sideview?

[bigE]

Was wondering if anyone who had the MIchael B micropave had a sideview of the ring so I could get a good look at the setting''s prongs from the side. Wasn''t sure if you were able to see the bottom of the diamond near the cullet or not in this ring.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Have you looked at the Pearlman's site? Some of the Michael B. rings have side views.

http://www.pearlmansjewelers.com/jewelry-designers/michael-b-jewelry/

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Also, unless money is no object, I''d be talking to WhiteFlash about pricing rings similar to Lynn''s new rings. The pave looks very similar and I am betting the solitaire is not almost $4000, which the least expensive MB princess costs.

 

[bigE]

DS, I''ve looked everywhere including pearlman''s and can''t find a side view of the princess solitaire...anyway, thought maybe someone here that had one would post...maybe they will...seems like everyone only posts their ring from the top a lot of times thanx

 

[JulieN]

I think the side view is supposed to be rather unique and pretty, and Michael B doesn''t want it copied, so that is why it is hard to find side pictures.

 

[bigE]

Interesting...does anyone think the petite princess ring would look to small on a size 7 finger? I think the petite princess is 2mm wide and the regular is 2.3 mm wide.

 

[JulieN]

Yes, I do, but that''s just me.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 8/12/2006 3:04:31 PM
Author: bigE
Interesting...does anyone think the petite princess ring would look to small on a size 7 finger? I think the petite princess is 2mm wide and the regular is 2.3 mm wide.

Yep, I do, too. 2.3mm is still very, very thin. I''ll attach a photo of a 2.5 mm band so you can see what I mean. I think this is about a size 6 finger. So a 2.3 is going to look thinner than this on a size 7.

 

[mrssalvo]

Here's a michael b 3-sided with a princess from Pearlman's site (the regular setting just doensn't have pave on the prongs but will look the same. On a size 7, i'd go with the regular princess.

 

[bigE]

Thanks Mrs. Salvo. Do you guys have any idea what carat size or width/length would look good? I want something that will look classy and elegant yet have the WOW factor in size and sparkle. I was looking at 2 carats, but wasn''t sure if I should go a little higher? A couple that I''ve looked at w/i my budget ($20k) were 2, 2.2, and 2.3 carats of different colors, but all good cut/quality. The size of those diamonds in diameter were about 6.7mm, 7.4 mm and 7.62...should I just get the biggest/best quality diamond I can afford with the regular michael B princess cut, or is there something from your all''s experience of a size diamond that you think would look best on a size 7? Thanks much!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 8/12/2006 6:15:07 PM
Author: bigE
Thanks Mrs. Salvo. Do you guys have any idea what carat size or width/length would look good? I want something that will look classy and elegant yet have the WOW factor in size and sparkle. I was looking at 2 carats, but wasn''t sure if I should go a little higher? A couple that I''ve looked at w/i my budget ($20k) were 2, 2.2, and 2.3 carats of different colors, but all good cut/quality. The size of those diamonds in diameter were about 6.7mm, 7.4 mm and 7.62...should I just get the biggest/best quality diamond I can afford with the regular michael B princess cut, or is there something from your all''s experience of a size diamond that you think would look best on a size 7? Thanks much!

Those MM sizes you have are incorrect for the carats you listed. Is $20,000 just for the stone or the whole ring? I was just looking at a nice 1.75 HVS2 for about $16,000, and I think that is a terrific size at about 7.8mm.

 

[bigE]

DS, are you sure those were incorrect, I just looked them up. Again, I''m looking at a PRINCESS cut. $20k for the stone...Thanks!

 

[JulieN]

2 ct princess at 6.7mm is smallish.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Oh, I didn''t realize all this time that you were looking at princess! Yes, you need to go bigger on a princess because they face up smaller. My chart says a 2.0 carat princess should be around 7.5 mm so that one at 6.7 must be very, very deep. Be careful about that.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, maybe that chart I was using was overly optimistic. Here's an AGS0 princess at 2.08 which is about 7.0mm.

http://www.whiteflash.com/princess/Princess-cut-diamond-2371015.htm#

Truthfully, though, a round at 1.3 cts. has this diameter, so that really kills me to think of paying for all the weight in the depth! Just to give you perspective, that is my stone sitting in that plain setting above, and it is 1.63 cts. and 7.6mm. That 2 ct. princess is a lot smaller!

 

[bigE]

Anyway, I was just wondering what size whether it be ct weight or length/width would be a "WOW" stone on the Michael B princess single sided paved regular setting? Thanks

 

[JulieN]

DS, a round with a diameter of seven is smaller than a square with a length of seven.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Judging from what I just said regarding princesses facing up so small, I think you''d have to go to the 2.5 level to approach the size of a upper 1 ct. round. A 2 ct. princess is like a 1.3-1.5 ct round. I guess it just depends on your personal "wow" scale!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 8/12/2006 6:52:48 PM
Author: JulieN
DS, a round with a diameter of seven is smaller than a square with a length of seven.

I assume it would be exactly the same height and width, it''s just that the princess would have corners.

