Taking the plunge! Your opinions, please...

[CT Dub]

I've been reading this forum for six months now, lurking silently, and learning a lot.

My girlfriend says she likes the symbolism of a three diamond ring. I think what she might like most is the wall-of-sparkles three diamond part. But she deserves whatever makes her happy.

I'm thinking about a center stone of around 1.3-1.4 carats (~7.3 mm diameter), with two side stones of about 0.5 carats (~5.1 mm diameter). In a platinum setting -- something like the truffle setting by Vatche.

I've learned a lot from everyone here, and I would appreciate your opinions on the two diamonds below (or anything else, like the setting). They are very similar, but minor obstacles like that have never stopped you guys in the past...

Thanks for six months of education.

Chris

1.43 carat
Color: E
Clarity: VS2
Polish: Ideal (AGS)
Symmetry: Ideal (AGS)
Proportions: Ideal (AGS)
HCA: 1.1 (Ex/Ex/Ex/Ex)
Depth: 60.0%
Table: 57.5%
Crown: 34.2 deg
Pavil: 40.8 deg
Girdle: 1.0-1.7% (med)
Culet: none
Fluor: negligible
7.34 - 7.38 - 4.42 mm
http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_43ct_e_vs2_h%26a.htm

1.40 carat
Color: E
Clarity: VS1
Polish: Excellent (GIA)
Symmetry: Excellent (GIA)
Proportions: Ideal (AGS)
HCA: 1.2 (Ex/Ex/Ex/VG)
Depth: 61.3%
Table: 56.7%
Crown: 34.3 deg
Pavil: 40.8 deg
Girdle: 1.4-1.9% (med)
Culet: none
Fluor: medium
7.21 - 7.25 - 4.43 mm
http://www.goodoldgold.com/1_40ct_e_vs1__h%26a.htm

 

[Giangi]

Hi Chris and welcome!

They are both very pretty! You cannot go wrong, no matter which one you choose.
Is the H&A thing important for you? And do you care about the medium blue fluorescence?
That said, I prefer #1. Looks great and the mm difference is considerable... But they are both great!

 

[Colored Gemstone Nut]

I would go with 1 also...Variances between all the measured angles on both stones are very close. Hearts and arrows images on both stones are good if you don't care about exact equal shape, size and orientation of these images.




Without being too critical I think you have 2 solid stones....

 

[pqcollectibles]

Eeeewwww,.... A tough one!

Size presence versus marvelous flashes of blue light and fire!

Both are winners! Now it comes down to your personal tastes.

 

[CT Dub]

Thanks for everyone's comments. #1 was the first stone I picked out, although I think #2 is a strong contender too. And Josh, feel free to be critical.

On the whole, I think fluorescence is a plus for both of us, but not a decisive one.

True H&A would be nice, but I care more about the overall performance of the stone, to the extent that they are different things.

There is a size difference between the two, but it's only 0.13 mm. Can you really notice a tenth of a millimeter?

Any opinions on the size relationship of the stones I'm thinking about: 1.4 carat center (~7.3 mm diameter), 0.5 carats side stones (~5.1 mm diameter), which makes the sides about 69% of the center in size? I know there are varying opinions on whether the sides should be larger (70% of diameter and up) versus smaller (to better highlight the center).

Chris

 

[Mara]

#1 is my favorite. It has a 9.5 on the ISee2 as opposed to the second stone having only 9 and it has a bigger diameter. In my opinion, yes you will notice something like .13mm. We looked at two stones: one was 6.99mm and one was 7.14mm and the 7.14mm was noticeably larger to us..so we got that one.

So I am a huge fan of small increments of size, because diamond shrinkage (mentally) sets in FAST.




Plus I don't really like that diamond #2 has MedBlue fluor and it's an E. Not that its a huge deal...but I'm not a fan of that type of fluor at such a low color grade. Plus the H&A thing is no big deal in this instance, I think both look excellent anyway, but as I noted, it's the Isee2 score I liked on the first one, also the fact that the HCA gave it all EX which is hard to find!

Hope this helped...oh and for the side stones, I think that .5c each would look superb. That is going to be one stunner of a ring. Post pictures when you are done!




