Two possibilities!!! (photos included!)

[Small]

I like the larger one myself based on the numbers, the pictures, and ofcourse because I like larger stones

I agree with Kaleigh...it''s a ring for you and you alone so don''t worry about what anyone thinks.
Now I remember you got your stone from DS and didn''t like it after it was set...does the same return policy go for this stone in the event the same thing happens to you again? I know you are in search of the perfect stone for you so I hope for your sake this is it

 

[jadeleaves]

Date: 7/6/2006 8:26:32 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Yes, I think I''d be sad to lose the 1.63, although I think I''d be more eager to snap it up if it were 1.4 or 1.5. I did let a 1.35 H VVS1 go about a week or so ago. These stones do sell, so you can''t wait forever to decide.

*hehe* did u say 1.5? what about this one?

 

[Mara]

DS, you have got to get over your neurosis on the whole 1.6 being too big! it''s NOT.

and trust me, if you are okay with getting a 1.40 or a 1.50 and that is your sweet spot...a 1.60 is not going to be like ''oh my god that thing is MONSTROUS'' compared to them. it''s basically just going to be a TINY smidge bit larger. probably not even visually larger to anyone but you!

i say get the 1.6!!

 

[msdarlinjoy]

Date: 7/6/2006 10:20:23 PM
Author: diamondseeker2006

It is an anniversary ring but I''ll likely get it set as a new wedding set. I''m keeping my old set for sentimental reasons.

Hi Diamondseeker ~

Are you still thinking of doing a solitaire center ring flanked by two milgrain diamond bands?

I heard someone from PS was inguiring about the Vatche setting I am getting thru GOG.

Was it you?

Keep smiling!

 

[Rosierock]

Hands down the bigger one, you will not regret going bigger! you will be very surprised at how quickly you''ll get used to looking at it. The stones you are looking at are really beautiful! let us know how you make out?

 

[belle]

the bigger one.
no question.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Carlotta, MGR, diamondfan, small, rosierock, Belle, thank you all! I know the 1.6 must seem small to many of you on this forum! If we all lived in the same neighborhood, this wouldn't be a problem at all! Lol!

Jade, that stone looks pretty, but Jon has put a lot of time into searching for me, so I am commited to buying from GOG at this point.

Mara, I remembered that you started with a 1.6 and I actually looked for pictures of that ring! But it was helpful to see your friend's 1.6 that you posted last night. My finger is pretty small (5 1/4), so everything looks pretty big on me. I told Jon I needed a diamond psychiatrist to help me settle on a stone, and he said to just call him the diamond doctor! I have actually tried a 1.6 from Wink, but it was a consignment stone and premium cut, so I would have never been satisfied with it after being around here. I did feel like it was too big, so I tried to stick with the 1.4 range. The DS ring was 1.44 and 7.25mm (very close to the new GOG 1.37) and I liked the size. It still seemed big to me compared to my 1 ct. but not as big as the 1.6. I did not like the 54 table as it just didn't look as good as a larger table to me and that was the primary reason I returned it along with feathers near the girdle. I found the GOG 1.6 weeks ago and just wished it was a bit smaller. Jon had a 1.35 H VVS1 that I considered but let go because it was 7.1mm and I had set 7.2mm as my minimum. The new 1.37 is probably the best size for me, but the numbers aren't as ideal as the 1.6 unfortunately. And without being able to try them both on, it is really hard for me to decide. I do have a picture of them both on someone's hand but it says the file is too large to post.

Mrs DJ, I was thinking of a solitaire with one band. I did get a Signed Pieces band to try with the ring, but I'll return it if it doesn't work with the solitaire and order something else. I just want diamonds in the w-band for sure. Yes, I did email Marie about your setting! I think it is beautiful and would like to see yours before making a decision. I'm still thinking about Lockes and SuperbCert, too. And I really just need to go somewhere and look at sets as well.

 

[Ellen]

ds, I can relate to the size issue, I''m one of the rare few who didn''t want a big rock. But everyone is right in that 1.6 is not huge, but it is noticable.

