What would you do with my budget?

[basil]

I''m not getting engaged for a little while, but I''m a researcher at heart and I''m starting to plan. It looks like the finances will allow approximately $6500 for stone and setting. I was originally looking at colored stones, but my boyfriend would really like to get a diamond.

I know I could get a really nice 1 carat round in a plain platinum setting for this budget, and I think those are nice...but it just seems like everyone has those. My dream ring would be a ~2 carat cushion or emerald cut in a thin platinum pave setting, but I know that''s not feasible.

I don''t mind a little warmth, and I don''t care about inclusions that I won''t notice at a normal viewing distance. I want to get the biggest-looking stone possible. I''d be willing to spend the whole budget on a stone and get a simple white gold setting that we could change in a few years, but I''d like to keep the diamond forever. While I love cushions and ECs, I''ve been thinking about ovals or possibly rounds for their greater spread.

What would you advise me to choose for my budget?

 

[Mara]

Hmm okay with your budget (keeping in mind I love rounds for their spread and fabulous symmetry and light return)...

http://www.abazias.com/database/NewDiamondInfo.asp?stock=29706304&flag=ps
That stone, which is a virtual 1.37 I SI2 AGS Ideal for about $5600 and very nice specs from what is listed...definitely promising.

And then I'd get something like the A. Jaffe super thin platinum pave setting. It's something like .15ctw in each band so the diamonds are just in the top half of the band, it's about 2.2mm or so, so very thin, and in platinum I think it's about $1200 for the e-ring.

That would be a 1.37c stone in a thin platinum pave setting for about $6800.

Definitely more fun than a 1c in a platinum plain setting.

 

[Mara]

here is a shot of the Jaffe rings I am talking about. there is an e-ring and 2 w-rings but you can just get one of the w-rings if you want (my preferred style). a few gals here have this style, RMS is one of them.

oh and i tried this set on at a local jewelers and it's fabulous in person! i'd probably have some head modifications made but that's because i am a picky head person, but the setting itself is stunning and it's a great way to get some thin pave without breaking the bank.

 

[FacetFire]

How much warmth can you handle? Here's a thread on K colored stones: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/k-color-stones-in-platinum-wg.43782/=

http://www.exceldiamonds.com/diamond/1209.html

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=883683

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=860844

I haven't run any of the rounds through the HCA, I was just looking for size and very good cut for the money. The oval and the first round have fluorescence which could help them face up a bit whiter. I don't know much about about ovals, the top one just looked huge for the money. An oval or other fancy cut will show more color, though.

http://www.jamesallen.com/diamond.asp?cid=131&item=860844

 

[Beacon]

It sounds like you enjoy fancy shapes. I think, though some pros feel differently, the ovals and princesses can look bigger at the same carat weight as a round. Plus, fancy shapes generally are less expensive than a round at the same carat weight, so it is sort of a "twofer".

But, since you are planning way ahead, you might want to consider when, and if, you can upgrade your stone. If you think an upgrade is in your future and you want to keep your stone then a round might be a good idea. If you get a nice quality round you can always use it later as a side stone for a very nice 3 stone ring.

I mention this out of my own experience as I have had an 1.57 oval, a 1.29 princess and a 2.27 round. I sold the oval and still have the princess, but haven''t thought of what to do with it next. Anyhow, it would have been more efficient if I had started w/ a round, since now I really love rounds. Sigh.

With a nice quality round you have many options for the future. I agree with you on keeping your setting very simple, especially if you kinda "know" you''ll change your stone around in the future. And, considering you never know that you may want to go a totally different direction in the future, your simple setting will hold value somewhat better than a more elaborate one - IMO.

 

[basil]

Oh, I love that oval you posted, FacetFire! It''s as big as some of the 1.75~ ovals, and that seems like a good price.

I don''t really think I''ll want to upgrade my stone. But I''d rather get a nicer stone than a fancy setting right now. Though the Jaffe setting is nice, it''s not exactly what I''d choose, so I''d rather put the $1200 into a bigger or nicer diamond and then change the setting later.

Do you think a 1.75 carat round (7.76x7.75) (http://www.abazias.com/database/NewDiamondInfo.asp?stock=31266862&flag=ps) would look bigger than a 9.5x6.5 oval like FacetFire posted?

I''m kind of leaning towards the ovals because of the "different" factor, but I think big rounds are so nice too. Heh.

 

[Mara]

well i wouldn''t consider that 1.75c stone you posted...because it doesn''t look cut very well, and cut quality is going to cost you more...so if you want a well-cut stone aka one that is going to perform well and look beautiful you will pay a little more than a random cut stone.

it may be harder to find a well-cut oval or cushion than a round, but if you have the patience to look and are willing to keep going til you find it, then go fancy! good luck!

 

[FacetFire]

Date: 7/21/2006 5:14:15 PM
Author: basil
Oh, I love that oval you posted, FacetFire! It's as big as some of the 1.75~ ovals, and that seems like a good price.


I don't really think I'll want to upgrade my stone. But I'd rather get a nicer stone than a fancy setting right now. Though the Jaffe setting is nice, it's not exactly what I'd choose, so I'd rather put the $1200 into a bigger or nicer diamond and then change the setting later.


