stud earring queustion

[debtman7]

Hi,

I''d like to get my wife a pair of stud earrings for christmas, but I''m on a tight budget due to numerous circumstances These will be for everyday wear, so I don''t need anything big and formal, and I''m sticking to a price range of < $400 or so. I know, seems tiny, but it''s what I''ve got to work with.

I''m stuck currently debating size vs. quality. Right now I''m looking at whiteflash''s read to go earrings, .3 ctw in white gold. These are a G color and SI clarity for $340, and given their reputation, I would assume a good cut.

They fit the budget and based on what everyone says about whiteflash, they would be nice quality. My only concern is, would .3 ctw be too small? On diamonds that small, would the higher quality even be noticable?

I''m debating between those, and getting a pair of .5 ctw from diamond.com (currently have 20% off plus 7.5% fat cash). They are larger, but the color of their choices are H-I or I-J and the clarity are all I1-I3. No info on cut, but I would assume it would not be so great. Obviously these are lower quality diamonds, but in an earring, how noticable will it be?

I''m leaning towards the whiteflash pair currently, but I''m interested in some opinions on how much the quality and cut on diamonds this small will really influence the appearance of the earrings from a few feet away...

 

[ladykemma]

if she''s not picky, try mlopros (diamond delights) on ebay. i have a couple of pairs of their studs.

 

[belle]

hey debtman

welcome to ps!

how nice of you to think of such a nice gift!

one other thing to keep in mind, is that well cut stones will face up bigger than their mediocre and poorly cut counterparts of the same weight. i am not saying that the bigger diamonds are poorly cut but diamonds that are not so well cut will not look as big as well cut stones of the same weight. and yes, cut quality still makes a difference at this size...sparkle knows no bounds! i think getting well cut diamonds is very important in earrings because like you said, they are usually seen at a distance. it really doesn''t matter if there is an inclusion (no one should be THAT close!) but the sparkle should be noticed from across the room!
no matter what you decide, make sure she keeps the earrings clean. they get gunked up pretty quickly and need to be clean to show that sparkle diamonds are known for.

best of luck!

 

[Ellen]

debtman, I ditto what belle said.

The only reservation I would have if you went with WF ready, set to go is, they are not upgradable. If you think you will want to get her bigger in the future, you would have to start all over. I realize it would cost you more to go the other way, but if you could have them find you a pair from their Expert Selection (which are less than their ACA''s, but usually just as nice), you could upgrade later.

However, if you don''t think you/she''ll want bigger, those would be very nice!

 

[winternight]

Good point on being able to upgrade. How about a setting with three-four smaller diamonds that makes up a stud-like earring? That would give you a bigger look.

 

[partgypsy]

As far as the size goes, it would depend on what your wife wears. I like petite jewelry and would wear studs .3 ctw, but if I gave something that size to my mother they would sit in her jewelry box. It would be a waste of money to get her something she wouldn''t wear. On the other hand, the specs of the other pair are quite lower than the whiteflash, and don''t know cut quality...
Is there something in between you could get in terms of size/quality?
The idea of a multistone diamond earring sounds good too, like 3 stone earrings or hoops with diamonds in them or something.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

If I were looking for $400 earrings, I''d get hoops with tiny diamonds. I wouldn''t want bad quality studs, and tiny ones that can''t be upgraded wouldn''t have much of a point either, unless she has two holes and would wear them with other earrings.

 

[DBM]

ideal cut diamonds will look smaller than Very Good cuts due to the relatively high depth of the 62% range. I''m not saying to get garbage quality either but the added bling of an Ideal versus decent cut isn''t your main concern with 15 pointers. A very good cut with depth of ~60 should give you a little bit more spread and still look very nice.

 

[belle]

Date: 11/29/2006 3:08:20 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
If I were looking for $400 earrings, I''d get hoops with tiny diamonds. I wouldn''t want bad quality studs, and tiny ones that can''t be upgraded wouldn''t have much of a point either, unless she has two holes and would wear them with other earrings.

you are sounding like a size whore more and more each day!

i have seen the smallest size ready set go earrings in person and they are a nice size. my very good friend wears them as her everyday earrings and is perfectly happy with them. not everyone thinks about, or needs, bigger diamonds all the time.

