Ring upgrade continued... more diamond sizes!

[Happytobemrsg]

Hello everyone

I would REALLY love to hear your opinions on what diamond size you think is best.

This is the original thread: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ring-upgrade-please-help-with-new-diamond-size.242125/

As a quick recap: we are remaking my ER - it will have the same fundamental design (platinum, RB diamond, tapered diamond-set shoulders, milgrain). New ER will have 6 prongs, bigger centre stone.

As promised I have gone back to my jeweller & looked at other diamond sizes (stuck on top of my current ring with bluetac )

Original ring with 0.30ct centre diamond (size 2.5 finger). I'm in the UK so this is actually one of the biggest in my social circle & the largest in my immediate family:



This is the 0.80ct from last time. As expected this now looks too small to me


This the 0.91ct. I think this is it! I know a lot of people think bigger is better but I usually wear quite dainty jewellery & this felt right to me. It's still as sizeable jump from my current stone. What do you think?



Here is the 1ct for comparison. It still looks good on my finger (& yes the snob in me would love to be able to say "it's a carat") but it didn't make my stomach flip like the 0.91ct. It's important to me that the larger stone doesn't overwhelm my wedding band as well as be too blingy (just not my taste, my daily necklace is a tiny DBTY for example). This diamond would also take us £1500 over budget.


I would REALLY love to hear your opinions!!

 

[soxfan]

.91

 

[kindred]

I think any of them would be good. I want your size 2.5 finger! I am like an 8.5!

 

[LittleRed]

So much fun! Clearly it must be the .91. It looks beautiful on you, it’s not too blingy, and it makes your stomach flip. I too wear more dainty jewelry. This would certainly work with dainty but will add just enough pizzazz.

 

[chanieish]

Both 0.91 and 1 ct stones look amazing on your finger. But if the 0.91 make your heart sing, go with that one!

Also very jealous of your slender 2.5 finger! Doing some finger sit ups now!

 

[sledge]

Yeah, 0.91 all the way -- you said the magic words, "it makes your stomach flip". It doesn't matter the color, cut, clarity or cost. Those words from a girl mean everything and is a sign it's the right thing.

I might add it's a very wise choice too. It's commonly known there is a hefty premium associated with buying stones at magical weights like 1ct, 1.5ct, 2ct, etc. Also, the market is saturated with people who would prefer to buy diamond rough and cut diamonds steep & deep to hit these magic marks to increase their profit levels, which results in a higher ratio of badly cut stones in magic weights than stones that are either slightly above or below the magic weights. Of course, a good trusted supplier will finely cut whatever the numbers, but not everyone holds those same ethical values.

This isn't to imply weight has any bearing on cut quality, just to make you aware there is greed associated with meeting magic weights. Whatever size you buy, make sure you do your homework. Review the angles, check the HCA score, request light performance images (ASET & idealscope) and symmetry images (hearts & arrows). Also, carefully review certs for inclusion types and review videos and still images of the diamond itself.

If you need any additional help reviewing, we are here. Good luck!

 

[soxfan]

Size 2.5???? Damn. I thought I had small fingers.

 

[Happytobemrsg]

So much fun! Clearly it must be the .91. It looks beautiful on you, it’s not too blingy, and it makes your stomach flip. I too wear more dainty jewelry. This would certainly work with dainty but will add just enough pizzazz.

Yes! That's exactly what I'm looking for - dainty with some pizzazz!!!

Both 0.91 and 1 ct stones look amazing on your finger. But if the 0.91 make your heart sing, go with that one!

Also very jealous of your slender 2.5 finger! Doing some finger sit ups now!

DH thinks my skinny fingers are great - he can save a fortune on diamonds!

Yeah, 0.91 all the way -- you said the magic words, "it makes your stomach flip". It doesn't matter the color, cut, clarity or cost. Those words from a girl mean everything and is a sign it's the right thing.

I might add it's a very wise choice too. It's commonly known there is a hefty premium associated with buying stones at magical weights like 1ct, 1.5ct, 2ct, etc. Also, the market is saturated with people who would prefer to buy diamond rough and cut diamonds steep & deep to hit these magic marks to increase their profit levels, which results in a higher ratio of badly cut stones in magic weights than stones that are either slightly above or below the magic weights. Of course, a good trusted supplier will finely cut whatever the numbers, but not everyone holds those same ethical values.

This isn't to imply weight has any bearing on cut quality, just to make you aware there is greed associated with meeting magic weights. Whatever size you buy, make sure you do your homework. Review the angles, check the HCA score, request light performance images (ASET & idealscope) and symmetry images (hearts & arrows). Also, carefully review certs for inclusion types and review videos and still images of the diamond itself.

If you need any additional help reviewing, we are here. Good luck!

