Thanks for the comments!
On the contrary, you''ve captured the beauty of the stone/ring quite well!!Date: 9/1/2008 11:19:40 PM
Author: stone_seeker
Its a modern cushion brilliant but has that antique-ish looking high crown with small table. Has tons of fire. the pics dont so it justice. as you can tell, i''m a terrible photographer.
Thanks everyone!! Here are the specs again:
woops...sorry. it is 9.25mm x 8.50mm x 5.50Date: 9/2/2008 11:02:34 AM
Author: ericad
Do you know what the millimeter measurement is of the stone? Just asking for my own selfish reasons
I bought it from a jeweler called IBN here in the diamond district. He doesnt do a whole lot of retail work but I was referred to him by someone I work with who was related to him. I also worked with Mark @ ERD for a while and almost bought from him but this stone came up last minute and it just had everything I was looking for.Date: 9/2/2008 11:05:48 AM
Author: goobear78
Amazing ring. I love the setting and your pictures are great!
May I ask where you purchased your stone from? I''m looking at cushions now. Thanks!
It seemed to me that cushions that had 8 pavilion mains were more of the chunky faceted look that I was going for. I looked at dozens of stones and that seemed to be the case but may not be always so not sure. The first few months were just trying to figure out what exactly I was looking for in a stone and a lot of indecision on my part but I wanted a stone that was at least a G/VS2 and there just werent that many in inventory. Then I fell in love with the chunky faceted style so that took even more time to find. I could have settled a few times but glad I didnt - it just takes a while to find the one stone you love. What I also wanted, and I think took the most, was a stone that wasnt too deep so that my 3ct didnt look like a 2ct. Every time a G/VS2 or better came along, it was either too deep or had too big a table. Finding just the right mix - that also didnt look too dark in the center - is what was most painstaking.
Bebe - sorry, I dont want you to think that certain tables are better than others. I just prefer the look of smaller ones personally. I saw some cushions with table in mid 60s that looked great. Some believe that smaller tables have more fire and that there is some physics behind that but I''m not sure i that''s true. Its all about the combination of depth and table that determine performance. The smaller tables had higher crowns which is a bit more antique-ish and the look I was going for.
Thanks so much SS.Date: 9/2/2008 12:30:48 PM
Author: stone_seeker
Bebe - sorry, I dont want you to think that certain tables are better than others. I just prefer the look of smaller ones personally. I saw some cushions with table in mid 60s that looked great. Some believe that smaller tables have more fire and that there is some physics behind that but I''m not sure i that''s true. Its all about the combination of depth and table that determine performance. The smaller tables had higher crowns which is a bit more antique-ish and the look I was going for.
Mark at ERD showed me a 3.4ct stone that was gorgeous but it had a big culet which was also something I was hoping to avoid (looked at medium to small to none). But it was a real beauty that if I didnt get the one I ended up with I probably would have bought anwyay.
I think your stone is out there but the larger you go, the fewer the options of getting everything unless you wait so you have to figure out what aspect means the most. Its not asking too much and I''m sure Jon at GOG will find it if its out there. And if your budget is big enough, anything is possible.
300x240.png)