 

[belle]

Date: 11/29/2006 5:14:57 PM
Author: DBM
ideal cut diamonds will look smaller than Very Good cuts due to the relatively high depth of the 62% range.

ideal...62% ??

huh?

 

[DBM]

Date: 11/29/2006 5:26:27 PM
Author: belle

Date: 11/29/2006 5:14:57 PM
Author: DBM
ideal cut diamonds will look smaller than Very Good cuts due to the relatively high depth of the 62% range.

ideal...62% ??

huh?

Strictly speaking in terms of GIA cut standards you will more often than not only see Excellent or"ideal" cut grades on depth percentages around 62%. Spreadier stones with smaller depths are, generally speaking, not going to get a Excelletn Cut grade. try it yourself. find a stone with a depth at or below 60 depth that got an Excellent Cut.

 

[JulieN]

Obviously, the standards for attractive melee sized diamonds are different...

And, there's been loads of discussion on the subject of steep/deep GIA excellents.
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/gia-diamond-dock-simple-summary.42538/

 

[Tacori E-ring]

My studs are .3ctw and I think they are a nice size for me (not to say someday I don''t want larger ones!). They are a good first pair. I do have small ears but I rather have smaller, great quality, than larger, okay quality. I got mine from ashford.com and am very happy with them.

 

[DBM]

Date: 11/29/2006 5:41:40 PM
Author: DBM

Date: 11/29/2006 5:26:27 PM
Author: belle

Date: 11/29/2006 5:14:57 PM
Author: DBM
ideal cut diamonds will look smaller than Very Good cuts due to the relatively high depth of the 62% range.

ideal...62% ??

huh?

Strictly speaking in terms of GIA cut standards you will more often than not only see Excellent or''ideal'' cut grades on depth percentages around 62%. Spreadier stones with smaller depths are, generally speaking, not going to get a Excelletn Cut grade. try it yourself. find a stone with a depth at or below 60 depth that got an Excellent Cut.

... On second thought you''re right. i will correct myself. a depth of ~ 58.5% rather.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 11/29/2006 5:23:16 PM
Author: belle

Date: 11/29/2006 3:08:20 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
If I were looking for $400 earrings, I''d get hoops with tiny diamonds. I wouldn''t want bad quality studs, and tiny ones that can''t be upgraded wouldn''t have much of a point either, unless she has two holes and would wear them with other earrings.

you are sounding like a size whore more and more each day!

i have seen the smallest size ready set go earrings in person and they are a nice size. my very good friend wears them as her everyday earrings and is perfectly happy with them. not everyone thinks about, or needs, bigger diamonds all the time.

Okay, okay...PS is getting to me again! Sorry! (But I do like any individual stones to be upgradeable...just in case!

)

 

[belle]

Date: 11/29/2006 5:41:40 PM
Author: DBM

Date: 11/29/2006 5:26:27 PM
Author: belle

Date: 11/29/2006 5:14:57 PM
Author: DBM
ideal cut diamonds will look smaller than Very Good cuts due to the relatively high depth of the 62% range.

ideal...62% ??

huh?

Strictly speaking in terms of GIA cut standards you will more often than not only see Excellent or'ideal' cut grades on depth percentages around 62%. Spreadier stones with smaller depths are, generally speaking, not going to get a Excelletn Cut grade. try it yourself. find a stone with a depth at or below 60 depth that got an Excellent Cut.

well...strictly speaking...gia doesn't have an 'ideal' cut grade

there was another 'spread' thread https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/evaluating-spread.53984/ that talked about this. depth by itself can’t be used for spread with some shapes and really is not enough even in a round (unless it’s some crazy outside number)…isn’t it true that a 1 ct round with 62% depth and gia thin girdle spread near the same as a 1ct with 60% depth and stk girdle? this is why i always use diameter measurement to determine spread, and definitely don't generalize about depth related to cut grade.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

So I have a question for Daniel...are you saying you don''t prefer ideal cut diamonds for earrings? I understand the desirability of good spread but not at the expense of the beauty of the stone.

 

[DBM]

Date: 11/29/2006 5:56:08 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
So I have a question for Daniel...are you saying you don't prefer ideal cut diamonds for earrings? I understand the desirability of good spread but not at the expense of the beauty of the stone.

correct. in my opinion for 15 pointers a nice spread with a VERY GOOD cut is better than a smaller ideal.

