reena
Ideal_Rock
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 2,531
Date: 10/28/2004 122:43 PM
Author: reena
did you check out the links to those ovals?
Date: 10/28/2004 1:13:48 PM
Author: Hest88
CEP, cut means that a stone is cut so that it maximizes brilliance, fire, and scintillation (to varying degrees). It''s really an optics thing. If a diamond is cut badly it means it won''t reflect light properly and you''ll have a dull, lifeless stone. Have you read the Pricescope tutorial yet? It should help answer some of your questions.
Now I understand!!Date: 10/28/2004 1:36:32 PM
Author: reena
well, i picked them mostly because (1) they are in the carat weight, color and clarity range you were looking for, (2) they''re within your budget and (3) their specs look pretty good to me on paper based on the cut grading chart for ovals on www.gemappraisers.com. i am not an oval expert by any means, but there aren''t a lot of those around here so i figured i''d take a stab to see if i could help you out a bit.
i didn''t search for SI1 or SI2 stones simply because there''s no way to tell on paper if they''re eyeclean and i was only trying to give you a general idea of what''s out there, but if you can find one that IS eyeclean i think they''re a great value. if the stone is one that the e-vendor has in stock, the vendor can probably eyeball it for you to describe the nature and location of the inclusion.
Date: 10/28/2004 1:39:28 PM
Author: reena
see my post above.
you''re right--judging cut is not a simple matter of looking at a preset grade like ''good'' or ''excellent''. you need to do some research so that you can make an educated judgment based on the specs of the stone--especially if you''re planning to buy online. i stand by my recommendation to do the tutorial here and at goodoldgold.com, and to check out the cut grading charts, to start.
Date: 10/28/2004 1:47:41 PM
Author: reena
sure, i mean, that's what i was trying to do, anyway. but please understand that i am not an expert--i was just making an educated guess based on the cut charts and what i know about diamonds generally. but if i were looking, those stones would catch my eye as being worthy of further examination. i think a 1.5-1.7 carat stone is a good range based on your budget. i think $8k for a 2 carat stone might be pushing it. (plus you need to save $$ for the setting and sapphires!)
round brilliants are gorgeous diamonds too, and so classic for an e-ring. really, it's just a matter of personal taste. do you really have no idea whatsoever what kind of ring she would like? shape stone? platinum/white gold/yellow gold? style of setting? have you guys ever gone casually browsing for rings? or has she ever pointed anything out to you?
Date: 10/28/2004 25:14 PM
Author: reena
it makes complete sense. i personally ADORE ovals, but a round brilliant is probably ''safer''. that being said, if she''s easygoing and you know she''ll like whatever you pick, then go for it! i''m sure she will appreciate all of the thought you put into selecting something beautiful and unique just for her.
Date: 10/28/2004 2:19:38 PM
Author: Chrono
CEP,
You are so funny. You really come off as such a sweet considerate guy, yet fun to hang around with. Your girl is one lucky gal.
Date: 10/28/2004 3:16:10 PM
Author: kfds
It''s great to see your transformation occur just within this thread!
I was much like you not too long ago and was concerned with carat first. For me clarity came next and then color. Cut was really nowhere on my radar. It was through this site that I learned that cut really is the most important thing (to me and many others) when it comes to diamonds.
Check out my post of the diamond I bought as a result of LEARNING about diamonds here and through Good Old Gold.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/all-i-have-are-these-pics.19943/
As you can see it''s a 1.38 and it was within your price range. I went with a designer platinum setting that put it just out side of your range, but had I chosen white gold it would have been right in your wheelhouse.
My ring happened to be Internally Flawless... but that was just a bonus. I was more than willing to go down to a VS1 to go up in size. But when I saw well the diamond rated on cut, saw the fact that J-color really is Near Colorless, and COMPARED the diamond to other diamonds, I knew that I wasn''t going to do any better.
Note: You can see a little yellow in the side view picture of my ring. **It does not look like that in real life** The ring looks absolutely colorless like the face-up pictures. The yellow color really came from the nature of the pic, (on it''s site with a pure white background and there is exterior color that is being picked up) as you can see, the platinum setting itself took on some color as well in that picture. As was stated earlier in this thread, the brilliance of the diamond really has a effect on how noticible color may be (well cut diamonds also look bigger because they have more ''presence'').
