The Jewelry Exchange question...

[Gypsy]

My vote is with the three stone as well. ESPECIALLY as that''s what she asked for. I''d get her what she asked for, and it''s a LOVELY choice.

 

[BigDiamonds]

The three stone is my favorite. Very classic and beautiful. And it''s actually exactly what I pictured when you said you wanted sapphires, so that must mean something!

 

[Need Help123]

Can one of you give me your take on the following diamonds? They both seem like pretty good deals to me, but I''m quite the novice. By the way, I''ve decided to go with the three-stone that Gypsy suggested from Dimend SCAASI. I''ve upped my budget a little bit to around $3,500 give/take. I''ll also take alternative suggestions for diamonds for SCAASI.

Round Diamond
Price: $2,458.00
Bank Wire: $2,409.00

Diamond Details
Stock #: 22250
Carat: 0.7
Color: F
Clarity: SI2
Cut: IDEAL
Shape: Round
Depth %: 62.6
Table %: 56
Polish: Excellent
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: Faint
Measurements: 5.66*5.71*3.56
Lab: GIA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Round Diamond
Price: $2,139.00
Bank Wire: $2,097.00

Diamond Details
Stock #: sd-1326
Carat: 0.67
Color: F
Clarity: SI1
Cut: IDEAL
Shape: Round
Depth %: 61.3
Table %: 56
Polish: Very Good
Symmetry: Very Good
Fluorescence: None
Measurements: 5.66*5.67*3.47
Lab: GIA

 

[Ellen]

Just going on this info, I''d get the second one. It''s facing up just about the same size as the first (first is a bit deeper), it''s a clarity grade better, and cheaper.

Any chance of getting the crown and pavillion angles on those?

 

[Independent Gal]

Hurray! I think that setting is great.

Of the two diamonds you've posted, I'd prefer the second one because the first is a titch deep. As a result, these two diamonds will look pretty much EXACTLY the same size (look at the mm measurements) but you're paying much more for the first one because the cost per carat jumps dramatically when you get to the 0.7 carat mark.

ETA: What Ellen said! And the clarity issue is one to take account of. The SI1 is more likely to be eye clean.

 

[Need Help123]

Date: 9/5/2007 9:20:45 AM
Author: Independent Gal
Hurray! I think that setting is great.

Of the two diamonds you''ve posted, I''d prefer the second one because the first is a titch deep. As a result, these two diamonds will look pretty much EXACTLY the same size (look at the mm measurements) but you''re paying much more for the first one because the cost per carat jumps dramatically when you get to the 0.7 carat mark.

ETA: What Ellen said! And the clarity issue is one to take account of. The SI1 is more likely to be eye clean.

Would you say that is a good price for that specific diamond? Also, with the diamond not incredibly large, will the setting look a little funny with the large sapphires and average diamond size? I really wouldn''t want to downsize the sapphire size.

 

[Independent Gal]

Yes, I think that's a fine price for that diamond! Can you get the pavillion angles and stuff to make sure it wows on HCA? My diamond is .7 carats too. It's a FINE size. And the thing to remember is that a perfectly cut diamond looks bigger and attracts more attention than less well cut ones because of the brilliance and brightness. I've had people say things like 'Whoa, look at you waving that thing around! You're blinding me!' (and this is a 50 yr old man) and my dad said it was the most noticeable diamond he ever saw. So people somehow change 'bright and blingy' to 'bigger' in their minds. People just aren't used to seeing REALLY BEAUTIFUL diamonds. Isn't that sad? So don't feel at all badly about the size. Seriously. That's going to be one GORGEOUS ring. And the diamond will be so bright white next to the sapphs that it will look great.

What are the mm. specs on the sapphs?

 

[Need Help123]

Date: 9/5/2007 1:16:05 PM
Author: Independent Gal
Yes, I think that's a fine price for that diamond! Can you get the pavillion angles and stuff to make sure it wows on HCA? My diamond is .7 carats too. It's a FINE size. And the thing to remember is that a perfectly cut diamond looks bigger and attracts more attention than less well cut ones because of the brilliance and brightness. I've had people say things like 'Whoa, look at you waving that thing around! You're blinding me!' (and this is a 50 yr old man) and my dad said it was the most noticeable diamond he ever saw. So people somehow change 'bright and blingy' to 'bigger' in their minds. People just aren't used to seeing REALLY BEAUTIFUL diamonds. Isn't that sad? So don't feel at all badly about the size. Seriously. That's going to be one GORGEOUS ring. And the diamond will be so bright white next to the sapphs that it will look great.

What are the mm. specs on the sapphs?

Thanks so much for the help. I am a little worried about the size of the diamond. But I definitely don't want to sacrifice quality, color and cut for size. The only information I have on the sapphires is what was in the description: "Timeless crown-like design set with side fine Ceylon Sapphires weighing a total of 0.7cts."

I have to say, I have looked at a lot of three-stone rings (including those without sapphries on the side) and this setting has to be the most elegant, classiest setting I've seen. The look from the side is gorgeous. I'm certain she will be in love with it.

Independent Gal, given the size of the sapphires, do you think I'll need to get the sapphires smaller or will a .67 diamond look okay between them? Also, where would I get the pavillion angles and other descriptions that you would like to see?

 

[havernell]

Date: 9/5/2007 1:44:53 PM
Author: Need Help123
I am a little worried about the size of the diamond. But I definitely don't want to sacrifice quality, color and cut for size.

I do think that price looks reasonable for .67 F SI diamond. However, you could probably go lower than an F and still have a white, white diamond. Stones that are well cut hide color really well, so I don't think you'd necessarily be "sacrificing" anything if you went lower in color to get a larger diamond. Everyone's color threshold is different, but it seems to most people than a G or even H color still looks colorless. If you do a search on PS for Mara's J color diamond, you can see that even a well cut J can face up really white!

So, if you are set on a F, that's totally fine. However, I think you could probably get an H color stone that looked just as white as that F but that gave you a bit more size if you wanted.

Best of luck with the final purchase!!

 

[Gypsy]

Quick Notes:

The diamond size is VERY respectable. Indy is 100% spot on.

We need more info on the diamond: crown and pavillion angles. And an ideal scope or ASET please.

Please make sure you tell them that you do not want dark or navy sapphires. They probably have a bunch of them, ask them to pick out the pair that are closest to cornflower blue. A medium blue. I think the size is going to be fine. BUT you can ask them to place the loose diamond on and the two sapphires on each side and send you a pic so that you get an idea for the proportions. This should not be a difficult thing for them to do.

I like FG with Blue stones, and for that setting, because the side view is going to be very eyecatching.

SO glad you picked the threestone! Can''t wait to see the finished ring it''s going to be STUNNING!

 

[Gwyn]

Date: 9/3/2007 3:01:54 AM
Author: EBree
Does your girlfriend like a more antique look? Here''s a ring from antiqueengagementrings.com that she might like:

Replica Art Deco Engagement Ring

ETA: I just noticed the ad says out of stock, but since it''s a replica, you could call about having one made.

OMG i love love love that one!

Man, if only i had an extra 3K hanging around....