The ONLY reason I would suggest the smaller stone is if you think there is ANY chance you could not get used to the size. You can always go up, but you can''t go down.

 

[mrssalvo]

DS. I do know how you feel. I also think the setting you choose can make the stone look bigger or smaller. so if you go with the 1.6 you''d just need to find a setting with a 2.5-3mm band or something with sidestones or pave in the band to help draw the eye away from the center. I noticed this recently as i hunt for my own setting. the super thin Ritani made the stone look a lot bigger than the shared prong setting I tried on and both had 1.5 centers. so you may actually be able to minimize the appearance of the size depending on the setting you choose.

 

[diamondlove]

hi DS2006,

I just wanted to chime in and say that I''m so excited that you seem to be VERY close to getting your dream ring.

Good luck and I can''t wait to see which one you decide on.

I understand your dilemma with the size but, unfortunately, my vote does not differ from the consensus-- if the price dif. is not an issue for you-- I say go for the 1.6! It''s quite a beauty.



DL

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 7/7/2006 9:43:35 AM
Author: Ellen
ds, I can relate to the size issue, I''m one of the rare few who didn''t want a big rock. But everyone is right in that 1.6 is not huge, but it is noticable.

The ONLY reason I would suggest the smaller stone is if you think there is ANY chance you could not get used to the size. You can always go up, but you can''t go down.

Ellen, is it a 1.4 that you have? I remember asking you if you had pictures! You have a good point regarding upgrading. If I decided the 1.6 was larger than I wanted, I''d have to go up in color and clarity to go down in size, which seems kind of crazy. I think I''d be happy with the smaller stone if the numbers were as good as the 1.6. But I have a feeling that I''m overanalyzing the 1.37 stone. I''m sure it''s beautiful, too!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

mrssalvo, good points on the setting issues.

diamondlove, your beautiful 1.8 was one reason I was tempted to go with the 1.6! Your stone is so pretty!

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/7/2006 9:51:14 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006

Date: 7/7/2006 9:43:35 AM
Author: Ellen
ds, I can relate to the size issue, I''m one of the rare few who didn''t want a big rock. But everyone is right in that 1.6 is not huge, but it is noticable.

The ONLY reason I would suggest the smaller stone is if you think there is ANY chance you could not get used to the size. You can always go up, but you can''t go down.

Ellen, is it a 1.4 that you have? I remember asking you if you had pictures! You have a good point regarding upgrading. If I decided the 1.6 was larger than I wanted, I''d have to go up in color and clarity to go down in size, which seems kind of crazy. I think I''d be happy with the smaller stone if the numbers were as good as the 1.6. But I have a feeling that I''m overanalyzing the 1.37 stone. I''m sure it''s beautiful, too!

Yes, I have the 1.4. I also have a size 6 1/4 finger, and I think it looks perfect. I''ve been told it looks very big, and I think it does look bigger, because of the great light return. I understand the numbers issue on the smaller one, but I also would trust Jon as to it''s beauty, he does know his diamonds. And mine''s an Isee2 also, they cut stunning stones.

If you want a pic, I can try and post one, if I can figure out how to resize it.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Ellen, yes, I''d love to see it! You''re right, I know Isee2 diamonds are very beautiful, so I need to stop the numbers hang-up.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/7/2006 10:07:48 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
Ellen, yes, I''d love to see it! You''re right, I know Isee2 diamonds are very beautiful, so I need to stop the numbers hang-up.

Those numbers are not what a lot here would pick, but your numbers are very close to mine, and I honestly don''t think mine''s any less beautiful than a stone with "perfect" numbers.

Now, a sizing question, as I''ve never had to do this. In Microsoft photo editor, if I have the pic on the screen at the size I want, and it says 25%, do I just save it at that?

 

[diamondlove]

Thanks -- I do miss the stone -- I don''t know if it''s still being set somewhere or just hanging out at my bf''s house.