My advise... read everything in the Knowledge section of this site and read all of the information on Good Old Gold http://www.goodoldgold.com/4csmain.htm.
Date: 10/28/2004 3:22:35 PM
Author: Patty
Isn''t this lovely?
Well, for one thing is as white as you're ever gonna get, since it's a D color. And being a VS2, it should be totally eye clean. But what makes me really get excited about it is the CUT. I don't know a lot about ovals, but look at the light this baby is putting out...wow!Date: 10/28/2004 3:31:46 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer
Date: 10/28/2004 3:22:35 PM
Author: Patty
Isn't this lovely?
If you're so inclined, please tell me what makes this 'Lovely'? Not that I can't tell it's very pretty, it's just that I don't know if I wouldn't think ANY stone I see is very pretty.
Thanks you.
Date: 10/28/2004 3:33:12 PM
Author: reena
the one you listed doesn''t look bad at all, although it doesn''t give girdle info and i can''t tell whether the diamond has a GIA (or any) cert. E color is great, obviously, and you''re not going to have any problems with the VS1. people generally say that you should look for a table a few % points smaller than the depth, but that''s just a general guideline and not a hard and fast rule. also, polish and symm on that stone are only ''good'', as opposed to ''VG'' or ''EX'', but again--not necessarily a dealbreaker with a fancy. might be worth a further look! also you''ll probably want to get crown height info from the vendor if you can.
something else to consider is that not all ovals are shaped the same way--some are shorter and fatter, while others are longer and skinnier. (the one you posted is more on the long and skinny side.) the oval cut grading chart has an ''ideal'' L to W ratio range, but it''s pretty broad and really just a guide. if you go to the gemappraisers site and click on the fancy shape selector (and then click on the oval) you can play around with different lenth to width ratios and get an idea of what you like. (also, to figure out the L to W ratio of a particular diamond you''re considering, you simply divide the length measurement by the width measurement.)
hope this helps.
Date: 10/28/2004 3:48:59 PM
Author: reena
hm, not necessarily. it''s really so tough to tell with fanices without seeing them in person. the only thing that i really prefer about the ones that i posted is that the table and depth numbers seem more promising in relationship to one another, but in reality this may not turn out to actually have any bearing on the beauty of the stone. i do question why the stone you posted is cheaper than the others, given the much higher color and the higher clarity. there is probably a reason, and cut could be it.but hey, maybe not!
Date: 10/28/2004 4:212 PM
Author: reena
CEP, i hate to sound like a giant broken record but if you go to the gemappraisers site, there is a chart that will tell you what the ideal cut parameters (table, depth, girdle, crown height, length to width ratio, etc.) are for an oval. that's what i used to find the stones i posted; it's a really good guide. then you can search for stones on the search engine here that meet those specs. that's about the best you're going to be able to do with the numbers; beyond that you can ask the vendor for pictures, a sarin report, a light return analysis, his own opinion, etc. then it's a matter of seeing the best candidate in person to see if you like the way it looks.
remind me where you are located again?
Date: 10/28/2004 4:31:48 PM
Author: Christmas Eve Proposer
Date: 10/28/2004 4:212 PM
Author: reena
CEP, i hate to sound like a giant broken record but if you go to the gemappraisers site, there is a chart that will tell you what the ideal cut parameters (table, depth, girdle, crown height, length to width ratio, etc.) are for an oval. that''s what i used to find the stones i posted; it''s a really good guide. then you can search for stones on the search engine here that meet those specs. that''s about the best you''re going to be able to do with the numbers; beyond that you can ask the vendor for pictures, a sarin report, a light return analysis, his own opinion, etc. then it''s a matter of seeing the best candidate in person to see if you like the way it looks.
remind me where you are located again?
OK...This is going to be kind of hard to explain...
Now that you put it this way, I realize that I kind of already know what you''re talking about. I''ve checked-into the ''Table, Depth, Girdle, Crown, etc'' thing already. And believe it or not, understand it (I need to use a cheatsheet to keep everything straight, but still). I just didn''t realize all that constituted ''Cut''.
Duh!
I assumed ''Cut'' refered to only the different ways stones are ''Shaped'' (for lack of a better term). Meaning the angles on the top and side of the stone that are ''Cut'' into it.
I think this was another ''I did''t know Setting refered to the ring'' thing...