shape
carat
color
clarity

Which Ring would YOU prefer?

Which Ring would YOU prefer?

  • .61ct, AGS0 H&A, colorless, VS2 in simple solitaire WG setting

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Three stone ring: .4ct, AGS0, colorless, VS2 center, with .23ct AGS0, colorless, VS2 sides

    Votes: 1 100.0%
  • Three stone ring: .4ct, AGS0, colorless, VS2 center, with .31ct AGS0, colorless, SI1 sides

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Total voters
    1
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,236
Hey guys, I decided not to lift the same title for this one, so their is no confusion. Also this one is more correct to the questions.

It is too late for me now, and its not a very revolutionary poll. No big wows or scratching of heads going to be walking away from this one. But nonthless I wanted to get the actual input from the ladies. Remember that the .61ct option has about 5.4mm spread, whereas the combined spread of the 3 stones will range about 8-10mm total spread length.

Also, the GIA excellent would rate about 3 with 1 finish point on the AGS grade. And assume all SI1's are eye clean from the top.

Also, the solitaire would ran me about 150-250 dollars less, but in general they should be pretty close to the same price, a slight extra cost in the 3 ring but that isn't an issue for the ladies of course.
 

Skippy123

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
24,300
Still no choice
2.gif
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,236
now there is a choice. just answer for my own sake, its really not a big deal as I will eventually make her a 3 stone with about a 1.2ct with two .61ct sides--at least thats the plan if she lets me.
 

sera

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jun 27, 2007
Messages
2,086
If you're going to upgrade to a 3-stone, why not go with a solitaire now so the upgrade will be a bigger change? I love 3 stone rings, but if I knew I was going to upgrade to one, I would likely get a solitaire (with a pave band) for now.
 

kcoursolle

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
10,595
Can I pick none? I would go for a well-cut near colorless stone instead of a colorless to max out size. I''d try to get a near colorless .7 in a simple setting.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,236
Date: 7/12/2007 9:27:28 PM
Author: sera
If you''re going to upgrade to a 3-stone, why not go with a solitaire now so the upgrade will be a bigger change? I love 3 stone rings, but if I knew I was going to upgrade to one, I would likely get a solitaire (with a pave band) for now.


well a pave band would have been nice but last we talked she only showed interest in simple solitaire and a three-stone. I didn''t know much then, but I think she probably knew enough to suggest them if she were interested. She likes a very simple elegant understated look. But I am not going to upgrade now. This is more just out of curiosity. I don''t have time right now, and I purchased a shank from knox jewelers for 250 dollars so there is no going back for now.
 

Rock Candy

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Sep 14, 2006
Messages
630
Date: 7/12/2007 9:20:01 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
now there is a choice. just answer for my own sake, its really not a big deal as I will eventually make her a 3 stone with about a 1.2ct with two .61ct sides--at least thats the plan if she lets me.

Hi WHSR:

I voted for the .61 solitaire and here''s my rationale: If you plan to eventually upgrade to a 3 stone ring with two .61 sides, why not use the original .61 solitaire as one of the sides?
 

Skippy123

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
24,300
Date: 7/12/2007 9:38:50 PM
Author: kcoursolle
Can I pick none? I would go for a well-cut near colorless stone instead of a colorless to max out size. I''d try to get a near colorless .7 in a simple setting.
I am w/Kcoursolle.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,236
Date: 7/12/2007 9:38:50 PM
Author: kcoursolle
Can I pick none? I would go for a well-cut near colorless stone instead of a colorless to max out size. I'd try to get a near colorless .7 in a simple setting.

You could pick none but that would be mean since I spent so much time selecting these options. Though it would be nice to offer up other ideas after voting.
7.gif


I will tell you something though, I initially set my max size and got an H VS2 that I wasn't happy with due to quality. (Not as an Ering anyway, but that is my particular taste I think she would have preferred a .70 H on further consideration.) Thus I chose to raise my budget and get a totally eyeclean diamond with higher color of the same size.

Now, at the time I was searching there were no .7ct diamonds H or higher that were AGS0 for less than 2400 dollars--which would already be an 800 dollar (or a 50% price increase on the diamond alone) to get a (.09ct) .35mm increase in spread--which I couldn't justify.

