Yssie your prongs are long

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Yssie, please excuse my not minding my own business.
But really your prongs on the center stone could be shortened by a huge amount allowing more sparkle.

 

[VRBeauty]

Oh my. Only on Pricescope...!

 

[Karl_K]

Oh my. Only on Pricescope...!

ROFL literally
.

 

[yssie]

One is longer than normal to cover a crystal inclusion under a UGF that I dislike seeing Garry, and to maintain equal length the others followed suit. The 'prongy' look is a trade I am comfortable with in order to completely prong the crystal.

Want to buy me a 2.7ct VS1? ETA I'm sure Drena wouldn't mind - it's for science! I'll be happy to send you my ring to shave the prongs as much as you like for maximum surround-prong sparkle

-Yssie Long Prong

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Its a 3.17ct F VS1 STG Blue and Drena would not be happy Yssie (if she knew).
Sadly she can't know

Those facets extend half way up the stars.
And because inclusions cast a reflection, I think you could have them shaved down to just below the inclusion, and have the stone rotated slightly, then never ever use a loupe again on it, and you will not know where it is.
And if you do, just have a setter turn it every couple of years until prysobea (spelling?) kicks in and you will cease caring!

 

[JulieN]

Presbyopia.

 

[artdecogirl]

VR, you are right only on Pricescope.

 

[yssie]

Turning the stone every couple of years and waiting for my eyes to age - why on earth didn't I think of that?

This crystal has turned out to be a bit of a PITA. I love the stone otherwise and it has sentimental value so I won't be changing it, but... given a time-turner I'd tell my younger self to avoid the headache and throw a few thousand more at it to go up in clarity from the start! The crystal is close to the table so it doesn't reflect around the stone, so there's no hope for eight equidistant prongs masking it and its reflections in the same way. And it's 'high' on the UGF, near the UGF/star meet, and it's black, so having a prong almost-reach-but-not-quite doesn't mask it so much as make it look like that prong is a little bit longer than all the others... can you tell I've tried a variety of things!?
Actually, on thinking about it, wouldn't a crystal under a UGF deeper in the stone closer to culet than table be liable to reflect not eight but sixteen times per the pairs of LGFs? Which would mean eight double-prongs... which is too much even for me

This is a RHR reset for special occasions and the spotlighting it most commonly encounters is most favourable - I'm beginning to understand why diamonds were considered "evening stones"! The setting right before this one is my absolute favourite for a daily-wear engagement ring, and I'm looking into having a suite of coloured stones custom-cut for it (since the style of the setting delimits diameter, depth, and pavilion bulge). It will feature much shorter prongs


And the true reason I wanted to respond to this - Garry, your response to my offhand comment re. Drena's opinion makes me consider whether I haven't missed a chapter, and wonder if perhaps all is not well as I had assumed. I won't request clarification here on a public forum but please accept my sincere apologies, prayers, or condolences, whichever is(are) most appropriate, if that is in fact the case

 

[pyramid]

Maybe not your thing, but I remember seeing a cluster I liked with a double leaf shape over the top of the corner at one
end, it was a round cluster. Is there no way you can put a stencil type bit of platinum or gold in the shape of a flower or
butterfly or whatever you like but covering the inclusion in an arty way. Would have to be what you like, with all these 1940s
pave styles in vogue maybe something encrusted with micropave.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Hi Yssie,
OK, you have thought it all through - I should have known you would have. my bad
Drena has frontotemporal dementia. but she is as happy as can be. Lives in the moment. Its a younger onset dementia of the symatic (language) left brain type.
Its not a secret.
xox

 

[MissGotRocks]

Turning the stone every couple of years and waiting for my eyes to age - why on earth didn't I think of that?

This crystal has turned out to be a bit of a PITA. I love the stone otherwise and it has sentimental value so I won't be changing it, but... given a time-turner I'd tell my younger self to avoid the headache and throw a few thousand more at it to go up in clarity from the start! The crystal is close to the table so it doesn't reflect around the stone, so there's no hope for eight equidistant prongs masking it and its reflections in the same way. And it's 'high' on the UGF, near the UGF/star meet, and it's black, so having a prong almost-reach-but-not-quite doesn't mask it so much as make it look like that prong is a little bit longer than all the others... can you tell I've tried a variety of things!?
Actually, on thinking about it, wouldn't a crystal under a UGF deeper in the stone closer to culet than table be liable to reflect not eight but sixteen times per the pairs of LGFs? Which would mean eight double-prongs... which is too much even for me

This is a RHR reset for special occasions and the spotlighting it most commonly encounters is most favourable - I'm beginning to understand why diamonds were considered "evening stones"! The setting right before this one is my absolute favourite for a daily-wear engagement ring, and I'm looking into having a suite of coloured stones custom-cut for it (since the style of the setting delimits diameter, depth, and pavilion bulge). It will feature much shorter prongs


And the true reason I wanted to respond to this - Garry, your response to my offhand comment re. Drena's opinion makes me consider whether I haven't missed a chapter, and wonder if perhaps all is not well as I had assumed. I won't request clarification here on a public forum but please accept my sincere apologies, prayers, or condolences, whichever is(are) most appropriate, if that is in fact the case

Since everyone is stumbling into everyone here, may I ask if this means it's not worn as your ering anymore? Perhaps I'm misreading this and if I'm prying where I don't belong, please don't feel that you must answer. The setting right before this one was the butterfly three stone, no? I think I've missed a thing or two as well!

Garry, I am sorry about your wife but if she's happy that's half the battle.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I am very sorry to hear that, Garry.