Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

Which DBL Diamond between these four

B

Bauer600

Rough_Rock
Joined
Jul 11, 2013
Messages
33
 
#3 has some serious bow tie tendencies. It's also D-VVS1, making it needlessly expensive. Out.
#4 is bright but has no symmetry. Looks like someone hit it with a baseball bat.
#2 has symmetry but isn't very bright.
That leaves #1, which has a good pattern and reflects light well. That's the one I'd take.

Though $3600 seems a lot for an 80 point stone that is well cut, but probably not ideally. I guess you're set on DBL?
 
I like 2,4,3,1 in that order. For no other reasons than I like the pictures that David posted.
 
I like number 1 option but feel price is little high in my opinion.
 
#1 - I would want to see a video of this one.
#2 - doesn't look bright
#3 - Nice but VVS is overkill.
#4 - Nice but I don't like the crushed ice pattern.
 
#1 is the best but over priced
#2 looks dead to me- out
#3 I wouldn't spend $3600 on it when there is much better out there.
#4 Crushed ice which is a personal preference but I personally don't like it at all. For cushions the charm is to actually see the bold chunky facets. I would accept a crushed ice cushion.

I think david does better radiants, not love the selection of cushions.
 
There is also a 7% discount off the center stone as well just to let you guys know.
 
I like #3...
 
IMO 0.74 D VVS2 looks pretty decent. It does have a negligible bow tie effect though which doesn't seem to effect much but compared to all other I liked this one.
 
My completely personal opinions based on just the photos:

LOVE the 0.76 D VS1 (#4)
Don't object to the 0.81 G VS2 (#1)
Don't like the 0.8 G VVS2 (#2)
REALLY dislike the 0.74 D VVS2 (#3)
 
Yssie, thank you. I find it kinda of odd some love the D VVS 2 and you dislike it, I thought it had some punch and clarity to it, not being crushed ice and all. The D VS1 I like to, it is a tad more rectangular than square. I was contacting David today to get the ring started as I need to have it by the 3rd week of august.

I was debating going a tad bigger on the G VS or VVS, but I'm not sure which to do for the price .74 to .81.
 
Bauer600|1374857518|3490848 said:
Yssie, thank you. I find it kinda of odd some love the D VVS 2 and you dislike it, I thought it had some punch and clarity to it, not being crushed ice and all. The D VS1 I like to, it is a tad more rectangular than square. I was contacting David today to get the ring started as I need to have it by the 3rd week of august.

I was debating going a tad bigger on the G VS or VVS, but I'm not sure which to do for the price .74 to .81.
Click to expand...


The reason I dislike #3 is because I like stones that have predictable (or predictably unpredictable) faceting. Larger facets organized into patterns return light differently from groups of unorganized smaller facets - the former clearly turn on/off (light up/go dark) as you rock the stone, highlighting the organization of the faceting, whereas the latter is like looking into an endless tub of glitter - twinkle twinkle everywhere!

I think some people like stones with a mix of larger, patterned facets and smaller, unpatterned facets because they consider it "getting the best of both worlds", but my personal tastes run toward stones that excel in one or the other and to me the mixing of types says "identity crisis" :rodent: it's all up to what YOU think, there's no right or wrong answer!

I happen to like "crushed ice", when it's done well. Not the stones that look like watery, hazy, useless mush, but the ones that are uniformly bright and glittery. In well-done "crushed ice" you aren't supposed to see a pattern in the faceting, jut un-ending twinkling all over, and I think #4 is a lovely example of that. #1 isn't bad but I *do* see a pattern in the disorganization, especially under the table - like the impact of being bashed by that bat GoSounders unearthed radiating outward ::)
 
GoSounders,

I was looking at BGD as well, Unfortunately I live in Dallas, so I get hit with the 8.25% sales tax since they are out of Texas. Even WF is based in Houston! Might only be $300 for the stone, but if you get the ring and setting through either than it jumps up even more.

I just loved the way the setting looked and was portrayed by DBL. I'm sure when set into the setting with the melee around it, it's going to be tough to distinguish between a D and a G, but at the end of the day I want something that really pops and looks good.
 
Yssie|1374860145|3490882 said:
Bauer600|1374857518|3490848 said:
Yssie, thank you. I find it kinda of odd some love the D VVS 2 and you dislike it, I thought it had some punch and clarity to it, not being crushed ice and all. The D VS1 I like to, it is a tad more rectangular than square. I was contacting David today to get the ring started as I need to have it by the 3rd week of august.

I was debating going a tad bigger on the G VS or VVS, but I'm not sure which to do for the price .74 to .81.
Click to expand...


The reason I dislike #3 is because I like stones that have predictable (or predictably unpredictable) faceting. Larger facets organized into patterns return light differently from groups of unorganized smaller facets - the former clearly turn on/off (light up/go dark) as you rock the stone, highlighting the organization of the faceting, whereas the latter is like looking into an endless tub of glitter - twinkle twinkle everywhere!