However, what I didn't realize was that WF has some amazing WG palladium mix simple low set tiffany style rings for 180 dollars. I like my ring more, but for the price difference (my shank cost 250 plus 150 more for platinum head and having it set to my specifications by James Allen) I could have gotten a .70ct G VS2 in a simple tif for about 150 dollars more than my .61ct, and if I had realized those savings in the Ring itself I probably would have done it.


But anyway, you are welcome to offer other ideas, but don't choose none plz
2.gif
You must have at least a preference amongst those.

(also notice that I specifically left out reducing the color in any of the options, because I know nearly everyone on PS would jump on that, which wouldn't give me any new results)
 

Skippy123

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Nov 24, 2006
Messages
24,300
Date: 7/12/2007 9:59:06 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

Date: 7/12/2007 9:38:50 PM
Author: kcoursolle
Can I pick none? I would go for a well-cut near colorless stone instead of a colorless to max out size. I''d try to get a near colorless .7 in a simple setting.

You could pick none but that would be mean since I spent so much time selecting these options. Though it would be nice to offer up other ideas after voting.
7.gif


I will tell you something though, I initially set my max size and got an H VS2 that I wasn''t happy with due to quality. Not as an Ering anyway. Thus I chose to raise my budget and get a totally eyeclean diamond with higher color of the same size.

Now, at the time I was searching there were no .7ct diamonds H or higher that were AGS0 for less than 2400 dollars--which would be a 800 dollar (or a 50% price increase on the diamond alone) to get a (.09ct) .35mm increase in spread--which I couldn''t justify.

However, what I didn''t realize was that WF has some amazing WG palladium combo simple low set tiffany style rings. I like my ring more, but for the price difference (my shank cost 250 plus 150 more for platinum head and having it set to my specifications by James Allen) thus I could have gotten a .70ct G VS2 in a simple tif for 150 dollars more, and if I had realized that I probably would have done it.

But anyway, you are welcome to offer other ideas, but don''t choose none plz
2.gif
You must have at least a preference amongst those.
I love your choice and I wouldn''t second guess myself; it is gorgous and they offer the upgrade later. You are a sweet kind man!!!!
36.gif
 

dtnyc

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
1,119
I am w/ Sera and Kcoursolle-

If given the choice between a 3 stone ring and a solitaire w/ a larger stone than the center of the 3-stone I would want the solitaire... but probably w/ some pave or maybe much smaller side stones- to make the center stone look bigger.

This way eventually you could use the main stone as a side stone in a grander 3-stone or 5-stone ring.

Also like Kcoursolle I wouldn''t go completely colorless/vvs- unless she cleans her ring everyday it''s going to have color and specks of dirt, etc. You need to think about how the ring will look in everyday conditions.
I have a friend w/ an under 1 ct and she emphasized that they chose something w/ v. high clarity and color because it''s a better "investment" and I reminded her that an diamond is only an investment if you plan on selling it and good luck w/ that. Also it''s only as colorless and clear as you keep it clean. I have an antique stone that has a LOT of color, but I am psycho about cleaning it and it looks so much better than this girl''s ring because she never cleans hers and my is more than 2 times the size.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,236
I will tell you what though, I do wish I had realized how cheap the WF settings were. They didn't have what I was looking for at the time assuming the budget I raised per the diamond, but I could have upped my diamond price if I had realized the savings in the setting. I might still have made the same selection, but I would have had a lot more options open to me, some of them .4mm larger spread, which would def be worth dropping to a G and putting in another 150. but I didn't realize it
25.gif
to enable me to consider it.
38.gif


At any rate, I was wondering about the results of this thread. But thus far they seem to be pretty heavily in favor of the first choice, which surprises me. Its probably because everybody on PS is imagining creating a 3 stone or upgrading the .61 in future
25.gif

I don't think you ladies are the type that would eat the doughnut sitting in front of you.
9.gif



And you are def right about the cleaning. I am going to kill her if she doesn't keep it clean
14.gif
 

dtnyc

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
1,119
Date: 7/12/2007 10:15:55 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards


And you are def right about the cleaning. I am going to kill her if she doesn''t keep it clean
14.gif

You should buy her an ultrasonic or steamer w/ the money you save on the setting!
I got a jewel jet steamer for my anniversary and I steam my rings at least once a week- it makes a tremendous difference!
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,236
Date: 7/12/2007 10:12:04 PM
Author: dtnyc
I am w/ Sera and Kcoursolle-


If given the choice between a 3 stone ring and a solitaire w/ a larger stone than the center of the 3-stone I would want the solitaire... but probably w/ some pave or maybe much smaller side stones- to make the center stone look bigger.

