12 replies to this topic

[Crown Imperial]

Hello Everyone,

As most other visitors who come here, I too seek help on the matter of allotropes of carbon commonly given in the US. of A to display love. Or at least a willingness to engage in matrimony which is a completly different story. I'll also throw in a bonus about my potential significant other and some of the perceptions I have of her as it relates to what type of rock, as they say, I should get her.

Yes, I could give her a budget and say "choose something you like in that price range" but I'd rather choose the stone myself unless anyone is willing to offer a few good arguments against it. She leans toward the romantic side and I think that popping the question with ring in hand (no kneeling- I refuse to go that far) would be her preferred method of engagement ring delivery.

Budget: 4-7K USD. Preferably 6.5 max including band.

The options- Basically it boils down to this for me:

A. Large rock of lesser quality

Vs.

B. Small rock of better quality

I received a free report from here
[url="http://www.diamondhelpers.com/%C2%A0"][url]http://www.diamondhelpers.com/[/url] [/url]

after someone recommended the site to me. They in turn sent me pronto a report recommending only 1 jeweler in my area which happens to be Dania Beach FL. They are called Beverly's Jewelers and a few minutes after the report, I also received an email from a sales agent at this establishment inviting me to come in for a chat.

Does anyone know of them? Any input is appreciated.

From the same "diamondhelpers" web site mentioned above, they also recommend Union Diamond as a reputable on line retailer. From the Union Diamond site, I looked up these 2 stones attached.

The 1.54ct stone is not much bigger than the 1.06 ct one. The main differences between the two is that the 1.54 is about 0.5mm overall bigger but has a clarity of VS2 against the 1.06 ct clarity of VVS1. The other difference is that one is GIA rated the other one EGL. I understand that it's impossible to compare one stone to another without actually looking at it. My question is this:

What is the largest stone I could get that does not look yellowish or has any blemishes by looking at it at close proximity for less than about 5 seconds within my budget? If I could get an approx. range in both GIA and EGL ratings that would help.

I understand many say one should go for a lower carat stone with good color and clarity instead of the other way around, but my reasoning, with all due respect to the ladies on this forum, is that women's diamond rings are the equivalent to men's penises. I.e. they compare each others rings and assume the biggest rock is the best one. Not all of course, but I believe the majority do. I've never been to a party and heard women discussing each other's rings in terms of a G vs D color or a VS2 against a VVS1 clarity. The only 2 terms they use is "big" and "sparkly".

In addition to this, since this is the internet and no one knows who the hell I am, I will also share a comment she made which is hard for me to interpret. First you need to know that she is divorced once, and two times previously engaged. Yeah I know. The charm! I've never been either.
We were talking one night and got to the topic of one of her ex-fiances. She mentioned how he was not that well of financially and that he, after asking her to marry him and she accepting, requested she visit a jewelry store to pick out a stone for her ring. The budget he gave her was 2-2.5K USD. She in turn, tells him that he should not worry about the ring and that it wasn't necessary. Well, she mentions to ME that at the time she thought that she would rather not have any ring at all than some little stone that does not, I suppose, posses a certain amount of bling. Said she would rather not wear a ring than one with a tiny little stone.

Sooooo I am thinking go big and put the other 3 C's second as long as the lesser qualities are not easily discernible at plain sight.

Any recommendations? (related to the stone - haha)

Edited by Crown Imperial, 10 August 2011 - 12:08 PM.

[Crown Imperial]

Attachments aren't working for me so here are the links

[url="http://www.uniondiamond.com/website/control/diamondDetail.pdf?productId=AE0096805"][url]http://www.uniondiam...uctId=AE0096805[/url][/url]

[url="http://www.uniondiamond.com/website/control/diamondDetail.pdf?productId=AE0127399"][url]http://www.uniondiam...uctId=AE0127399[/url][/url]

Oh. Side note. I just started reading about Culet sizes and the 1.56 ct stone has a "large" culet. I appears this be can be seen as an imperfection when viewed from the table top. Any thoughts on that?

Edited by Crown Imperial, 10 August 2011 - 01:28 PM.

[davidelevi]

Hum - long post. Let me try to cut to the chase, but do come back if I'm not answering or if I'm causing more questions to come up.

1. GIA vs. EGL - the issue is not that you cannot compare like for like because EGL is softer. The issue is that EGL - particularly EGL-International - is terribly unreliable/inconsistent with its grading. What they call "H" colour could be O-P, or it could be H; what they call "VS2" clarity could be VS2 or SI2. This not only makes non-visual comparisons impossible; it makes recommendations on ranges impossible.