No, seriously though-- I do think that if all things were equal then I don''t think it''d be as big of a deal if you went with the 1.37 bc i think diamond shrinkage also has a lot to do with the people around you. I personally would choose the larger one bc it''s a sig. enough size difference to make a visual impact. But if most people around you have under a 1 ct, a 1.3-1.5 ct ring will still seem quite big even if PS shrinkage sinks in at times.

However, it just depends on which you prefer visually. Could you have GOG send in both to an independent appraiser for you to view and decide? If they can''t send in both stones at once, could you possibly purchase one (due to return policy) and have the other one sent in as well and view both and THEN decide which one to keep permanently?

I just think seeing it in person might help your decision a great deal.

DL

 

[diamondseeker2006]

DL, I completely agree with what you said. A 1.37 would still be larger than 99% of the people I am around. Unfortunately, there is not an independent appraiser around here. I technically could send the money to pay for both in order to see them both and have Jon refund the one I didn''t want. It''s just sort of a hassle to be sending stones back and forth. I''d even have to send the one I wanted back to be set, so there would be some extra cost and trouble involved in sending them back and forth. But maybe that is what I should do. Being in a small town, it''s even a little embarassing to have the money wired...especially for TWO stones! Lol! It was wierd enough sending back that last one at the PO and asking for $10,000 worth of insurance!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

first one

 

[diamondseeker2006]

1.63 on left, 1.37 on right

 

[diamondseeker2006]

.

 

[Ellen]

Something else you might want to consider, if you''re worried about too much bling, and you are having diamonds in your wedding band, that may be another reason to go with the smaller.

 

[Demelza]

DS -- I think you need to do what makes you most comfortable. Don''t talk yourself into the 1.6 if wearing it will feel too uncomfortable. Having said that, the actual size difference between these stones is negligible; at least in these photos. Frankly, it''s hard to tell which stone is which. I suspect you will get used to the 1.6 in no time, but if the issue is psychological, then that''s another story. Honestly, though, there is not a very big difference in size between these two, and if the 1.6 has better numbers, I''d be inclined towards that one.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Dem, I was surprised that they are so close in size. I did have to really look to see which one was which, although Jon told me which order they were in. That's another reason I really wanted to post the pictures here. The clarity grade was a psychological issue but the size is not. Technically I really like the 1.6 as a number! I just worry about the visual size on a small finger when I already get compliments on my 1 ct. stone!

Ellen, I'd definitely get an understated w-band with small stones with either one to control the bling factor!

 

[diamondlove]

I''m actually surprised at how similar in size they look. I knew it wouldn''t be a huge difference but thought there''d be more than what it appears in these photos. Odd bc it seems like a bigger difference between my friends'' rings who have a similar difference in stone sizes. However, who knows how close or dif. their diamond cuts are so perhaps that is why.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yes DL, and another question I have emailed Jon is for the size of this lady''s ring finger. I''m betting it is larger than mine, so those stones will both appear a little larger on me if that is the case.

 

[diamondlove]

if you are looking at finger proportions in the photos-- you should also take into account that the smaller diamond is on the larger finger.

 

[Ellen]

Date: 7/7/2006 11:21:35 AM
Author: diamondlove
if you are looking at finger proportions in the photos-- you should also take into account that the smaller diamond is on the larger finger.

Yep. It would really help to see the smaller one on the ring finger. They are also on the right hand. If you''re right handed, the finger''s will be slightly bigger.

 

[Mara]

the diamond sizes look almost the same to me in those pictures...and i''m not looking at on the hand shots, just the diamond size themselves.

again, 1.6 is not visually larger than a 1.5c!!!! i don''t know why you have this mental hangup, it''s driving me nuts!

but if you think that you would just HATE the 1.6 (not gonna happen!!), then get the 1.37 and JUST DO IT ALREADY. i can''t believe you are still hemming and hawing over 1.35ish (which was like 2 months ago too) to 1.6ish.

you guys and your indecisive stuff, argh!!! i''m dying here! someone shoot me and put me out of my misery!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Mara, Lol! I totally feel your PAIN!!! This is fairly crazy. I admit it.

 

[Ellen]

Let''s see if this works...