- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
nothing is more important then diamonds,nothing!!
PS''ers with big diamonds... DSS?
- Thread starter Maisie
- Start date
- Status
plethora23
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2001
- Messages
- 210
I totally agree!
butterfly 17
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2005
- Messages
- 2,681
Okay, to clarify, I went to drool over that 3 carat J and while I was there I found a 2.417 H VS2 ACA that cost a very very very small amount more than what I paid for my 2.38 H VS2 GIA certed virtual diamond.
Again, I am very very happy with my diamond size, the only regret I ever had was that I had to trade in my ACA for a non ACA stone, even though it displays amazing arrows, it''s not a true H&A stone.
So, I quickly called James at WF and inquired about the stone and found out the price difference was really tiny and the stones have basically identical diameters and both are H VS2.
So, I figured why not pay a little more and get an ACA?
Also, the ACA has the number 17 in it''s weight and in it''s AGS cert. number, and that is my favorite number.
So, I really want to thank Mara so much because if she hadn''t posted about drooling about that 3 carat, I would never ever have found this new stone!
Again, I am very very happy with my diamond size, the only regret I ever had was that I had to trade in my ACA for a non ACA stone, even though it displays amazing arrows, it''s not a true H&A stone.
So, I quickly called James at WF and inquired about the stone and found out the price difference was really tiny and the stones have basically identical diameters and both are H VS2.
So, I figured why not pay a little more and get an ACA?
Also, the ACA has the number 17 in it''s weight and in it''s AGS cert. number, and that is my favorite number.
So, I really want to thank Mara so much because if she hadn''t posted about drooling about that 3 carat, I would never ever have found this new stone!
Feralpenchant
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2009
- Messages
- 427
Date: 4/10/2009 9:20:18 PM
Author: DiamanteBlu
Date: 4/10/2009 7:46:07 PM
Author:Maisie
If you have a diamond over 2cts do you still get DSS? It seems that a diamond that size would be huge but I am now worried that it will hit me.. if I ever get a huge diamond of course.Where does it end?
I have not yet found where it ends so I am not sure that it does! My stones look small to average to me [6.39 and 6.89 carats!] when I wear them. They look big but not huge to me when others try them on. Go figure!
WOW!! I don''t think I''ll ever contract DSS. I simply will never have that much money!
Your diamonds are so gorgeous, DiamanteBlu! I''ll take em off your hands if they''re too small for ya!
I started having DSS after 3 days of wearing my 3.07 square radiant.
But then it comes & goes. It looks bigger from afar than me looking at it within an arm length. Also, it always look bigger in pictures.
In terms of shapes, round will always look bigger. Also fancys like assher, emerald, radiant, need deeper depth - so more weight is hidden underneath. I probably will never trader up but I might reset it into a halo to make it look bigger, but then I''m afraid the halo will take away the brilliance of the center stone. So I''m happy with it right now.
I''ve tried on a good share of rings during my search back in the days. In the picture below, from L to R, top row to bottom row:
3.22ct rectangular radiant, friend''s 2.96ct cushion, my 3.07ct square radiant, 3.02ct asscher, 3.03ct cushion, 2.76ct round.
Adjusted for zoom scale, lighting and all, I think it''s easy to see:
1. Rectangular shape will look bigger than square (that 3.22 costs less than my 3.07... )
2. Hold wt constant, round will always look bigger (not sure about pear & heart though)
3. Asscher looks the smallest
Where does it end? I don''t know. I think people just get used to staring at something. Not just rings, but paintings, cars, rooms, houses...?
In terms of shapes, round will always look bigger. Also fancys like assher, emerald, radiant, need deeper depth - so more weight is hidden underneath. I probably will never trader up but I might reset it into a halo to make it look bigger, but then I''m afraid the halo will take away the brilliance of the center stone. So I''m happy with it right now.