I think some people like stones with a mix of larger, patterned facets and smaller, unpatterned facets because they consider it "getting the best of both worlds", but my personal tastes run toward stones that excel in one or the other and to me the mixing of types says "identity crisis" :rodent: it's all up to what YOU think, there's no right or wrong answer!

I happen to like "crushed ice", when it's done well. Not the stones that look like watery, hazy, useless mush, but the ones that are uniformly bright and glittery. In well-done "crushed ice" you aren't supposed to see a pattern in the faceting, jut un-ending twinkling all over, and I think #4 is a lovely example of that. #1 isn't bad but I *do* see a pattern in the disorganization, especially under the table - like the impact of being bashed by that bat GoSounders unearthed radiating outward ::)
Click to expand...

Yssie,

Yeah, you liked #4 and GoSounders said it looked like it got hit with a baseball bat, It's more rectangular shaped than squared if thats what you were referring to. They are all tough choices.

If you see any others on this link below Yssie that I might be overlooking, please feel free to point anything out. I was comparing the first original 8-9 on that link

http://www.diamondsbylauren.com/index.php/categories/loose-diamonds#colors=diamond_color_white_colorless&intensity=&shapes=cushion&carat-min=&carat-max=&price-min=&price-max=&cat_id=207&ring_types=&page=2
 
Bauer600|1374862471|3490913 said:
Yssie|1374860145|3490882 said:
Bauer600|1374857518|3490848 said:
Yssie, thank you. I find it kinda of odd some love the D VVS 2 and you dislike it, I thought it had some punch and clarity to it, not being crushed ice and all. The D VS1 I like to, it is a tad more rectangular than square. I was contacting David today to get the ring started as I need to have it by the 3rd week of august.

I was debating going a tad bigger on the G VS or VVS, but I'm not sure which to do for the price .74 to .81.
Click to expand...


The reason I dislike #3 is because I like stones that have predictable (or predictably unpredictable) faceting. Larger facets organized into patterns return light differently from groups of unorganized smaller facets - the former clearly turn on/off (light up/go dark) as you rock the stone, highlighting the organization of the faceting, whereas the latter is like looking into an endless tub of glitter - twinkle twinkle everywhere!

I think some people like stones with a mix of larger, patterned facets and smaller, unpatterned facets because they consider it "getting the best of both worlds", but my personal tastes run toward stones that excel in one or the other and to me the mixing of types says "identity crisis" :rodent: it's all up to what YOU think, there's no right or wrong answer!

I happen to like "crushed ice", when it's done well. Not the stones that look like watery, hazy, useless mush, but the ones that are uniformly bright and glittery. In well-done "crushed ice" you aren't supposed to see a pattern in the faceting, jut un-ending twinkling all over, and I think #4 is a lovely example of that. #1 isn't bad but I *do* see a pattern in the disorganization, especially under the table - like the impact of being bashed by that bat GoSounders unearthed radiating outward ::)
Click to expand...

Yssie,

Yeah, you liked #4 and GoSounders said it looked like it got hit with a baseball bat, It's more rectangular shaped than squared if thats what you were referring to. They are all tough choices.

If you see any others on this link below Yssie that I might be overlooking, please feel free to point anything out. I was comparing the first original 8-9 on that link

http://www.diamondsbylauren.com/index.php/categories/loose-diamonds#colors=diamond_color_white_colorless&intensity=&shapes=cushion&carat-min=&carat-max=&price-min=&price-max=&cat_id=207&ring_types=&page=2
Click to expand...

Not at all - the outline of the stone is not something I personally care about at all. Rectangular, square... faceting comes first. I am referring to the facet pattern within the stone itself.

Of the stones on that page the ones that appeal most to my eyes are the
1.01 J SI1 - row 1, 1st on L
0.76 D VS1 - row 2, 2nd from L
0.8 J SI1 - row 3, 2nd from L

They all have two characteristics that I think make for the most beautiful non-antique cushions:
-Almost all the facets are in the same size range. No variations of huge and tiny.
-There is no discernible pattern to the way the facets are arranged. This is what creates that uniform, twinkling sparkle that looks like someone overturned a tub of glitter.

Obviously the stones are all over the place in terms of weight, colour, etc. - I'm just looking at faceting to answer your question.
 
A carat would be nice. I just don't know how the J color would play out although the first one does look more white in the photos.

Just trying to decide what would fit best in that setting. Bigger carat and sacrifice the clarity and color? or stick in the .7 to .8 range like my original plan. They all look beautiful, and just trying to find the best value for my money as well as something that she's gonna love as well. David was tied up today, so I'm gonna have to get with him on Monday and see what he recommends.

I like the D color's but I know thats possibly overkill for the money, but I think both of them look fantastic, except the one you mentioned that had the "bow-tie" effect
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top