 

[JulieN]

Garry would agree...but he does not call them very good cuts. They may get GIA VG, but fall under his definition of ideal.

One should refer to which definition he is using.

I don't think the master stone study will be completed for awhile.

 

[DBM]

Date: 11/29/2006 5:53:33 PM
Author: belle

Date: 11/29/2006 5:41:40 PM
Author: DBM

Date: 11/29/2006 5:26:27 PM
Author: belle

Date: 11/29/2006 5:14:57 PM
Author: DBM
ideal cut diamonds will look smaller than Very Good cuts due to the relatively high depth of the 62% range.

ideal...62% ??

huh?

Strictly speaking in terms of GIA cut standards you will more often than not only see Excellent or''ideal'' cut grades on depth percentages around 62%. Spreadier stones with smaller depths are, generally speaking, not going to get a Excelletn Cut grade. try it yourself. find a stone with a depth at or below 60 depth that got an Excellent Cut.

well...strictly speaking...gia doesn''t have an ''ideal'' cut grade

well...strictly speaking...gia doesn''t have an ''ideal'' cut grade


kindly stop the nasty jabs. they''re not appreciated.

yes everything you have said is correct. depth is not the end-all. it''s just easier to look for a spready diamond by looking for a depth of 58-60 then to tell debtman to look for a measurement of 3.5- 3.6 mm or so. that''s why i just say simply "look for a smaller depth"

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 11/29/2006 6:00:32 PM
Author: DBM

Date: 11/29/2006 5:56:08 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
So I have a question for Daniel...are you saying you don't prefer ideal cut diamonds for earrings? I understand the desirability of good spread but not at the expense of the beauty of the stone.

correct. in my opinion for 15 pointers a nice spread with a VERY GOOD cut is better than a smaller ideal.

One more question...how about for larger stones...say .5 to 1.0 carats (for studs)?

 

[DBM]

Date: 11/29/2006 6:07:51 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

One more question...how about for larger stones...say .5 to 1.0 carats (for studs)?

then already it''ll be more subjective depending on the woman and the customer sensitivities. In this case though for a grown woman i think 15 points is a little too small and the best advice i felt i could give in this case was to look for something spready.

personal preference for your question-- it all depends on my options and what i feel is the best deal for the money i''m paying. sometimes it''s worth paying the premium for the "ideal or excellent cut", sometimes you can sacrficie for a nice cut and go up in size, color, or clarity... depends on the options.

 

[belle]

Date: 11/29/2006 6:05:27 PM
Author: DBM

Date: 11/29/2006 5:53:33 PM
Author: belle

Date: 11/29/2006 5:41:40 PM
Author: DBM

Date: 11/29/2006 5:26:27 PM
Author: belle

Date: 11/29/2006 5:14:57 PM
Author: DBM
ideal cut diamonds will look smaller than Very Good cuts due to the relatively high depth of the 62% range.

ideal...62% ??

huh?

Strictly speaking in terms of GIA cut standards you will more often than not only see Excellent or''ideal'' cut grades on depth percentages around 62%. Spreadier stones with smaller depths are, generally speaking, not going to get a Excelletn Cut grade. try it yourself. find a stone with a depth at or below 60 depth that got an Excellent Cut.

well...strictly speaking...gia doesn''t have an ''ideal'' cut grade

well...strictly speaking...gia doesn''t have an ''ideal'' cut grade


kindly stop the nasty jabs. they''re not appreciated.

yes everything you have said is correct. depth is not the end-all. it''s just easier to look for a spready diamond by looking for a depth of 58-60 then to tell debtman to look for a measurement of 3.5- 3.6 mm or so. that''s why i just say simply ''look for a smaller depth''

i was certainly not giving ''nasty jabs''! hence the winky and big smiley guy.

 

[DBM]

Date: 11/29/2006 6:19:02 PM
Author: belle

i was certainly not giving ''nasty jabs''! hence the winky and big smiley guy.

i apologize then. communicating in text can often be difficult without tone and body language.

 

[belle]

Date: 11/29/2006 6:23:19 PM
Author: DBM

i apologize then. communicating in text can often be difficult without tone and body language.

apology accepted.

communicating in text is very difficult indeed and obviously the smiley guys don''t always work!

i''m sorry you felt jabbed, it was not my intention.

here''s to shallow spready earring stones!

