in your opinion? Also, since you are making revisions, I would like to say that I have never been a fan of her migrain. It always looks like a reproduction--very harsh, not at all organic or flowing.

 

[rockysalamander]

That inspiration I think crystallizes to me what you are reacting to. In the inspiration ring, the shoulder detail is visually about 70% the width of the diamond. In your ring, the shoulder is only visually 43-50%. With the size and depth of your diamond, she had to angle the shoulder up more steeply than the inspiration. That means that while the shoulder detail may measure similarly (although I think it is shorter) -- the visual impact is that you see more diamond and less shoulder. So, the larger diamond may be "too much" for you. But, its size is really is what drove the design change as your finger has a fixed amount of real estate.

So, I think maybe that proportion is what you are reacting to. You don't want to "see" the side of the diamond, rather, you want to just see the crown with the rest of the stone tucked in the setting. Like this, the girdle is actually interior to the design you are seeing. The setting looks low (although it is actually quite high) and all you see is the nice puffy crown.


So, I think a smaller diamond would fix some of this. It would provide more visual proportion. So, if you use your collet example from mege, the collet is under the prongs. But, for your ring, that band would need to either be above the gallery detail or within and below it to not change the gallery. So, to me, the key is to have a really good bench jeweler look at the setting and determine options for a technical fix to adapt to a smaller diamond. Can you build a "shelf" inside the current gallery or must they work from the gallery up? Can they use shorter smaller prongs to float the diamond inside the setting? Can they build a bezel that will provide some visual reduction in the diamond size and contain the muffintop. What size diamond does each outcome accommodate?

If done well, the outcome would be like this diamond that is very low relative to the setting and you can see they have the almost totally covered by 4 (or 8 unclear) wide prongs, so only the E and W edge of the diamond is uncovered.


https://www.etsy.com/listing/550373...4d4825b5432fc927b6afc66ecceb187969f:550373548

Smaller prongs that could be use to float the diamond.


Have I totally missed your vision?

 

[EC8]

If I interpreted the side shot photo correctly, the E/W basket sides where the lyre shoulders connect are much higher than the lyre basket detail in the profile photo; if so, then it's an illusion that the stone is set too high.
The inspirational ring has very different proportions (much smaller diamond in diameter and depth); the angle of the shoulders is much flatter and the stones on the shoulders are more visually prominent; in your ring it looks like the french cuts sit lower than the scrolled lyre arms?
Not sure that replacing the center stone with a slightly smaller diamond will make a significant difference to the "feel" of the ring.

 

[nala]

I think your issues are with the setting. Swapping the diamond will not transform your gallery into a basket. Your ring doesn't resemble an Art Deco piece, like your inspiration pic. It lack the characters and instead looks like a contemporary setting that almost looks like a 3 stone, where the center sits higher, not flush with the sides. Art Deco pieces are generally all flush, creating one wide unified look. At least your inspiration piece appears that way. It's ok to say you don't like the setting. Some posters here really love this vendor, and I know they might disagree with me. But it's not the first time a poster has complained about how high she set the diamond. One of them even removed the stone immediately and swapped out the entire setting. Maybe she will modify the setting for you, if you emphasized your vision along the way Bc I don't think you got your vision. Try that route before you go losing money with your diamonds. But to be fair, the inspiration pic do show the girdle, like yours. So i don't know if you ever emphasized that you wanted that changed. Also, her sketches do reveal that as well. I think you guys never discussed that Bc you didn't realize it would bother you. That's the scary part about going custom. The vendor has lots of fans here. You should sell it on loupe troop and find an estate dealer who specializes in Art Deco rings. Nothing like the real deal. I know jewels by grace sells semin mounts that are actually originals. Langs antiques. Etc

 

[arkieb1]

You can't just magically make a diamond with a really small table and a high crown disappear it will still sit up in the air a bit out of a bezel. The stone in the ring you like has a table you can drive a bus through and is what I'd call a flatty not a really big crown height, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. Yes you could sit your stone down a bit lower but I don't think it's totally going to fix what you don't like about it.

I want to reiterate you need to visit somewhere like OWD and look at as many old cuts as possible then you will have a much better chance of finding a stone you love.