I''ve tried on a good share of rings during my search back in the days. In the picture below, from L to R, top row to bottom row:
3.22ct rectangular radiant, friend''s 2.96ct cushion, my 3.07ct square radiant, 3.02ct asscher, 3.03ct cushion, 2.76ct round.
Adjusted for zoom scale, lighting and all, I think it''s easy to see:
1. Rectangular shape will look bigger than square (that 3.22 costs less than my 3.07... )
2. Hold wt constant, round will always look bigger (not sure about pear & heart though)
3. Asscher looks the smallest
Where does it end? I don''t know. I think people just get used to staring at something. Not just rings, but paintings, cars, rooms, houses...?
rosy.jilson
Rough_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2009
- Messages
- 15
What is DSS?
Never heard of it...
Never heard of it...
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 33,852
when men comes out from the swimming pool.
Rosy, DSS is a pricescope posters' coined term, short for "Diamond Shrinkage Syndrome." It refers to the idea that a diamond seems to be shrinking as time goes on (ie. the wearer is getting more used to the size the longer they've had it)
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Date: 4/14/2009 12:03:37 PM
Author: Dancing Fire
boy O boy...aren''t you on the wrong forum?Date: 4/14/2009 11:04:45 AM
Author: Phoenix
Actually, I DO know. It''s living in HK and SG. You see people with big diamonds all the time, esp if you go down to the main shopping areas.
If I''d stayed in the UK, I''m sure I wouldn''t have DSS. I didn''t even wear any jewellery (except for my Rolex watch, which I already felt so decadent about) when I was living there. Most people in the UK wear less than 1ct for their engagement rings. I''m sure your beautiful new ring gets lots of attention all the time, Maisie.
Incidentally, hubby wants me to join Diamond Anomymous!. I wonder if one even exists (?).
I''m working my way backwards through this thread...
Phoenix, when I finally caught up on the news that you were wanting to upgrade your 3c RB (presumably the one in your avatar?) I felt sad. I don''t know the stats, but your av is sooo breath-takingly elegant, tbh it''s actually given me a respect and interest in large stones that I just didn''t have before.
To trade in for size, at the expense of high quality state (and I know that PS is all about the trade-off, so bear with me) just seems like ... a determination to date the meat-head at high school, just because he is tall...or because the other girls like him
hm, maybe I''m being clumsy in my turn of phrase...
face it girl, you are addicted!
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Date: 4/12/2009 9:53:43 PM
Author: Beacon
Mine is 2.57 and it didn''t seem huge to me - at all.
So I reset with a halo and split shank. Bingo!That was what it needed. Now I adore the size and do not want a bigger one. The reset had the effect of providing the millimeter size I found most pleasing on my hand as well as a more interesting setting that makes me look at it from many angles. Before I had a basic six prong solitaire and frankly I think it could have been 4 carats and would not have done the trick.
The reset was not cheap but I figure we saved thousands by eliminating an upgrade and got me out of the never-never land of DSS.
I think I''m going to go for two matching wedder / eternity diamond bands (not eternity as in all the way around, but 5-stone or 7-stone) that ''cuddle'' the solitaire stone, to form a shape similar to those old fashioned ''flower'' style diamond rings with the large centre, and the petals around the outside.
Kinda like a halo you have when you''re not having a halo... that''s for my next big project (read, ''in the year 2014'' !!)
Although, at this stage of my journey, Beacon, 2.57 seems amazingly HUGE to me!
iluvcarats
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2008
- Messages
- 2,859
I can honestly say there is no dss here.
My 2.44 is by no means the biggest around, but it is more than big enough for me.
When I don''t wear it for a while, and then I put it back on I think "Wow, that''s crazy!"
Maybe due to of my munchkin hands
My 2.44 is by no means the biggest around, but it is more than big enough for me.
When I don''t wear it for a while, and then I put it back on I think "Wow, that''s crazy!"
Maybe due to of my munchkin hands
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
I must be the only person on PS who thinks these ''rules'' are kinda cool, on an intellectual level at least...