2. What's "white" and "clean". General consensus is that GIA-I is about as low as you can go without the stone being somewhat visibly yellow from the side, but it's somewhat dependent on individual colour sensitivity. I have seen superbly cut M colour stones that look very white from the top, but will look unavoidably tinted from the side.

For clarity, VS2 is generally accepted to be "always" eye-clean, but there are rare ones with a visible inclusion. Most SI1 and quite a few SI2 are eye-clean to a mortal human being at a normal looking distance (12-18 inches), once set and looked at from the top. Eagle-eyes, Supermen and old-fashioned people with monocles that always kiss ladies's hands need not apply. That includes mothers-in-law with loupes instead of monocles.

3. Size vs. the rest. I'll just say that a well cut diamond looks larger, whiter and masks inclusions a lot better than a poorly cut one. Get the best cut first, then fit the rest to suit your budget and taste. Remember: big and sparkly. If you cannot get big (and at 7k including setting if you want big you need to make huge trade offs on clarity, colour and cut), get sparkly. It looks bigger.

4. Which brings up another problem - if you (she) want a cushion cut, be aware that a. they look smaller, for equal weight, than a round, though they also cost less per carat. b. there are many, many, many variants in shape, facet pattern, cut angles and proportions that generate very different looks. c. there is no way to evaluate the quality of cut other than by seeing it (in person, through photos - including ASET/IS images if you like and know how to read them, or through the dealer's eyes). If you trust the dealer to be honest on their assessment of relative merits (and not all are) and to have aesthetic preferences similar to yours (hers), then all is fine. Otherwise, you should at the very least see a few
stones "live" to decide whether you (she) prefer(s) an old-fashioned cut with large facets, a more modern cut with a "crushed ice" look, ...

5. To get big, there's more than one way. Choose a particular cut (Daussi cushions are very spready, and have a unique look - check our website to see if you like them; for example http://rockdiamond.c...18kt-halo-r3319 is a 0.85 which is visually larger than the 1.06) or emphasise the stone size with the setting: use a halo.

6. Culets. In cushions (and other "old fashioned" cuts) it's definitely not an imperfection. It has its own particular look, and in some cases the culet gets reflected in the crown and the pavilion creating an interesting pattern (so-called Kozibe effect). Do you like it? I don't know, and you probably don't either until you see it.

[Crown Imperial]

Many thanks for the valuable info Davide.

davidelevi, on 10 August 2011 - 03:20 PM, said:

4. Which brings up another problem - if you (she) want a cushion cut, be aware that a. they look smaller, for equal weight, than a round, though they also cost less per carat. b. there are many, many, many variants in shape, facet pattern, cut angles and proportions that generate very different looks. c. there is no way to evaluate the quality of cut other than by seeing it (in person, through photos - including ASET/IS images if you like and know how to read them, or through the dealer's eyes). If you trust the dealer to be honest on their assessment of relative merits (and not all are) and to have aesthetic preferences similar to yours (hers), then all is fine. Otherwise, you should at the very least see a few
stones "live" to decide whether you (she) prefer(s) an old-fashioned cut with large facets, a more modern cut with a "crushed ice" look, ...

5. To get big, there's more than one way. Choose a particular cut (Daussi cushions are very spready, and have a unique look - check our website to see if you like them; for example [url="http://rockdiamond.com/index.php/jewelry/halo-diamond-ring-85-fvs2-gia-daussi-cushion-in-18kt-halo-r3319"][url]http://rockdiamond.c...18kt-halo-r3319[/url][/url] is a 0.85 which is visually larger than the 1.06) or emphasise the stone size with the setting: use a halo.

6. Culets. In cushions (and other "old fashioned" cuts) it's definitely not an imperfection. It has its own particular look, and in some cases the culet gets reflected in the crown and the pavilion creating an interesting pattern (so-called Kozibe effect). Do you like it? I don't know, and you probably don't either until you see it.

Let's assume the same price per stone. Would you say that a smaller Round cut, even if more expensive per Carat, would project, or reflect, the impression of a stone larger than Radiant, Cushion, or Princess cut all other values being equal? Do the table and depth percentages play a very large role when it comes to reflection, or sparkiness? How about the Daussi Cushion? The cut looks intriguing and fairly reflective from what I saw on the link you sent.