Congrats on a discriminating eye and finding great stones at excellent pricing!

 

[canadiangrrl]

#1 would be my pick as well, although it's kind of like being asked to choose between a BMW and a Mercedes.

 

[Kay]

Both look great, but I would probably go with #1 because it is slightly larger and scored slightly better than #2 on ISee2, HCA & BrillianceScope. Even though #1 is not a true H&A, it looks like its light performance may be better than #2. There is also very little difference in price.

I would not let this be a deciding factor here because the numbers make #1 look a little better than #2, but I want to insert a comment regarding fluorescence in colorless diamonds. You should be fine with either no fluorescence or light to medium blue fluorescence. Many people think fluorescence is a negative factor in a D-F stone (which means there usually will be a slight reduction in price --bonus!) but I personally love the medium blue fluorescense in my D diamond. The blue fluorescense gives the white stone a little extra crispness -- it's almost whiter than white if that's possible. My appraiser thought my stone looked better than most D's he had seen because it was extra clear and crisp and he thought that was due to the blue fluorescence.

 

[magna2]

They are both great diamonds and I don't think yoo can go wrong with either. Tough call - just flip a coin.

 

[valeria101]

---
Any opinions on the size relationship of the stones I'm thinking about: 1.4 carat center (~7.3 mm diameter), 0.5 carats side stones (~5.1 mm diameter), which makes the sides about 69% of the center in size? I know there are varying opinions on whether the sides should be larger (70% of diameter and up) versus smaller (to better highlight the center).
Chris----------------

The picture with the red line is your current choice. All combinations have been assembled using what adiamondisforever.com has to offer, and... I hope this helps!

If you still wnat the Truffle, make sure the setting accomodates the diameter variation between center and sides you prefer without major modification. But with 70% it should work.

 

[Fancy]

I love the truffle setting, but not sure if it would be too busy for me once I had it on.

As for the side stones, I think they are a perfect size to compliment the ring, and valeria's post shows you an idea of what it will look like, and I think it looks great!

I also like the ultra-white look of a ring with some flourescense so that wouldn't deter me. Is there a way you can see a pictur eof both side by side? That might really help you decide if one speaks to you more than the other. Also, personally, I don't think I would notice the 1.4 and 1.43 size difference, but maybe you can when they are side by side.

Post pics if you get them!

 

[CT Dub]

Again, thanks so much to you all for offering your advice. It's really nice to get objective opinions on a decision that carries some financial and emotional weight.

I'm moving ahead with #1, which was my original top choice and what most folks here preferred, if slightly. I'm tempted by the fluorescence in #2, but not enough to discard the other small advantages that #1 has. Plus I've never seen fluorescence in real life, under a variety of day-to-day lighting conditions (and I'm not going to before making this purchase), so while I doubt I'd dislike it, I can't say whether I'd like it enough to care.

Valeria: great job with the 3-stone ratio pictures! That's very helpful -- usually people around here have had to just search for pictures or examples of different size ratios to see what they liked. I'm not even sure how you did it. When I went to adiamondisforever.com after seeing your post, I couldn't vary the size of the side stones relative to the center. Maybe you did a little photo editing? Regardless, thanks -- I think a side-by-side comparison picture like that is helpful enough that this site, or a vendor, ought to consider keeping something like it around.

I'll be sure to get back to you all with pictures and the eventual result, although that might not happen immediately. But that's kind of the quid pro quo on Pricescope, right?

Chris

 

[Mara]

BTW awesome job Valeria on those pictures...those will be handy in the future so I am going to SAVE the images to my hard drive for when others ask the question!

I really like the look of the 65% and 69% ratio pictures...the others look a little 'off' for my taste. Very intersting. I also tried on one like the top one in real life and I did not like the look at all (it was actually 3 1c diamonds). Too much diamond spread across my finger with what did not appear to be rhyme or reason...it looked way too big and chunky for my hand. So I think the smaller stones really accent the larger stone more...but not too small

The fiance and I have been talking about when we upgrade my earrings in the future, keeping the original earrings (.5c each) as side stones and making a 3 stone ring for me with my original e-ring setting and stone..that could be fun!