And does bracelet weight equal total carat weight?
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Date: 4/20/2009 12:42:34 PM
Author: iluvcarats
I can honestly say there is no dss here.
My 2.44 is by no means the biggest around, but it is more than big enough for me.
When I don't wear it for a while, and then I put it back on I think 'Wow, that's crazy!'
Maybe due to of my munchkin hands
Naah mate, where I live, 2.44 IS crazy!!!
Interesting comparison shot, thanks for posting that!!Date: 4/17/2009 4:04:26 PM
Author: elzny
I''ve tried on a good share of rings during my search back in the days. In the picture below, from L to R, top row to bottom row:
3.22ct rectangular radiant, friend''s 2.96ct cushion, my 3.07ct square radiant, 3.02ct asscher, 3.03ct cushion, 2.76ct round.
Adjusted for zoom scale, lighting and all, I think it''s easy to see:
1. Rectangular shape will look bigger than square (that 3.22 costs less than my 3.07... )
2. Hold wt constant, round will always look bigger (not sure about pear & heart though)
3. Asscher looks the smallest
It''s interesting how small the asscher looks. Strange, it doesn''t look much bigger than my asscher, which is a bit more than a carat smaller.
Clairitek
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2008
- Messages
- 4,881
I only have 1.06 square cushion but I definitely have days when I think its much bigger and days when I am longing for an RB because I know that one of the same price range of my cushion would cover much more finger.
Oddly, the days that my fingers are the smallest (when its really cold out) my diamond looks the smallest to me. Days when my finger is swollen to fill the whole diameter of the ring are the ones when it seems larger.
Has anyone else noticed that their ring looks much bigger when they see it in a mirror? When I am in a store trying on clothes and I catch a glimpse of my ring in the mirror it always seems bigger to me.
Oddly, the days that my fingers are the smallest (when its really cold out) my diamond looks the smallest to me. Days when my finger is swollen to fill the whole diameter of the ring are the ones when it seems larger.
Has anyone else noticed that their ring looks much bigger when they see it in a mirror? When I am in a store trying on clothes and I catch a glimpse of my ring in the mirror it always seems bigger to me.
bebe
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,845
whoa, that rect radiant looks a lot larger than the 3+cts. it is. Looks like a 6ct. compared to my 4.26!!Date: 4/20/2009 2:41:10 PM
Author: musey
Interesting comparison shot, thanks for posting that!!Date: 4/17/2009 4:04:26 PM
Author: elzny
I''ve tried on a good share of rings during my search back in the days. In the picture below, from L to R, top row to bottom row:
3.22ct rectangular radiant, friend''s 2.96ct cushion, my 3.07ct square radiant, 3.02ct asscher, 3.03ct cushion, 2.76ct round.
Adjusted for zoom scale, lighting and all, I think it''s easy to see:
1. Rectangular shape will look bigger than square (that 3.22 costs less than my 3.07... )
2. Hold wt constant, round will always look bigger (not sure about pear & heart though)
3. Asscher looks the smallest
It''s interesting how small the asscher looks. Strange, it doesn''t look much bigger than my asscher, which is a bit more than a carat smaller.
LadyBlue
Brilliant_Rock
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,616
Date: 4/20/2009 2:41:10 PM
Author: musey
Date: 4/17/2009 4:04:26 PM
Author: elzny
I''ve tried on a good share of rings during my search back in the days. In the picture below, from L to R, top row to bottom row:
3.22ct rectangular radiant, friend''s 2.96ct cushion, my 3.07ct square radiant, 3.02ct asscher, 3.03ct cushion, 2.76ct round.
Adjusted for zoom scale, lighting and all, I think it''s easy to see:
1. Rectangular shape will look bigger than square (that 3.22 costs less than my 3.07... )
2. Hold wt constant, round will always look bigger (not sure about pear & heart though)
3. Asscher looks the smallest
Interesting comparison shot, thanks for posting that!!