Do you think a 1.75 carat round (7.76x7.75) (http://www.abazias.com/database/NewDiamondInfo.asp?stock=31266862&flag=ps) would look bigger than a 9.5x6.5 oval like FacetFire posted?


I'm kind of leaning towards the ovals because of the 'different' factor, but I think big rounds are so nice too. Heh.

If my math skills serve me right, the total area on the round you posted would be 47.4 sq mm and the area of the oval would be 48.7 sq mm. So, the oval would face up just a touch larger. Don't even know if that would be noticable, though. The question is really which shape you prefer and like on your finger. Some people like ovals because of the elongated shape being very graceful looking on the finger. But, even the best cut oval won't sparkle quite as much as a well cut round.

 

[FacetFire]

I know it may be wrong to admit this on this site...but I would definitely be willing to drop down to a Very Good cut stone like the one Basil posted in order to get the size I wanted. I think we all have different priorities and tastes when it comes to diamonds. The 1.75 K has a great spread, a very good cut grade by GIA, and strong blue fluor to help mitigate the K color. It might be worth checking out, especially if size is your first priority.

 

[Mara]

Date: 7/21/2006 5:39:05 PM
Author: FacetFire
I know it may be wrong to admit this on this site...but I would definitely be willing to drop down to a Very Good cut stone like the one Basil posted in order to get the size I wanted. I think we all have different priorities and tastes when it comes to diamonds. The 1.75 K has a great spread, a very good cut grade by GIA, and strong blue fluor to help mitigate the K color. It might be worth checking out, especially if size is your first priority.

You aren't wrong to admit anything here of course....it takes different strokes...but as someone who has seen (and owned) very good cut stones vs good stones and ideal cut stones etc, sometimes the visuals make a huge difference in what you'd be willing to sacrifice. Having had a Good cut stone, and then owning ideals and superideals, I would never go back!! And I am the ultimate size whore

But I would not sacrifice cut quality for size..no way and no how. The reason is that a well-cut but slightly smaller stone with edge to edge light return could face up larger than a very good cut stone with non edge to edge light return. So it's not JUST about diameter on the stone. It's about how the stone actually returns light to your eye.

I think that everyone should have to sit down with a good, very good and excellently cut stone in front of them and see what their eyes can tell. It's eye-opening really what you can sacrifice with even just a bit of cut quality.

Also, personally...but I wouldn't trust the GIA cut grade as far as I could throw it...which probably isn't very far.

You can look at all the discussions about it on here but I don't trust any certificate to tell me what an ideal is...I have to find out for myself. Just my two cents!!

 

[FacetFire]

I guess I don't see why the 1.75 is such a bad cut...it gets an excellent, excellent, excellent, very good and 1.2 on the HCA. it's closer to a 60:60 type of stone, yes, but a lot of people like those...

Sounds like a pretty nice stone to me...

 

[Mara]

Date: 7/21/2006 5:52:26 PM
Author: FacetFire
I guess I don't see why the 1.75 is such a bad cut...it gets an excellent, excellent, excellent, very good and 1.2 on the HCA. it's closer to a 60:60 type of stone, yes, but a lot of people like those...

Sounds like a pretty nice stone to me...

I don't know that I'd agree that 'a lot of people' like 60/60's...but okay.

The stone is not badly cut at all, it probably is a VG type quality cut. It's all about preference. I wouldn't really recommend someone check out a 'virtual stone' that is a 60/60 if they don't know already that they love that look. To me the 60/60 look is more hit or miss than a typical ideal, especially since it's a virtual stone that has to be called in. Eyes are really important for stones like this. Though not really more important than with a cushion or fancy cut actually.

I personally don't like the girdle, the G polish (and VG symmetry), the angles are nice, don't like the table...but it IS a preference thing. However, if someone is not familiar with how 60/60's look...I can't say that they'd love it. But again...just my own opinion that I wouldn't sacrifice cut quality for size. Been there, done that.

 

[FacetFire]

Oh, I definitely agree that normally I would not take a chance on a virtual stone like that, but given Basil's preference for size and the budget...it might be worth looking at. I was impressed by the HCA on it too. I cannot imagine doing much better in that size for the money...

 

[basil]

Hmm...this is kind of a newbie question. What''s a 60/60 diamond supposed to look like? I know it''s 60% table, 60% depth, but how is it different than a regular ideal?

How would I go about evaluating the cut quality of an oval? The one FacetFire posted fits into the class 1a measurements on this site. What else are you supposed to do?

 

[FacetFire]

Date: 7/21/2006 6:29:08 PM
Author: basil
Hmm...this is kind of a newbie question. What''s a 60/60 diamond supposed to look like? I know it''s 60% table, 60% depth, but how is it different than a regular ideal?


How would I go about evaluating the cut quality of an oval? The one FacetFire posted fits into the class 1a measurements on this site. What else are you supposed to do?

The most common thing that I''ve heard on here to describe a 60:60 stone is that the light return looks more scattered and disorganized as opposed to the very organized pattern of a H&A ideal cut. As far as an oval, other than running the basic numbers as you already did...you just have to see it and evaluate it in person.