Radiant comparison from JA... thoughts appreciated

[psumz3]

Date: 6/15/2009 8:35:38 PM
Author: Ellen

Date: 6/15/2009 8:07:41 PM

Author: psumz3



While I''m waiting for the IS images to come back on the stones, does anyone have any recommendations on this?

Are you wanting to get a setting from JA in particular, or just where ever you find the one you like? Are you wanting any melee, or just plain? Can you give us an idea of what she likes? Budget?


There are tons of well made 4 prong settings, so we need to narrow it down a bit!

Hi Ellen,
I guess preferably I would like to keep it with JA, just for convenience sake. I think that simple definitely works-- a wider plain platinum band, or with a few channel sets on either side. I was planning ~1k for budget. I''ll post two from JA, then another band she found a long while back on Adiamor...

 

[psumz3]

Another through JA...

 

[psumz3]

This is the one she found a while back on Adiamor...

 

[Lorelei]

I like the first JA setting best.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 6/15/2009 10:19:39 PM
Author: psumz3

This is the one she found a while back on Adiamor...

This one would definitely make the stone "pop" more with the tapered band. Has she seen any like the other two you have picked, to know if she''d like them also? I just think it''s always safer to go with something the lady has expressed interest in.

 

[psumz3]

Date: 6/16/2009 6:54:06 AM
Author: Ellen

Date: 6/15/2009 10:19:39 PM

Author: psumz3


This is the one she found a while back on Adiamor...

This one would definitely make the stone ''pop'' more with the tapered band. Has she seen any like the other two you have picked, to know if she''d like them also? I just think it''s always safer to go with something the lady has expressed interest in.

I agree on the ''pop'' with the tapered band... however I''m not quite sure of the quality with them, and haven''t yet run across anything similar. She has seen comparable to the other bands I posted from JA (and probably even looked at the same ones), and has stated the simpler the better

 

[psumz3]

Sooo... my sales rep. at JA just emailed me back-- for some reason none of the three I requested IS images for are available... not sure what that is about. He asked for my specs. to find some comparables, here is what I gave him:

Radiant cut, 0.70 to 0.85ct, rectangular in shape (LW Ratio ~ 1.20) D-F color, VVS1 - SI1 clarity, Ideal or Premium cut

That would be a cruel twist of fate if all three are sold

 

[Ellen]

Well that''s a bummer. I hope one of them or something else (better) pops up.

 

[psumz3]

Date: 6/16/2009 8:05:33 PM
Author: Ellen
Well that''s a bummer. I hope one of them or something else (better) pops up.

You''re telling me! My rep. told me all three did indeed sell... he was going to continue his search, and he mentioned something about forwarding my request on to Jim Schultz directly to lend some assistance to the search.

 

[Ellen]

Hopefully Jim can find you something. If nothing pops up in a day or two, I''d try otrher vendors as well.

 

[psumz3]

Great news! -- apparently there was a system glitch, and the three diamonds I requested were still available! I have them on hold now, and will have some IS images to post soon...

 

[Ellen]

I was wondering how they could have 3 stones up that had all been sold.... good news!

 

[psumz3]

Okay... so here are the IS images back from the dealer... opinions please!

#1

 

[psumz3]

#2

 

[psumz3]

#3

 

[Lorelei]

#1 and #2 look good.

 

[psumz3]

Date: 6/19/2009 1:58:48 PM
Author: Lorelei
#1 and #2 look good.

Hi Lorelei-- any pros/cons you may see amongst the two??

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/19/2009 2:00:26 PM
Author: psumz3

Date: 6/19/2009 1:58:48 PM
Author: Lorelei
#1 and #2 look good.

Hi Lorelei-- any pros/cons you may see amongst the two??

Hiya psum!

They both look good, what I would do next assuming you have both on hold, is to ask for their gemologist Julianna to inspect both for you and to give you an idea of which might be best. That way she can give you an idea of their visual performances, nuances and personality. Which do you prefer?

 

[psumz3]

Date: 6/19/2009 2:26:13 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 6/19/2009 2:00:26 PM

Author: psumz3

Date: 6/19/2009 1:58:48 PM

Author: Lorelei

#1 and #2 look good.

Hi Lorelei-- any pros/cons you may see amongst the two??

Hiya psum!


They both look good, what I would do next assuming you have both on hold, is to ask for their gemologist Julianna to inspect both for you and to give you an idea of which might be best. That way she can give you an idea of their visual performances, nuances and personality.

I do have all 3 on hold actually, although I don''t know what kind of time frame I have? I can request for Julianna to have a look at them both, however should I specify anything in particular?? It seems they are only ~$200 or so in price difference, with obviously only a 0.05 ct difference...