 

[MollyMalone]

@nala -- I don't think any of us should be criticizing Caysie (even tho' I would not choose her for myself, think she should be treated fairly in this discussion) on the ground she didn't produce an Art Deco piece or tfiore's "vision" when

• the favorite rings depicted in the photos posted in this thread aren't all alike
• Caysie was called upon to work with the stone delivered to her & produce a design with the sought-after lyre arms, and
• most importantly, tfiore presumably approved the CADs for the ring she received

@arkieb1 -- sounds as if you are proposing that tfiore start from scratch, i.e., purchase a new stone & commission another setting?

 

[nala]

mollymalone, I did acknowledge That perhaps she didn't realize what part of her vision she wanted to emphasize to caysie. But I also said that it's ok not to like the setting. There is usually a cult like mentality when it comes to favorite vendors here on ps and for her to be going as far as swapping her stone rather than getting feedback that it's probably the setting, well thats my opinion and I shouldn't have to apologize for putting it out there since many posters will not go there for fear of offending the vendor. please don't try to censor me

 

[MollyMalone]

Hey @nala -- if opining that a vendor (whom as I said I personally would not work with) should not be faulted for delivering a ring that conforms to CADs approved by the customer is being a "censor," I can live with that

 

[nala]

Hey @nala -- if opining that a vendor (whom as I said I personally would not work with) should not be faulted for delivering a ring that conforms to CADs approved by the customer is being a "censor," I can live with that

Your posts aren’t very helpful to the op. In the first place, you misread my post. And then you replied to me to confirm that you misread my post. But I’m sure you can live with that. Have a great day. And let the op read through her responses without nitpicking in the posters who are sincerely trying to help her

 

[rockysalamander]

@MollyMalone @nala

Can we not do "this"? None of use were part of the conversation between inspiration and final design and the OP and designed. It does not matter. The result is that the OP has a setting SHE loves that she wants to make look more harmonious with her vision relative to the diamond in that setting.Let's help the OP figure out the visual disharmony to her eyes and help find a solution. The input from PS members has already helped @tlfiore start to work through what is making her feel the design does not flow. Starting anew is valid, especially where a new setting would be sub $3k and a new diamond will be above $7k. Put "a pin in it" and lets keep thinking. The more ideas that get generated and rejected, the more likely we help the OP get to a solution she feels good about.

 

[nala]

@MollyMalone @nala

Can we not do "this"? None of use were part of the conversation between inspiration and final design and the OP and designed. It does not matter. The result is that the OP has a setting SHE loves that she wants to make look more harmonious with her vision relative to the diamond in that setting.Let's help the OP figure out the visual disharmony to her eyes and help find a solution. The input from PS members has already helped @tlfiore start to work through what is making her feel the design does not flow. Starting anew is valid, especially where a new setting would be sub $3k and a new diamond will be above $7k. Put "a pin in it" and lets keep thinking. The more ideas that get generated and rejected, the more likely we help the OP get to a solution she feels good about.

But it doesn’t sound like she loves it. That’s my point. That it’s ok to have regrets after going custom. And that imo, this setting will never look like what she wanted to begin with so she should scrap the setting. That is all I’m suggesting.

 

[MollyMalone]

* * * My ring has a larger "step" [than in the pen-and-ink drawing -- MM]. Can't it be the wrong diamond???

Removing the Casablanca diamond hasn't left you with an "elastic" setting subject to any and all wished-for modifications. @rockysalamander & @arkieb1 offered good explanations of why the new setting doesn't mirror that particular one of your inspiration rings. Because you love the new setting itself & are invested in it emotionally and financially, think it would be great for you to next ask Caysie to explore with her bench the ideas rockysalamander suggested @ post #13 might be a possible "fix" and other possible modifications that wouldn't require a do-over. That info from their end, including costs of any feasible fixes, and additional feedback here can then help guide you onwards.

ETA: I'm really sorry that the receipt of Kithara wasn't pure joy, but happy that you aren't feeling stuck. It may be that starting over is what you end up deciding on, but I'm thinking you'll have greater confidence in that decision if you've first ruled out lesser steps.