There are some very unique rings with fancy colored stones on your web site. The Daussi cushion type with a colored center stone and colorless diamonds on the Halo circumference looks fantastic. All the rings I was able to see however, had a colored stone in middle with colorless ones in the Halo and band. Are there any rings with the stones set the opposite way? Meaning a clear diamond in the middle with either yellow, pink, or other small colored stones in the Halo? I am thinking its possible the colored stones would either take the brilliance away from the center colorless stone or that it might reflect the colors of the adjacent stones making it look the same color - but I don't know.

Looked at a few pictures of stones with a large culet but did not like them too much. I thought there was definitely a loss of brilliance on the table due to the pattern the culet created (kozibe effect I suppose?). At least on the few stones I looked at.

[davidelevi]

Crown Imperial, on 11 August 2011 - 07:13 AM, said:

Let's assume the same price per stone. Would you say that a smaller Round cut, even if more expensive per Carat, would project, or reflect, the impression of a stone larger than Radiant, Cushion, or Princess cut all other values being equal? Do the table and depth percentages play a very large role when it comes to reflection, or sparkiness? How about the Daussi Cushion? The cut looks intriguing and fairly reflective from what I saw on the link you sent.

All other values being equal, yes, rounds tend to appear larger for the same weight. The one thing that is not going to be equal is the cost, because rounds have generally low yields from rough, and the rough cost - which is priced per carat of uncut stone - is the largest element in the total cost of the cut stone. So, since to cut a round of say 1.00 ct you need a 2.something ct rough, with the same rough you can cut a 1.40-1.50 cushion, unsurprisingly they cost about the same (and actually rounds take more time/care to cut, so they cost a little more).

Table and depth are largely meaningless in terms of "cut quality" (sparkle, brightness, contrast, fire) - they can give you an idea of some aspects of a stone's looks, but there are no hard and fast rules. For example, Daussi stones have depth that when evaluated using traditional criteria (e.g. AGA tables) look "poor", however I can assure you that they are not at all poor, but very efficient at producing a large-looking, lively and interesting stone from a very flat (and thus relatively cheap) rough.

Quote

There are some very unique rings with fancy colored stones on your web site. The Daussi cushion type with a colored center stone and colorless diamonds on the Halo circumference looks fantastic. All the rings I was able to see however, had a colored stone in middle with colorless ones in the Halo and band. Are there any rings with the stones set the opposite way? Meaning a clear diamond in the middle with either yellow, pink, or other small colored stones in the Halo? I am thinking its possible the colored stones would either take the brilliance away from the center colorless stone or that it might reflect the colors of the adjacent stones making it look the same color - but I don't know.

We have made rings or other jewels as you describe - for example, this is one of my wife's rings with a colourless centre (E/VS2) and fancy light pink side stones.

I was trying to find one with a halo, but I cannot find it right away; the closest I can get in a sense is a "pink lemonade" look, with a pink halo and a faint to intense yellow centre, like these two:

Faint yellow:

Intense yellow:

What I'm trying to show you is that as long as the setting is done properly, there is no "blending" or reflection of colours (unless that is the effect one wants); clearly, there is an effect of contrast, that however can be exploited to make a colour look deeper or fainter - for example, by putting blue next to pink they both look darker/more intense:

Quote

Looked at a few pictures of stones with a large culet but did not like them too much. I thought there was definitely a loss of brilliance on the table due to the pattern the culet created (kozibe effect I suppose?). At least on the few stones I looked at.

Here is an illustration of the Kozibe effect - it's not a loss of brilliance; it's the culet being reflected: all the little circles that you see giving the impression that there are multiple culets in the stone. Of course, the culet - independent of whether the Kozibe effect is present or not - creates a window in the stone, which can appear as a dark spot, and this can be unpleasant if the culet is too large.

[Crown Imperial]

Thanks again for the valuable info Davide.

[davidelevi]

You are most welcome. I know they are not diamonds, but could you tell us something about your avatar?

She wants to know...

[Crown Imperial]

davidelevi, on 15 August 2011 - 09:59 AM, said:

You are most welcome. I know they are not diamonds, but could you tell us something about your avatar?

She wants to know...

Ohh nice doggy you got there. She looks sharp and in good shape. (Background of picture looks a lot like Graubuenden / Engadin ?)