I totally agree with that. originally I hadn't found a setting with good pave or side stones for less than 35% of the price of my diamond. Just too expensive. But then I found one at...believe it or not, Zales
6.gif
that was really quite nice (though in a 14k gold). Anyway, that is my biggest area of doubt! if I had gotten some side stones It would have made it look more impressive so she could enjoy high quality in the center and friends would think it was bigger! (this is independent of the survey though and is really irrelevant since I cant return the knox ring, like I said, if she wanted pave or side stones she should have stepped up to the plate when we were looking at rings so long ago. I really think it would have been the best option though)

Also, I did buy her an US, search out "SI or ORO" and you will find the one I bought, the Geisweissen Sonic wave. It is cheap but somewhat recommended. If it isn't good enough, I will find a way to buy a nicer one to keep it cleaned. I haven't decided on a steamer yet, but she works 5-6 days a week leaves the house on the bus at 830am and gets back at night on the bus at 1030pm, so I don't think she would take the time for the jewel jet. but an US can be done while doing make up--thats my figuring anyway
25.gif
 

kcoursolle

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
10,595
Since I must pick one of the above, I picked the .61 solitaire. I thought the .41 stones were much smaller and even with the side stones for finger coverage, I would personally rather have a larger center stone. .61 is a very respectable size and if you get a nicely cut stone it will have so many sparkles that it will be beautiful and attention grabbing.
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,236
hum, im surprised to see the .52ct option matching and exceeding the .4ct ideal option. but at leats that one moment of doubt I had about the .61 or the smaller 3stone is alleviated...looks like pretty good odds she would have preferred it as well.
 

kcoursolle

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jan 21, 2006
Messages
10,595
Date: 7/12/2007 10:58:09 PM
Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards
hum, im surprised to see the .52ct option matching and exceeding the .4ct ideal option. but at leats that one moment of doubt I had about the .61 or the smaller 3stone is alleviated...looks like pretty good odds she would have preferred it as well.
My guess is that they didn''t notice the .52 wasn''t really well. There are also a lot of size gals around here LOL!

I would keep in mind your gf''s taste and whether she prefers the solitaire look or the three-stone and whether she rather have a large or small diamond.
 

E B

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
9,490
I love the look of three stone rings, just not on my hand. I tried on several, hoping to like them, but a solitaire won out every time.
 

snlee

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
5,891
Another vote for the solitaire!
 

jstarfireb

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 24, 2007
Messages
6,232
I voted for the solitaire too, but I just prefer solitaires over 3-stones. I know the 3-stone would give more finger coverage, but I like just having a larger solitaire. I''m definitely with the group who would pick a larger G-J color stone over a smaller colorless stone. But I have an I princess, so I''m a little biased (and either not so color-sensitive or at least I like the lower colors!).
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,236
well shoot, It made me vote twice for the .61. Anybody else have the problem that when they click "view results" without voting then it won''t let you view them until after you vote?

subtract one vote from the .61
7.gif
and again, I am astounded by the % for the fourth option. but at least number 1 has kicked it up a notch in the last little bit!
 

dtnyc

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
1,119
Date: 7/12/2007 11:05:42 PM
Author: kcoursolle
Date: 7/12/2007 10:58:09 PM

Author: WorkingHardforSmallRewards

hum, im surprised to see the .52ct option matching and exceeding the .4ct ideal option. but at leats that one moment of doubt I had about the .61 or the smaller 3stone is alleviated...looks like pretty good odds she would have preferred it as well.

My guess is that they didn''t notice the .52 wasn''t really well. There are also a lot of size gals around here LOL!

Also I vote for the solitaire, but out of the 3-stone rings I prefer the proportions of the .52 w/ the smaller sides than the other 2 3-stone options.
I prefer 3-stone rings where the middle stone really outsizes the 2 side stones. Then again I am bias as I have a 2 ct w/ 6 side stones and they are 4 .15''s and 2 .10''s, so they really make the big mama look like the big mama!
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top