 

[msop04]

Hi, @tlfiore! First of all, I love all the rings (finished and inspiration). It seems to me that you know exactly what you want/like when you see it, but maybe have a hard time explaining that to Caysie. I'm the EXACT SAME WAY! Caysie is a true artist with a great eye, and she wants nothing more than for her clients to be 100% happy with the pieces she makes for them. I agree with @MollyMalone... I think you just need to tell Caysie your concerns and use the photos that @rockysalamander posted. Sometimes it takes a second to get it just right.

 

[MollyMalone]

[informational aside for @nala and anyone else who didn't read through the preceding thread: tfiore's enthusiasm for the setting shines through her posts here ("a masterpiece") and in the previous thread, e.g., "gorgeous," "a work of art," and "I love the setting", so doesn't want to part with it.]

 

[tlfiore]

Oh boy...so this is the first chance all day I've had to be at the computer and I was surprised (and grateful) to see so many posts. You all are awesome and please know you've helped tremendously (read waaaaaaaaay down-thread, way below). Thank you!

@rockysalamander In Post #13 (I believe) you nailed it! I have to ask if you are a designer or CAD jewelry designer or artist 'cause you have been spot-on. EVERYONE's input is great, truly it is. But the flow of the first diamond pic you showed in Post #13 nails it! You totally get it and you thoroughly SEE how the diamond's girdle (I'm not great with or certain of all the diamond terms) in your photo floats, or INTEGRATES, or sits PERFECTLY above the gallery. In my ring whereas, I think the diamond girdle sits way too far above the setting's gallery, right? Thus that pushed out view! A float or "illusion" of a basket is how I hoped my diamond seating might have turned out. You totally see that I prefer the diamond float (not be quite cradled) in the setting. Definitely did not anticipate the diamond in my ring would sit so high above the setting's shank with humongous gaps between the girdle, crown, etc and the ring's gallery.

@rockysalamander I don't want this to be a repeat of the ILikeShiny Fiasco but you are correct in so many ways. I'VE NEVER EVEN HAD A DRESS OR PAIR OF SLACKS CUSTOM MADE FOR ME, let alone a ring. I made a lot of communication errors with Caysie in regards to articulating my vision. I imagine I was not clear. At times, I wasn't even sure at what point we were in the process, so I take a lot of responsibility and blame for any problems. Also, I SHOULD HAVE ABANDONED THE 2.43 ct OEC, Q color, VS1...PERIOD. NOT GOOD FOR A SOLITAIRE...NO WAY

@nala I appreciate what you've stated and I DO thank you for giving permission to find fault, if necessary. It IS difficult to go against the grain at times on this forum. I'm learning. I'm not particularly thick-skinned but quite sensitive. So, I do not deal well with conflict. Yet having said that, with the exception of a few issues, I have a long fuse and it takes a lot to get me upset or really frazzled. I do not like speaking up or offending people I care about and I always look for the goodness in people. So thank you for bringing up this angle.

@MollyMalone I read your posts a few times with great interest. I would never find it necessary to reveal who said what, about what and when, etc throughout my correspondences with Caysie. I can only say at times I felt lost because I'd never done a project...this was my first one. So, I take full responsibility for anything that got miscommunicated.

And as far as the Leon Mege and other rings referenced up-thread by me, well I just sorta threw them out there to show the low, fluid setting and flow of the center diamond. I never referenced them to Caysie as inspiration for my current ring but I do love those designs. I went with the design I did 'cause my hope was to have the option to wear my new CvB ring with my monster wedding band on occasion. I wanted something with a little lift or height (off my finger, off the shank) that might articulate well with a rather large (for me-smile) diamond channel band. Thank you @MollyMalone for all your input!

And now...I must thank @scarsmum because in my "other" thread about this ring, she insightfully stated something that resonated with me. And just upfront, I wasn't boo-hoo-hooing sobbing with tears when the Ann Arbor schmendricks put the $18,000 MRB in the Kithara Setting...but it nearly knocked me over:

So I hope you all are sitting down for this 'cause after another sleepless night, the solution came to me...it was sorta right there all along:

by scarsmum » Yesterday at 11:44 AM I’m curious; if a MRB is what made you cry have you considered just going with that? Seems it would solve your search and selection problem and the outcome makes you cry-happy?