 

[psumz3]

Here''s the direct comparison chart between the two... there are slight tradeoffs either way...

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/19/2009 2:39:24 PM
Author: psumz3
Here's the direct comparison chart between the two... there are slight tradeoffs either way...

Thanks for bumping the chart, that helps!

I think my choice would be for the first one, the table is less than the depth which is preferable, the polish and symmetry differences are not something you would notice with the naked untrained eye, the second one might look a little bigger than the first. You won't notice any difference between E and F colour, also they both have very high clarity. If you wished you could lower it a bit but finding well cut radiants is enough of a challenge so if it was me I wouldn't worry too much unless you were prepared to keep looking to find one of lower clarity. Colour, radiants can show more warmth than other shapes so unless you have viewed some in person I wouldn't go lower than H colour anyway.

 

[psumz3]

Date: 6/19/2009 2:41:31 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 6/19/2009 2:39:24 PM

Author: psumz3

Here's the direct comparison chart between the two... there are slight tradeoffs either way...

Thanks for bumping the chart, that helps!


I think my choice would be for the first one, the table is less than the depth which is preferable, the polish and symmetry differences are not something you would notice with the naked untrained eye.

I have read this about the table being smaller being preferred... and am assuming the difference between VVS1 and VVS2, and E-F color is pretty negligible...

What about other specs. to reference-- such as crown, pavilion, etc?

Maybe ask for other shots of each of the two in question??

**OOPS... you beat me to it! You're quick!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/19/2009 2:46:00 PM
Author: psumz3

Date: 6/19/2009 2:41:31 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 6/19/2009 2:39:24 PM

Author: psumz3

Here''s the direct comparison chart between the two... there are slight tradeoffs either way...

Thanks for bumping the chart, that helps!


I think my choice would be for the first one, the table is less than the depth which is preferable, the polish and symmetry differences are not something you would notice with the naked untrained eye.

I have read this about the table being smaller being preferred... and am assuming the difference between VVS1 and VVS2, and E-F color is pretty negligible...

What about other specs. to reference-- such as crown, pavilion, etc?

Maybe ask for other shots of each of the two in question??

I have edited since you posted this so check my post above for further thoughts! The crown height would be useful on both if you could ask them to get a Sarin report on each. Crown and pavilion angles pertain to rounds, not in fancy shapes so much at the level we normally get into here when advising.

You could certainly ask JA for more shots of these 2, I asked this for another poster earlier and apparently the answer was no, but you can certainly ask them. So see if you can get the crown heights as that would be helpful.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/19/2009 2:46:00 PM
Author: psumz3

Date: 6/19/2009 2:41:31 PM
Author: Lorelei

Date: 6/19/2009 2:39:24 PM

Author: psumz3

Here''s the direct comparison chart between the two... there are slight tradeoffs either way...

Thanks for bumping the chart, that helps!


I think my choice would be for the first one, the table is less than the depth which is preferable, the polish and symmetry differences are not something you would notice with the naked untrained eye.

I have read this about the table being smaller being preferred... and am assuming the difference between VVS1 and VVS2, and E-F color is pretty negligible...

What about other specs. to reference-- such as crown, pavilion, etc?

Maybe ask for other shots of each of the two in question??

**OOPS... you beat me to it! You''re quick!

 

[psumz3]

Okay, crown height via Sarin it is!! I don't know that more shots will necessarily help, as I've read countless times you need to see them for yourself, so I will probably bag that request.

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/19/2009 2:57:46 PM
Author: psumz3

Okay, crown height via Sarin it is!! I don''t know that more shots will necessarily help, as I''ve read countless times you need to see them for yourself, so I will probably bag that request.

No probs! Crown height will be good to know so if you could get that it would be useful!

 

[psumz3]

Darin told me he can hold them until EOD Monday... hopefully I will have the info soon!

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/19/2009 3:10:53 PM
Author: psumz3
Darin told me he can hold them until EOD Monday... hopefully I will have the info soon!

Excellent!

 

[psumz3]

I noticed on the GIA reports, for the 0.77ct stone, ''pinpoint'' is listed under the clarity characteristics, while on the 0.82ct stone, ''feather, pinpoint'' is listed...

 

[Lorelei]

Date: 6/19/2009 3:42:52 PM
Author: psumz3
I noticed on the GIA reports, for the 0.77ct stone, 'pinpoint' is listed under the clarity characteristics, while on the 0.82ct stone, 'feather, pinpoint' is listed...

Not an issue in VVS, no worries! These inclusions will be minuscule.