Jump to content

Narrowed Down To 5! Also Setting Question?


Aututto
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hello,
 
So I have narrowed down to these 5:
 
1.) 2.22 J VS1 HCA: 2.6
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R222-G2TGBW

2.) 2.06 J VS2 HCA: 3.6
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R206-BPBT4S

3.) 2.13 J VS1 HCA: 0.9
https://enchanteddiamonds.com/diamonds/view/R213-4RW8CP

4.) 2.29 J VS2 HCA: 3.6
http://www.b2cjewels.com/dd-6380428-2.29-carat-Round-diamond-J-color-VS2-Clarity.aspx?sku=6380428&utm_source=diamondreview.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=diamondreview.com

5.) 2.21 J VS2 HCA: 1.3
http://www.bluenile.com/build-your-own-ring/diamond-details/LD05843329

Now She has mentioned if it came down to it get the biggest, I am ten fold more critical on the diamond search than she is haha. My main question is, are all these pretty similar? Only difference I am getting is fluorescence, could strong possibly cause any issues?

Also can anyone recommend a vendor that makes a nice thin setting just like blue nile's petite micropave? I have seen alot of petite pave, but they're a little thicker than this:

http://www.bluenile.com/build-your-own-ring/petite-micropave-diamond-ring-platinum_48630

Thanks in advance!!  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are pretty similar in a sense - all J-VS around 2 carat. They are also cut rather differently from each other, though none is cut poorly. If your priority is "looking big", I'd say go with the 2.21 from Blue Nile or the 2.13 from Enchanted.

 

Re: setting - if I were you, I would not try to go too thin and dainty on an engagement ring. Particularly if you want pavé on the shank, I would not go below 2.5 mm - also for proportionality with the centre stone (but mostly because of durability; the last thing you want is for the ring to be every other week in the post because a stone fell off the shank).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Settings are made of metal - usually gold or platinum - which are malleable.  They are bendable, especially if they are too thin.  Davide's recommendation of 2.5mm will give your ring the structural integrity it needs to keep those pavé stones on the shank.  I cannot tell you how many name-brand rings we have had to remake because some designers put so much pavé into their shanks that they are no longer solid.  Stones fall out or the shank gets out of round.  Dainty is pretty, but not the most durable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an observation as an old guy in the jewelry business.

 

Pave used to be hard to do. It’s a weird talent that involves working the metal with your fingers and a tool called a graver. People spent decades as apprentices and journeymen jewelers practicing to get good at it. Some never made it.

 

This has changed. Now it’s done by computers. Designs are done on CAD systems by kids who think they’re artists but who have never picked up a graver in their lives. Even their teachers can't do it. It’s easy in a computer model to do 200 stones with next to no metal holding them in. Everything is bling and the engineering doesn’t matter because it’s just a computer model anyway.

 

Like George, I can’t say how many times I’ve seen a piece that’s so poorly engineered that it’s amazing it made it as far as the sales counter without falling apart, much less onto a finger where it’s supposed to be worn for a lifetime.

 

Yeah, I’m a bit of a curmudgeon. Yeah, some of those micropave designs are pretty. But I miss the day when it was driven by craftsmen with tools in their calloused hands rather than by art school students with computers who don't even understand the question, much less the answer. It feels like replacing a painter with a photographer. The final image may indeed be lovely, but it's NOT the same thing.

Edited by denverappraiser
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay well we have double looked and actually found 2-2.5mm to be a better width in comparison to diamond size. Thank you all for you help with that issue :) Question, I was watching this video:

 

 

And want to know if the diamonds I have selected will have similar performance by chance? B2C kindly responded with hearts & arrows, ASET, and Ideal scope for diamond number 4 I posted! how does it look, I think it came back pretty well though would like to see some natural light shots :)

 

6380428%20Actual_zpsqfvpwrdz.jpg

6380428%20Hearts_zps0iivyxpm.jpg6380428%20Arrows_zpssuypjxmd.jpg6380428%20Idealscope_zpsoxxmx3ec.jpg6380428%20ASET_zpslqxjfuel.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question, I was watching this video:

 

And want to know if the diamonds I have selected will have similar performance by chance?

It's a very difficult question, for 3 reasons:

 

1. As I mentioned above, the 5 diamonds above are all different from each other. Some may well be similar to those GOG stones, or more similar than others (in your bunch of 5 or in the thousands of "equivalently graded" diamonds in the market).

 

2. Lack of comparable information. Informative as the video is, we don't have the 5 diamonds you picked in it (nor do we have "standard" report information or reflector images for the diamonds in the video).

 

3. Definition of "similar performance". All 8 (5 + 3) are diamonds, all are of a similar size and all are well within the top 25% of cut quality for modern round brilliants. For some - indeed for most - that would be enough to say they have "similar performance".

 

At the same time, I have no doubt that the B2C stone would look quite different from any of the GOG diamonds, and I have equally no doubt that it would not meet the criteria that Jonathan (GOG's owner) would want to have for his own stock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Question, I was watching this video:

 

And want to know if the diamonds I have selected will have similar performance by chance?

It's a very difficult question, for 3 reasons:

 

1. As I mentioned above, the 5 diamonds above are all different from each other. Some may well be similar to those GOG stones, or more similar than others (in your bunch of 5 or in the thousands of "equivalently graded" diamonds in the market).

 

2. Lack of comparable information. Informative as the video is, we don't have the 5 diamonds you picked in it (nor do we have "standard" report information or reflector images for the diamonds in the video).

 

3. Definition of "similar performance". All 8 (5 + 3) are diamonds, all are of a similar size and all are well within the top 25% of cut quality for modern round brilliants. For some - indeed for most - that would be enough to say they have "similar performance".

 

At the same time, I have no doubt that the B2C stone would look quite different from any of the GOG diamonds, and I have equally no doubt that it would not meet the criteria that Jonathan (GOG's owner) would want to have for his own stock.

Thank you so much for your detailed reply! I think what I love most about the stones in the video is their nice color, and performance. I'm not concerned too much about things only noticed by 10x loupe. I wouldn't consider myself a diamond snob and I certainly can't be with my budget of $13.5k and 2ct+ specifications. I'd consider myself above average consumer, so I guess that's my criteria for looking into similar diamonds :)

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...