Yes I thought about avoiding 1ct exactly. I'm worried I will regret not getting the 1ct just because it's "bigger" when I think in my heart the 0.91ct suits ME better

 

[OoohShiny]

While caution is needed re: future DSS 0.91 would look as big as a carat to Jo(e) Public, so if you think it's The One, and it has good HCA / angles, go for it

 

[Happytobemrsg]

Here's a pic of my current set & the 0.91ct. I do love a good comparison photo

 

[OboeGal]

You have such lovely hands! I'm like you in that I prefer daintier, more understated jewelry. In just my personal opinion, both the 0.80 and the 0.91 are beautiful in proportion to your hands and your set, without being overwhelming. (I think your original stone is a nice size on you as well.) Personally, to my eye, the 1.00 starts to look a little overwhelming. And previous commenters have made good points about the sometimes pitfalls of stones at the "magic numbers". It sounds like your heart knows which way to go!

 

[kindred]

Wow, what a difference in the side by side comparison!

Edit - Also, my pinkie finger is jealous of your ring finger.

 

[Happytobemrsg]

While caution is needed re: future DSS 0.91 would look as big as a carat to Jo(e) Public, so if you think it's The One, and it has good HCA / angles, go for it

I'm definitely worried about DSS! I had a look a diamond coverage chart I found online & I think my finger size means I'll get pretty good finger coverage. It'll look much bigger than it actually is.

 

[Happytobemrsg]

You have such lovely hands! I'm like you in that I prefer daintier, more understated jewelry. In just my personal opinion, both the 0.80 and the 0.91 are beautiful in proportion to your hands and your set, without being overwhelming. (I think your original stone is a nice size on you as well.) Personally, to my eye, the 1.00 starts to look a little overwhelming. And previous commenters have made good points about the sometimes pitfalls of stones at the "magic numbers". It sounds like your heart knows which way to go!

Oh thank you! I've always been self-conscious about my skinny fingers! I think I like the 1ct simply because I would be able to say "it's a carat" when in reality a smaller stone suits me better. I don't like how the 1ct hides my wedding ring a little. I think it overwhelms it a bit

 

[ohsomethingshiny]

.91 is THE ONE! Definitely. If your heart is drawn to it, there is a connection. That’s YOUR stone.

 

[Weecam]

Wow I thought my 4.5 finger was small!!

I love the .91 on your finger!

 

[RayRay]

Love the .91!

 

[foxinsox]

It’s gotta be the .91 - you love how it looks. If you want to say it’s a carat, pretend you’re using Swedish rounding or something. No one will ever check up on and get calipers out to check

 

[OoohShiny]

I'm definitely worried about DSS! I had a look a diamond coverage chart I found online & I think my finger size means I'll get pretty good finger coverage. It'll look much bigger than it actually is.

I think the only thing to check would be size when at the level of the setting - the stone being lifted off the finger by the original setting + BluTac might mean it looks larger face-on than it will when set, if you know what I mean?

Do they have a similar setting to yours that you could try on 'empty' and rest the stones in to check?

Ooh, and did you get the GIA grading report numbers to check all is good? (Can't remember if you've already said!)

 

[Happytobemrsg]

I think the only thing to check would be size when at the level of the setting - the stone being lifted off the finger by the original setting + BluTac might mean it looks larger face-on than it will when set, if you know what I mean?

Do they have a similar setting to yours that you could try on 'empty' and rest the stones in to check?

Ooh, and did you get the GIA grading report numbers to check all is good? (Can't remember if you've already said!)

I've emailed my jeweller & asked for a copy of the GIA certificate. I will report back!

 

[ringo865]

The .91 makes your stomech flip AND doesn't go over budget.

Plus .91 is barely "dainty" esp on a size 2.5 - looks like a 1.5 on you.

It's lovely ... and in budget ... and you love it. Buy it quick before someone else does

 

[yssie]

The 0.91 is gorgeous on you so is your original!

I have to be honest - I don’t love the 1ct. It’s larger, but it covers too much of your band! The band design is very visible still face-up under the 0.91

 

[AnastasiaBeaverhausen]

The 0.91 is gorgeous on you so is your original!

I have to be honest - I don’t love the 1ct. It’s larger, but it covers too much of your band! The band design is very visible still face-up under the 0.91

MTE. The 1ct practically covers the entire width of your band. My vote is for the 0.91ct too.

@Happytobemrsg With the being able to say "It's a carat" thing, I've had a couple people ask me if it's a carat. I actually like telling them nope, my diamond is actually (much) smaller!

 

[Happytobemrsg]

The .91 makes your stomech flip AND doesn't go over budget.

Plus .91 is barely "dainty" esp on a size 2.5 - looks like a 1.5 on you.

It's lovely ... and in budget ... and you love it. Buy it quick before someone else does

I know!! I've emailed the jeweller for the GIA certificate but if everything is good I will put down a deposit this week!! The thought of it looking like a 1.5ct will make my husband very happy!!