It''s interesting how small the asscher looks. Strange, it doesn''t look much bigger than my asscher, which is a bit more than a carat smaller.
I really like the cushion one, my hubby was into the asscher cut, It was going to be 2.5 cts, but I after I went to try some rings, the lady show me a round and an asscher, and I could not manage how small looks the asscher vs the round.
Musey - glad you enjoyed the pix! 
bebe - the 3.22 rec rd one, if I recall correctly, has a table of >70% & was a shallow cut, that''s why we didn''t choose it. It didn''t bling as much as my square one. It does look very big though I have to say.
Gaby - which cushion you like better - the more oval one or the more square one? When I was searching, I only knew I didn''t want round or princess, so I looked at a lot of fancies. Asscher needs more depth for the step cuts, usually it''s around 75% depth!! so a lot of weight is hidden underneath. Round is ideally 57%. 2.5ct round will look much much bigger than a 2.5 asscher, but you will pay much more for that round too - cause what they charge you partially is also determined by the rough required to yield a 2.5 round. They will have to grind off more rough for a round...
Check out my ring against a 4ct round with strong fluorescence. I think this must be a bad cut round, cause it doesn''t look that much bigger...
bebe - the 3.22 rec rd one, if I recall correctly, has a table of >70% & was a shallow cut, that''s why we didn''t choose it. It didn''t bling as much as my square one. It does look very big though I have to say.
Gaby - which cushion you like better - the more oval one or the more square one? When I was searching, I only knew I didn''t want round or princess, so I looked at a lot of fancies. Asscher needs more depth for the step cuts, usually it''s around 75% depth!! so a lot of weight is hidden underneath. Round is ideally 57%. 2.5ct round will look much much bigger than a 2.5 asscher, but you will pay much more for that round too - cause what they charge you partially is also determined by the rough required to yield a 2.5 round. They will have to grind off more rough for a round...
Check out my ring against a 4ct round with strong fluorescence. I think this must be a bad cut round, cause it doesn''t look that much bigger...
AmberGretchen
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,770
elzny these shots are so cool - what a great perspective on what different cuts of similar sizes look like. Your friends have lovely taste, BTW
And I love your stone - that crushed ice look is beautiful
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
Oh that 4ct RB looks delish!!
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2006
- Messages
- 9,975
It certainly does, doesn't it!?Date: 4/23/2009 4:01:47 AM
Author: LaraOnline
Oh that 4ct RB looks delish!!
How are you, my dear? You're about to give birth very soon, are you not?
(LOVE the new avatar, btw. What a bunch of cuties you are
LaraOnline
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2008
- Messages
- 3,365
See what a bad influence you''ve been on me, Phoenix?
Can you tell that it''s my little BOY in the purple tutu?
That photo is about a week old...thought I''d better get one while I still had the lump!
Can you tell that it''s my little BOY in the purple tutu?
That photo is about a week old...thought I''d better get one while I still had the lump!
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2006
- Messages
- 9,975
Date: 4/23/2009 10:15:35 AM
Author: LaraOnline
See what a bad influence you've been on me, Phoenix?
He he!!
Can you tell that it's my little BOY in the purple tutu? He's soooo cute!!
That photo is about a week old...thought I'd better get one while I still had the lump!
Thanks AG!! Glad you enjoyed them. It''s so interesting to see different shapes... I definitely had a lot fun trying them on.Date: 4/22/2009 11:11:56 PM
Author: AmberGretchen
elzny these shots are so cool - what a great perspective on what different cuts of similar sizes look like. Your friends have lovely taste, BTWAnd I love your stone - that crushed ice look is beautiful
Mine is not as crushed as some of the Grossbard''s ORC. Check this one out - my friend was trying on one of those. But mine sparkles like crazy so I''m happy with that!
plethora23
Shiny_Rock
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2001
- Messages
- 210
Well that is one super thick halo! I still think yours looks bigger though
- Status
300x240.png)