Show me your flatty/spready stones!

[budgetful]

As per title, I’d love to see flat/spready/shallow stones!

I’ve seen mixed comments about them, specifically antique cuts, and wondered if there is such thing as pretty flatty or bang for your buck stones.

 

[foxinsox]

I'll start! Mine is 51.2% depth with an 11.7% crown. It's a 1.08ct with a 7mm spread so has a good presence on my size 7 finger.
Somehow it's a very sparkly bright stone and I get beautiful colours out of it too. There should be a fisheye but I don't see one.

 

[budgetful]

I'll start! Mine is 51.2% depth with an 11.7% crown. It's a 1.08ct with a 7mm spread so has a good presence on my size 7 finger.
Somehow it's a very sparkly bright stone and I get beautiful colours out of it too. There should be a fisheye but I don't see one.

Amazing stone @foxinsox 7mm for 1.08ct! Thank you for sharing

 

[DrCocoChanel]

My upgraded engagement center stone would be considered spready (60/60 diamond) as per PS standards and not ideal but I’ve been very happy with it’s optical performance and the fact that it faces up larger than its carat weight. It scored well on the HCA and wasn’t a bargain per say but it definitely was less expensive compared to diamonds with similar stats but smaller tables. It’s very brilliant and white, I definitely see fire but perhaps less so than modern proportion cut rounds. No fish eye or dullness under any lighting conditions. Ultimately, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so it’s best to view the diamond in person. I purchased online and rolled the dice assuming I might have to return it. Luckily I did not!

Stats: 1.57 ct, 7.55 x 7.58 mm
Table: 60
Depth: 59.5

 

[budgetful]

My upgraded engagement center stone would be considered spready (60/60 diamond) as per PS standards and not ideal but I’ve been very happy with it’s optical performance and the fact that it faces up larger than its carat weight. It scored well on the HCA and wasn’t a bargain per say but it definitely was less expensive compared to diamonds with similar stats but smaller tables. It’s very brilliant and white, I definitely see fire but perhaps less so than modern proportion cut rounds. No fish eye or dullness under any lighting conditions. Ultimately, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so it’s best to view the diamond in person. I purchased online and rolled the dice assuming I might have to return it. Luckily I did not!

Stats: 1.57 ct, 7.55 x 7.58 mm
Table: 60
Depth: 59.5

Thanks for posting @DrCocoChanel I can just amazing how sparkly it is in person I love your setting and the wedding band, it's so perfectly matched. Absolutely agree with "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" statement, however in this case I think many will share the same sentiment you have for the gorgeous stone!

 

[Alex T]

I'll start! Mine is 51.2% depth with an 11.7% crown. It's a 1.08ct with a 7mm spread so has a good presence on my size 7 finger.
Somehow it's a very sparkly bright stone and I get beautiful colours out of it too. There should be a fisheye but I don't see one.

Your set is one of my favourites, which I've told you before. That diamond is a unicorn, because it shouldn't be as captivating as it is

 

[foxinsox]

Your set is one of my favourites, which I've told you before. That diamond is a unicorn, because it shouldn't be as captivating as it is

Thank you @Alex T! I love my set and feel like I got super lucky with my engagement ring in particular cos I shouldn’t be as pretty as it is.

 

[Alex T]

Thank you @Alex T! I love my set and feel like I got super lucky with my engagement ring in particular cos I shouldn’t be as pretty as it is.

It just goes to show that what we see on paper isn't always what we see with our eyes

 

[winetime12]

This is mine!
1.0 ct 6.52x6.53mm
depth 59.5%
table 58%
CA 32
PA 41