The 0.91 is gorgeous on you so is your original!

I have to be honest - I don’t love the 1ct. It’s larger, but it covers too much of your band! The band design is very visible still face-up under the 0.91

I completely agree with you. The more I think about it the more I feel the 1ct is too large - I want it to compliment my wedding ring not overshadow it.

MTE. The 1ct practically covers the entire width of your band. My vote is for the 0.91ct too.

@Happytobemrsg With the being able to say "It's a carat" thing, I've had a couple people ask me if it's a carat. I actually like telling them nope, my diamond is actually (much) smaller!

I think it'll be about 1ct if you include all the side stones so I must just say it's a carat anyway

 

[Happytobemrsg]

Yeah, 0.91 all the way -- you said the magic words, "it makes your stomach flip". It doesn't matter the color, cut, clarity or cost. Those words from a girl mean everything and is a sign it's the right thing.

I might add it's a very wise choice too. It's commonly known there is a hefty premium associated with buying stones at magical weights like 1ct, 1.5ct, 2ct, etc. Also, the market is saturated with people who would prefer to buy diamond rough and cut diamonds steep & deep to hit these magic marks to increase their profit levels, which results in a higher ratio of badly cut stones in magic weights than stones that are either slightly above or below the magic weights. Of course, a good trusted supplier will finely cut whatever the numbers, but not everyone holds those same ethical values.

This isn't to imply weight has any bearing on cut quality, just to make you aware there is greed associated with meeting magic weights. Whatever size you buy, make sure you do your homework. Review the angles, check the HCA score, request light performance images (ASET & idealscope) and symmetry images (hearts & arrows). Also, carefully review certs for inclusion types and review videos and still images of the diamond itself.

If you need any additional help reviewing, we are here. Good luck!

I think the only thing to check would be size when at the level of the setting - the stone being lifted off the finger by the original setting + BluTac might mean it looks larger face-on than it will when set, if you know what I mean?

Do they have a similar setting to yours that you could try on 'empty' and rest the stones in to check?

Ooh, and did you get the GIA grading report numbers to check all is good? (Can't remember if you've already said!)

Here is the GIA report. I put the numbers into the HCA calculator & I think it came out ok. What do you think??

 

[purplesilk]

table 61% isn't good, you'd better skip this diamond.

 

[purplesilk]

Copy and paste:
depth - 60 - 62% - although my personal preference is to allow up to 62.4% - don''t go too far past this or you can lose face up size and the diamond will look small for the weight.
table - 54- 57%
crown angle - 34- 35 degrees
pavilion angle - 40.6- 41 degrees
girdle - avoid extremes, look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium etc
polish and symmetry - very good and above
From expert John Pollard.

"As the above implies, configurations depend on each other. A little give here can still work with a little take there.

With that said, here''s a "Cliff''s Notes" for staying near Tolkowsky/ideal angles with GIA reports (their numbers are rounded): A crown angle of 34.0, 34.5 or 35.0 is usually safe with a 40.8 pavilion angle. If pavilion angle = 40.6 lean toward a 34.5-35.0 crown. If pavilion angle = 41 lean toward a 34.0-34.5 crown.

GIA "EX" in cut is great at its heart, but it ranges a bit wider than some people prefer, particularly in deep combinations (pavilion > 41 with crown > 35).

 

[kgizo]

Another vote for the .91.

 

[LittleRed]

Copy and paste:
depth - 60 - 62% - although my personal preference is to allow up to 62.4% - don''t go too far past this or you can lose face up size and the diamond will look small for the weight.
table - 54- 57%
crown angle - 34- 35 degrees
pavilion angle - 40.6- 41 degrees
girdle - avoid extremes, look for thin to slightly thick, thin to medium etc
polish and symmetry - very good and above
From expert John Pollard.

"As the above implies, configurations depend on each other. A little give here can still work with a little take there.

With that said, here''s a "Cliff''s Notes" for staying near Tolkowsky/ideal angles with GIA reports (their numbers are rounded): A crown angle of 34.0, 34.5 or 35.0 is usually safe with a 40.8 pavilion angle. If pavilion angle = 40.6 lean toward a 34.5-35.0 crown. If pavilion angle = 41 lean toward a 34.0-34.5 crown.

GIA "EX" in cut is great at its heart, but it ranges a bit wider than some people prefer, particularly in deep combinations (pavilion > 41 with crown > 35).

I have a minor thread jack here:
I’ve seen these numbers/percents many times, but is there somewhere that explains what happens to the diamond when it falls short or excesses the desired parameters?

 

[purplesilk]

@LittleRed : a diamond with big table shows less fire
https://www.pricescope.com/wiki/diamonds/diamond-table-size