Jump to content

4 Different Earrings: Starting Small


jginnane
 Share

Recommended Posts

If people saw my recent posts, they know I'm trying to replace 2 pairs of diamond earrings.  Rather than matching pairs, though, I'm pursuing asymmetrical design -- 4 very different cuts: 1 round, 1 marquis, 1 trilliant, and 1 princess.  I like fluorescence and I like "spready" cuts, especially for an earring setting.  (The 'logic' is that she'll never lose half a pair, and can add or change as time goes by.  :) )

 

Toward this end, I recently posted 4 online descriptions, though with a heart rather than trilliant.  3-sided diamonds are rare, especially using the Diamond Finder here.  But this morning, I discovered this stone:

 

post-134047-0-11683500-1396437756_thumb.jpg

 

It's bigger and shallower than I was originally looking for, but I can't get over the promise of "very strong blue" fluorescence.  The downsides are girdle thickness, and in the GIA report it mentions one flaw "indented natural".

 

Can anyone spy something else I need be concerned about, especially for a trilliant?  My trigger finger's itchin' over this one. :)  Also ... is this a good price, or would the oft-delayed trip in to 47th Street come up with better choices for less money?  Thanks!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm.  Nobody bit? :)

 

The operative word is SHALLOW.  As in, it might be a diamond, but why does it look so much like plate glass?

 

There's a reason the GIA report is almost 4 years old.  A lot of people have looked at this stone during that time, and passed on it.  (Or equally likely, a few may have bought it and been disappointed in person... and returned it.)

 

For trilliants, the guideline is the depth ought to be at least 50%.  Thick girdle is OK, especially at the tips ... but you can't tell where it's thick on this stone without actual photographs.

 

Just for giggles, I already offered the online vendor 20% off the listed price.  That's one way to get off their CALL list.

 

And, BTW, the same stone is offered by a 47th St vendor with an online presence -- who should KNOW BETTER -- at about $100 more than the listed price here.  I won't mention them by name, but they're at 6 W 47th.

 

Caveat Emptor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A different take on a few points:

 

1) You have no way of knowing what the stone looks like without seeing it. Simplistic guidelines based on depth and table are not reliable - though I agree that the shallowness in this case is extreme. However, same dead horse as last time. You - or anyone else - simply do not have enough information on a report to select a fancy shape. Period. You either enter the "send me one and I'll see if I like it" game, or you get a vendor that can provide you with more information.

 

Here are two trilliants with depth below your "critical" 50%, (42 and 46%) and neither of them looks like a piece of plate glass - whether still:

 

r3888d.jpg

 

or in motion:

 

 

2) Trilliants are unpopular. Period. A 4 year "sitting" time may or may not indicate that anyone has even seen the stone, never mind bought it. Apart from the shallowness, there are all sort of potential issues to scare an online buyer - starting from the fluorescence, which is typically feared (not necessarily with good reason).

 

3) It costs nothing to the 47th Street vendor to list the stone... and it may be offered to them at different conditions than those offered to the other vendor. Welcome to the world of virtual inventory; if this is their business model, why should they "know better"? Blue Nile is by far the largest "pure internet" dealer, and it's pretty profitable and successful... operating on the same basis (they are very rarely the cheapest online seller).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A different take on a few points:

 

Hi David,

 

OK, cut to the chase -- I ordered this one stone tonight.  The vendor seems to have a decent policy with respect to returns, and the only way I'm going to see this one particular stone is if I get it in my hands.  (Or, drive 700 miles to Atlanta.)  That fluorescence is the thing that makes this stone unique to me.  Not that we spend a lot of time in discos, but it should also glow in the soft UV of the backyard bugzapper light this summer.

 

This has been simmering on my mind since we lost the 2 pairs, and the only way to get this replacement solved is by actually doing something.  If we keep this trilliant, we'll bring it when we go in to NYC to shop for compatibles.  If we don't keep it ... we'll know exactly WHY we chose not to.

 

BTW, I'm likely to get just 1 more earring in the near term, hopefully a marquis for the other ear, then let time resolve the issue of the second set.  She might not like the idea of uneven diamonds, once she has them.  Or we can look into further exotics, like those wonderful colored stones you posted.

 

 

 

2) Trilliants are unpopular. Period. A 4 year "sitting" time may or may not indicate that anyone has even seen the stone, never mind bought it. Apart from the shallowness, there are all sort of potential issues to scare an online buyer - starting from the fluorescence, which is typically feared (not necessarily with good reason).

 

I would say that the difference to us is as important as other conventional diamond criteria.  That's why: odd shape, strong blue.  I'd be willing to give up some of what an Ideal-scope promises, in return for having something that doesn't look like everyone else.

 

Even so, a 4-year old report is still indication of something, even if we don't know what it is at this point.  We'll put it next to the Headlight, and we have a triplet vintage rose-cuts in an emerald ring, that should provide some comparative contrast.  We''ll park it next to the 26ct natural blue star sapphire with white melee.  Everything has to be, ah, feng shui.  But the platinum setting will have to wait until we acquire at least a second earring stone.

 

Fingers crossed!

Edited by jginnane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As you say - fingers crossed. I wasn't criticising the stone, and in fact the course you are taking ("see it and hope it doesn't suck") is the only sensible one, regardless of whether the stone is in Atlanta or Zanzibar. And regardless of whether it is a shallow, strongly fluorescent trilliant or a deep, inert cushion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... And regardless of whether it is a shallow, strongly fluorescent trilliant or a deep, inert cushion.

 

David, I couldn't help but be amused at the description provided by the online vendor.  This doubletalk is Laugh-Out-Loud funny:

 

"This diamonds [sic] proportions allow it to be classified as a Very Good Cut by expert Gemologists. Its cut allows for an excellent display of fire and brilliance similar to an Ideal Cut. The majority of light that enters a Very Good Cut diamond is reflected from facet to facet, and then back to the top of the diamond which an excellent array of fire, beauty and brilliance."

 

 

"Very Good Cut"? OK ... but not by GIA, for a Trilliant!

 

"...expert Gemologists" ?  Thanks for capitalizing that; it makes it seem more authoritative, like a doctor in a TV ad wearing a stethoscope.

 

"[Very Good] ... similar to an Ideal Cut"?  That's like my Mazda CX-5 is "like" a Porsche Carrera -- right?

 

"majority of light ... facet to facet ... and then back to the top of the diamond" ?  So then, it follows the basic laws of physics?

 

"...diamond [?] which an excellent array of fire, beauty and brilliance."  OK now, in my household we have a fair amount of Chinglish spoken, and I can often parse much of it.  But I can't help but feel like my monitor has acquired a couple major occlusions just reading this crap on the screen.  OR else I'm getting dain bramage.

 

So: if I choose to reject this stone, I'll be happy to quote this back at them with a strategic {WTF?} thrown in here and there.  And if we keep it, we'll have this truly memorable piece of script dialogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"...diamond [?] which an excellent array of fire, beauty and brilliance."  OK now, in my household we have a fair amount of Chinglish spoken, and I can often parse much of it.  But I can't help but feel like my monitor has acquired a couple major occlusions just reading this crap on the screen.  OR else I'm getting dain bramage.

I think you are getting Hinglish there, not Chinglish - subtly (sultry?) different, hotter and a few thousands of miles West.

 

(Don't know if you have ever seen Goodness Gracious Me, a BBC comedy series including this great little sketch:

 

 

for some strange reason it was brought to mind by the conversation here - perhaps because everything, or at least most diamonds nowadays really do come from India (including shallow trilliants).

 

Good luck, and let us know what you find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
  • Create New...