In the avatar it's Titus and Karla. Titus was born in Germany about 12 years ago and from there taken to Venezuela. Unfortunately he passed away in 2010. Lower back problems which is fairly common in German Shepherds. Karla, in the front of the picture, was born in Uruguay in 1996 and from there also taken to Venezuela where she still lives her days in peaceful harmony chasing squirrels and other rodents. Both great dogs in their own ways. Luckily they have/had a ton of space to fool around in so they never got the restlessness associated with shephers being constricted to run freely.

[davidelevi]

Lovely dogs - thanks for the larger scale photo. I'm sorry for Titus; our oldie is now 12 and still going, fortunately Belgian shepherds have lower incidence of arthritis/hip necrosis.

I know what you mean on restlessness. Her highness Fedora (17 months) in the last two days has managed to chew through:

* My wallet
* A 20 francs note (irrecoverable) and a 50 francs note (recovered) from the same wallet
* A raw aubergine that we wanted to cook for our dinner
* Plaster on a wall corner (about 50 cm height)
* A plastic cup that the children loved

despite having numerous toys, chews and whatever else, 3 runs a day in the fields and 300 sqm of terrace on which to run unrestricted. Unfortunately not in Graubuenden or Engadin - we make do with kanton Schwyz, but it's not bad at all.

How are you getting on with the diamonds?

[Re83L]

I must say I love how your jewelers take the time to remove focus from the claws and place emphasis on the stones David.

If I was in the USA I would most certainly have had a ring made by your company.
In both of the last two pictures you posted one really have to look twice to spot the claws holding the main diamond.

What I adore most though is simple detail like the picture below.
The addition of small diamonds into the setting makes almost disappear.
I also like how the small diamonds in the band are all also set into the band with claws (or something close) rather than just being sunk into the band.
Makes for these small diamonds to also have brilliance and fire (Hope I'm saying that right, English isn't really my first language )

Edited by Re83L, 08 September 2011 - 07:03 AM.

[Crown Imperial]

That will be the first aubergine eating Belgian Shepherd I have ever heard of. Actually it will also be the first Swiss Franc bill of medium denomination eating Belgian Shepherd I have ever heard of. The other items are absolutely normal for a dog's diet.

The diamond search is not the issue. It is not the actual diamond that's causing me to hesitate on pulling the trigger on a ring but the whole prospect of marriage. This feudal relationship business just generates a certain degree of uneasiness in my stomach I can't seem to be able to shake of. Especially when thinking of all the fish in the pond and the end so to speak, of one's freedom of choice. haha. I keep telling myself don't be a sissy and do it and then a minute later the voices in my head tell me to wait a little longer.

As of now, hands down the ring that I've liked the most, not necessarily because it's on your web site but because all other rings I've seen elsewhere seem pale in comparisson, is this one below. Surprisingly enough, and to the contentment of my pocket, I like the stone + setting on this ring better than most of the more expensive ones I have seen so far including other ones with fancy colored stones. Fancy dark, or light, orange as a cushion cut inside a halo seems to be the weapon of choice to go into the offensive. I am also partial to the split shank design of the type where the rings grow apart from under the stone crossing on the bottom instead of starting as two at the top and coming together midway. I saw such a setting on your web site before but can't seem to be able to find it again. A higher clarity stone would be nice but I don't think the imperfections on this one will be visible to the female species observing from a distance. Hmmmm. the voices are talking again.





Oh here we go.

Edited by Crown Imperial, 20 September 2011 - 02:22 PM.

[davidelevi]

Well, today Her Highness has found my wallet again - this time eating a 100 Francs note, fresh out of the cash dispenser. This is starting to become expensive - I don't know what the bank will say this time...

I don't think you (or the average eagle-eyed female) would see the inclusions on either stone without looking at it with a loupe; bear in mind the photos are 15-20x.

If you (she) like orange brown, how about this one?



The inclusion won't be visible either, but the ring will be - from quite a distance!

I'm pretty sure we could have a ribbon-type split shank with that centre, if you wanted it.

On the indecision: you are talking to someone that took over 20 years to propose... so you have all my empathy (and she has all my sympathy). All I will say is, marriage is all in the mind - like age. On the other hand, I did enjoy seeing my (now) wife wearing nice jewellery even before we married...

Re83l: apologies; I hadn't seen your post until now. Thanks for the kind words - let us know how you get on with GIA in SA!

[Crown Imperial]

Well, I prefer the more compact design although it does look pretty and unique.
The ring RE83L posted with the Halo on the lower side of the crown (?) also looks very nice.