 

[JulieN]

Look at your avatar: a circle inside a square.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 8/12/2006 7:01:17 PM
Author: JulieN
Look at your avatar: a circle inside a square.

Lol! I know what you mean, really! I guess I didn''t say it right. I know that a 6.7mm is too small for a 2 ct. princess, so the weight has to be more in the depth, right?

 

[bigE]

I''m a little confused now What do you think as far as WOW for a princess cut? I would think a 1.5 to 2 ct would be pretty big, no?? I looked at some rounds and squares last night at a B and M, and with the square actually having corners and the rounds not, I think it actually made the squares look bigger. We looked at a 1.37 ct princess and it was pretty big. We also looked at a 2 ct and it was stunning.

I wanted to get some "expert" opinions from you all as to what the "going size is" for "big or WOW" diamonds in the princess cut...any thoughts? I know it''s a little subjective but just wanted to get your all''s humble opinions

 

[JulieN]

DS, not necessarily. You could have two stones of the same carat weight and spread, but different depths. It's that one stone does have more weight going sideways, but you can't see it because it's below the crown. Trick question and answer, I know.

2 ct princess is plenty big. There's always going to be someone who has a bigger rock.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

BigE, above 2 cts. is above average for around here. I think it would be plenty big, too! I''m sorry if I confused you because I wouldn''t have even commented if I had realized you were looking at princess cut at the outset!

 

[radiantgirl]

bigE - I absolutely love Michael B.'s princess line. I do think that for a size 7, the petite princess is going to look too small on her. I would suggest getting the regular princess setting for her, though I only saw a bit of a difference between the petite and regulard princess. I got engaged recently, and I got the Michael B. petite princess with a square radiant cut diamond. My ring is a size 3, but I am actually a size 2.75. You can read my thread and see my ring on the thread link below. I don't have side views of my ring, but at first I thought the diamond was set too high. I don't feel that way anymore. I think I just needed to get used to having a diamond. I can't actually see the culet, but I can see most of the pavillion and almost to the culet, if that helps any.

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/im-engaged-take-me-off-the-list.47799/

 

[bigE]

Thanks all...no problem DS...you didn''t confuse me too much, I think I confused you initially which caused the overall confusion...b/c I was looking at Rounds initally up until last night when my gf said she prefers squares, and to be honest they do look better on her. So as a concensus...2 ct is WOW and 1.5 to 1.75 is also big? We did look at a 1.37 last night and I thought it really looked big, so I think anything above that would be icing on the cake. I have a larger budget than teh 1.37 cost and will be saving some money by shopping online instead of a B and M so thought I''d get a WOW stone so hopefully no need to upgrade in the future (I know all you ladies are like yeah right, that''s what I said when I got engaged). In the end I know it doesn''t matter, but just want to get the perfect size for her since it''s a big investment so want it to be perfect. Any comments on ideal princess size for the WOW factor would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for all who answered!

 

[bigE]

Here''s some other helpful (maybe) information:

Area of a circle=(pie)r^2
Area of a square=length x width

For example (I pulled these diamonds off of PS):

Round Brilliant, 1 carat diamond, 6.3 diameter
r=6.3/2=3.15
Area=31.15 mm squared

Princess square cut, 1.6 carat, 6.3 length x 6.3 width
Area=6.3 x 6.3=39.69 mm squared

So, a square diamond (princess) looks bigger if it is of the same diameter (in this case about 6.3 mm) as the round brilliant. This makes sense due to the corners that are included on a "square" versus the corners that are eliminated with a circle. However, in order to get a square princess of the same diameter, it takes a larger carat weight.

 

[bigE]

So, if a WOW round brilliant is considered to be 2 carats with an average of 8.1 mm diameter would have an area of:

A=3.14x(4)^2=50.24 mm

To get a princess with a Area of 50.24 mm, you would have to have a diameter of 7 mm, or be approximately 2.1 carats.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Oh, my gosh, you must be an engineer or something, BigE! I actually allowed myself to think about measuring the area for about 5 seconds

, and then I came back to my senses and realized that I''d be better just telling you which width setting I like better!

The only thing I''d warn you about since she just changed to princess last night is that the fancy cuts come and go in popularity, so a princess may not be as timeless as a round. But that setting is really gorgeous and certainly compliments either a princess or a round. Are you getting the setting online at a discount or are you having it set locally?

 

[bigE]

DS, do you really think a princess would not be timeless...I thought they were a mainstay now a days, although I have had that same thought until a salesman told my gf last night otherwise...but I''m sure they''d say anything to make a sale. I really (and my gf too) prefer the round cut with it''s brilliance and shine, but like the crispness of the square. She''d be happy w/ anything I get her though. Tough decision, but I must admit the perfect square shape of the princess looks good on "her", so maybe a square is more her style.

Do you think the four prongs of the Michael B make a round diamond look square at all? From Ivanadiamond''s post with his 1.69 ct round brilliant, it seems to me when looking at it in the photos it appears squarish. So, I was thinking if I could make it look squarish maybe I could pull it off. It''s such a hard decision especially when you want to make it perfect.

No, not an engineer, a dentist