 

[JohnQuixote]

There have been long discussions about use of the word ‘ideal’ in the past so I don’t imagine anything nasty was meant. Sometimes we must explain provenance of nomenclature to new readers, so it’s a valid clarification for the thread; even if the vets know it well.

Date: 11/29/2006 5:47:17 PM
Author: DBM

Date: 11/29/2006 5:41:40 PM
Author: DBM

Strictly speaking in terms of GIA cut standards you will more often than not only see Excellent or'ideal' cut grades on depth percentages around 62%. Spreadier stones with smaller depths are, generally speaking, not going to get a Excelletn Cut grade. try it yourself. find a stone with a depth at or below 60 depth that got an Excellent Cut.

... On second thought you're right. i will correct myself. a depth of ~ 58.5% rather.

GIA rounds do qualify for depths at 58.5% and below (see attachment). Daniel, maybe you’re not seeing many EX at these depths? Neither are we, but they’re out there.

Jim Shigley did a presentation in TX a few months ago and I believe EX candidates can range 57.5-63.0% in depth, depending on their other parameters.

AGS isn’t even talking about depth in their presentations anymore. They refer to a balanced relationship between crown and pavilion angle; if it earns high enough numerical values in their metric for brightness, dispersion, contrast and leakage it gets the Ideal grade. Weight ratio and girdle thickness are handled under 'proprtions.' Girdle thickness is done the old way: If it’s too thick or thin the diamond is penalized in that assessment.

I would estimate that the diamonds below would not earn Ideal, since nothing under a 33.0 CA is predicted to get 0 in light performance in their manufacturers cutting guidelines. Of course, any diamond would need to be sent to AGS to be certain.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, so that I don''t lose my mind.....if one wants really great earrings...what would be an example of the maximum depth you''d consider? What about c and p angles? Is a larger table an advantage on earrings (as in 57-5?

What about these numbers:

GIA ex, 57, 60.5, 33.5, 41 (85 lgf)

GIA ex, 57, 60.7, 34, 40.8 (85 lgf)

Would these two stones look like a match assuming the diameters were close?

 

[JohnQuixote]

Hi DS

I wouldn't use depth. I'd select for performance based on c/p angles, just like any other round, and use mm diameter and table size to match face-up appearance. That's what people will see. If the c/p angles, mm spread, table and girdle are close to each other the depths will be in-line too.

Table size depends on your taste. Do you want more brightness in the balance? Look for less crown height/larger tables. Do you want more fire? Look for higher crowns/smaller tables (often these appear slightly less spready for their carat weight).

Maybe I am reiterating a point that's been made, but we're talking about tiny differences in spread. Examples for fun:

A 0.50 ct stud is 5.16 mm at 62% depth (62.0 53.5 40.75 34.5 1.3) small table, high crown.
A 0.50 ct stud is 5.20 mm at 59% depth (59.0 60.0 40.75 34.5 0.5) big table, low crown.

That's less than a 1% difference in spread.

If you had an identical partner for each and set all 4 of them you'd have difference balance in performance qualities between the pairs - and could tell the table sizes were different - but there would be no noticable difference in diameter between the pairs, especially when worn.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

HI, John! I think I might be more confused than I already was! If those both have a 34.5 crown angle, then I would not have thought about one having a high crown and one having a low crown. But I guess it is because of the tables being so different, and I would not be looking at tables that diverse anyway.

But putting that aside, say you have similar tables and diameter. Do the crown and pavilion angles need to be the same on both? Is the lgf number something that is good to match up? Do you look for something different in earring stones than ring stones?

The only reason I am asking all this is that I occasionally see some mention that Garry likes different measurements for earring stones than ring stones. Yet I am not sure I''ve seen examples of exactly what that means.

 

[JohnQuixote]

Date: 11/29/2006 7:46:55 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

HI, John! I think I might be more confused than I already was! If those both have a 34.5 crown angle, then I would not have thought about one having a high crown and one having a low crown. But I guess it is because of the tables being so different, and I would not be looking at tables that diverse anyway.

Ok DS. One thing at a time.

34.5 is the slope.
From the girdle that slope runs up to the table.
If the table is smaller it takes more slope to get there, thus a higher crown.

Here are wire frame simulations of my two examples.