Yes, while it wasn't my first choice, it's the choice making the most sense because a MRB really accomplishes everything (and I mean just about everything) required to make this work. Seems like a MRB will solve nearly every challenge with the setting. And after having more MRBs dropped into the setting today, well you may not believe it when you see the final product (I barely can believe the transformation):

1) @arkieb1 by arkieb1 »... The stone in the ring you like has a table you can drive a bus through and is what I'd call a flatty not a really big crown height...
Exactly! What a difference a 60% table and a low (?) or small crown proportion make! With the MRB, I get the slope, I get the flow, I "don't see the side of the diamond" but I do see the crown and the setting. And the setting's lovely shoulders and gallery all become visible. And those HUGE gaps (spaces) aptly noted by a diamond broker today that show with the 2.43 OEC (gaps below the girdle and above the gallery, revealing too much of the diamond's pavilion??)...well those are GONE with a MRB...MRBs seem to float just above the gallery. Beautiful!

2) Must thank @diamondseeker2006 (from other thread) who continually focused on the high crown, small table, chunky cut of most OECs...may or may not work for all people, in all settings. YES!

3) Everyone on this post has stressed a "smaller" OEC (by nature of its cut and characteristics) may not drastically change the step-like and choppy profile of the ring. True!

4) The MRB...what are the "ideal proportions"...something akin to 56% table x 56% depth? I don't need ideal but I think those proprotions work better with this setting. All brokers I visited over the past few days stated (with their designers and setters and entire entourage in agreement) "the MRB makes the piece flow and highlights the artwork of the setting...you don't just see this big HONKER of a diamond. " TRUE!

5) With an MRB...no setting modifications are necessary. I did get a bit of a tutorial today about diamond setting, making "steps," or little ledges (?) to steady the diamond...I don't know but it seems like the MRB just works. AND I DON'T REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY MUST DO TO PROPERLY SET A MRB...it's TMI for me...I just don't want a $$$$ diamond to fall out!

6) Very important...for whatever reason, several MRBs @ 7.65 mm (+/- ) x 7.70 mm x 5.00 mm, etc fit into the Kithara akin to placing a hand in a glove. The transformation of the entire piece is astonishing because the MRB doesn't overpower the setting...everything seems more balanced and centered...there is flow. The MRB seems to pull the piece together!

7) MRBs are more plentiful and affordable than OECs. Diamond Broker today showed me a D Color...beautiful but a bit too clear for my tastes, a G and an H...both of which looked glorious...almost crystalline...almost like a beautiful clear (dare I say) grayish lake? Everyone said "the diamonds had great fluidity and were liquidy." Everyone also said, "the color and faceting of the MRBs (we tried today) totally pulled the lovely French Cuts into the piece." Never heard the terms liquid and fluid but I like them!

And EVERY bench who looked at the ring over the past few days said "they do not get the 8.1 mm x 8.1 mm x 5.95 mm or 8.0 +/- carat thing at all...we'll be back to square one with girth, height, etc." So, this gets me at an approximate 1.65 ct to 1.75 ct diamond approximately, which is well within my comfort zone! I guess it's the whole MRB thing. Yeahhhhh!!!

So I apologize for the length of this but...what do you all think? The way a MRB solves the problem seems to be overwhelmingly convincing for purchasing one.

I can always troll around for an authentic Antique Cushion Cut RING or beautiful OEC intact RING in the future. I don't see myself doing any more custom projects in the near future. It's proved too stressful, too time consuming, too nerve wracking and too costly for my tastes.

I'll keep everyone posted!!!

Thoughts???

 

[rockysalamander]

What I love is how open your mind is to all ideas. I'm happy I could help. I'm not a designer, but my grandmother was a bespoke jeweler (what used to be called a personal jeweler). I worked with her for over a decade and watched how she went from inspiration to execution. I don't really have the talent to start from nothing like Caysie and others, and I can draw stick figures really well! But, once I have something, I can visually manipulate it. I think being a quilter (and scientist) actually helps quite a bit in analyzing design.

Custom is hard. Period. Full stop. You love your setting. Just focus on that. Whatever lead you to that outcome, you love that setting. That is an achievement.

On your modern round idea, it is actually quite a nice option as you can do well with your budget. I like G/H diamonds in modern rounds. Given that you've had vintage diamonds, I'd look for "chubby arrows" and consider I colors too. I also think you might like 60/60 style diamonds for their greater white light over fire. If you go with a local supplier, use the below as a guide and you will need to get them (or do your own) ASET images. You can buy a handheld kit. If you post your budget for what seems to be a 1.74-1.76 carat MRB, we can have a look for you. Your local may even be able to call the diamonds we find.

Here's my cheat sheet (we all have some version of this) to select.
table: 52-57.5 (but I really prefer under 57)
depth: 60-62.3 {consider 59.5)
crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 crown angle can sometimes work with a 40.6 pav angle)
pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9 (sometimes 41.0 if the crown angle is close to 34)

Then, run those four numbers through the HCA tool and reject anything greater than 2.0 (1.0 not better than 1.9, this is used to simply reject stones). But, if you like 60/60 stones, this tool has some limitations, its requires more of an visual assessment and the Idealscope/ASET. Anything left, that meets your clarity and color needs is worthy of requesting images IS/ASET.

 

[tlfiore]

@rockysalamander I like you a lot, I really do! It must be the artist and scientist in me, too that clicks with you! I an a Neurological & Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner by trade (although I've primarily taught Nursing at college level over the last few years). But I must admit I do have a great eye for design, primarily interior design.

I hear you with the HCA tool and Idealscope/ASET. I was just looking at other new posts about folks with glorious OECs and I sighed... but it's all good. I must say, I've started coveting old Cushions but that's about it...coveting...won't be purchasing one anytime soon.

As an aside, I'm not a huge fan of the AVC or the August OEC. I kinda like things a bit messy and I don't like perfection, especially not in old stuff. The wonkiness of bespoke jewelry is a big part of what I love. But it's all good. Next time perhaps. I must say, the MRB "H" SI that I saw today threw lots of antiquity, if that makes sense. I believe one of the stones I really liked was EGL/USA Graded/Certified.

I know I don't want perfect "Hearts 'n Arrows" or an Ideal Cut...no fluorescence. I definitely do not want a disco-ball look

Does this make sense???

 

[MollyMalone]

Since your local, trusted benches are confident they can seat a MRB of your wished-for dimensions while maintaining the integrity of a setting you love (and your husband also admires greatly, which surely is a special, sweet plus) & because you're delighted by how such MRBs will look with the setting, I say WILD HUZZAHS!!

Re the new stone:
* do you like to see colorful fire? 60/60's do have less of that
* are the MRBs you've seen locally outside the hoped-for budget? I'm thinking that you could continue to de-stress about this project by making your selection from among those at hand, especially since it sounds as if at least one of those MRBs captured your fancy & since you aren't interested in hearts-and-arrows stones or super ideals (which are what are easiest imo to buy online).

(I'm really sorry that you seem to have perceived my comments to nala as also being critical of you; that was the farthest thing from my mind.)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@tlfiore I think the entire problem is that your stone is much larger than the inspiration picture, and you aren't happy with the proportions of that large a stone in that setting. The stone is not set high, it is just a far larger stone than the one in the inspiration ring. Larger stones have greater depth. It is going to sit higher than a stone that's 2 cts or 1.5 cts. The setting is beautiful and perfectly scaled for the size of the diamond. What I think you really want after reading all your posts is a much smaller diamond, and I think you MAY want the setting remade to the scale of a smaller diamond (but that would be at your expense because the current ring was designed and made for the scale of large stone you provided). You call the current diamond a muffin top, but I believe what you're really saying is that you just don't like the size of the stone in the setting, because others have pointed out that the current stone doesn't particularly have a high crown which is kind of what I originally thought you meant when you said muffin top. I am not sure an 8.1mm stone is going to necessarily solve this problem. I surely would order an 8mm cz and look at that awhile sitting in the setting before you invest in another diamond.

I thought @MollyMalone was very helpful and certainly supportive of the OP and was listening to all she said!

I will have to kind of laugh about the comments on the milgrain, because tlfiore has said that she loves the workmanship on the setting and is so happy she had the milgrain added. And having just received my third CVB ring, I can attest to the very fine migrain on her pieces. I seriously wouldn't be a repeat customer if the workmanship was not high quality.