Find your diamond
Find your jewelry
shape
carat
color
clarity

3 stone ring for 8300

T

treasurehunter

Brilliant_Rock
Trade
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
611
Im looking for a 3 stone ring and can spend 8300 us with a very slight difference in stones between the centre and the side stones
 
What shape?
 
What do you mean by very slight difference? Are you talking color/clarity or size?
 
tyty333|1392936847|3619623 said:
What do you mean by very slight difference? Are you talking color/clarity or size?
Click to expand...

Ohh! Good question! I assumed color/clarity. But it could mean size! Well, the first set I posted (3 rounds) fits either way.
 
ah sorry I meant in size mm , but the colour and clarity should be a little difference too.
 
Ok So. You want all three to be ROUND and the SAME size? Or CLOSE is in size, BUT with a still LARGER CENTER STONE.

PLEASE CLARIFY.
 
The centre stone is the same mm size or slightly visually larger.
 
Have you seen a ring that you like that looks like what you're describing?

LoganSapphire's come to mind... [URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/can-someone-photoshop-a-6-8mm-stone-onto-my-current-ring.194790/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/can-someone-photoshop-a-6-8mm-stone-onto-my-current-ring.194790/[/URL]

Her original proportions are closer to the little stones being about 75% of the diameter of the big stone.

Do you really want a ring with 3 almost exact same sized diamonds going across?
 
All three stones similar in size, but with a SLIGHTLY LARGER center stone. (1mm difference between center and sides. I HIGHLY prefer and recommend this looks over all three being exactly the same size).
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/three-stone/crossed-trellis-18k-white-gold-5460w18 $1375 for the setting.
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.803-h-si1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104069795036 CENTER $3,652
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.520-h-si1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104069795012 SIDE $1,575
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.508-h-vs2-round-diamond-ags-bl-104068959019 SIDE $1626

$8228 with 18kt white gold setting.

All three stones the same size.
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/three-stone-trellis-platinum-5376p $1575 Platinum setting.
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.646-h-si1-round-diamond-ags-c-104069378128 CENTER $2190
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.624-h-vs2-round-diamond-ags-c-104069378136 SIDE $2,452
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.600-h-si1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104068959004 SIDE $1,717

TOTAL: $7934 with platinum setting.

Same approximate CTW but the first is a much nicer look than the second option.
 
Here this will help:

3stones.jpg
 
Gypsy|1392946378|3619746 said:
All three stones similar in size, but with a SLIGHTLY LARGER center stone. (1mm difference between center and sides. I HIGHLY prefer and recommend this looks over all three being exactly the same size).
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/engagement-rings/three-stone/crossed-trellis-18k-white-gold-5460w18 $1375 for the setting.
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.803-h-si1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104069795036 CENTER $3,652
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.520-h-si1-round-diamond-ags-bl-104069795012 SIDE $1,575
http://www.briangavindiamonds.com/diamonds/diamond-details/0.508-h-vs2-round-diamond-ags-bl-104068959019 SIDE $1626

$8228 with 18kt white gold setting.
Click to expand...



83% RATIO.
 
 
3stones.jpg


This graphic is not accurate and should not be posted again or used as an accurate reference until corrected.

1.5 ct = 7.3 mm
1 ct = 6.5mm
.75 ct = 5.8
.66 ct = 5.6
.5 ct = 5.0 mm
.25 ct = 4.1 mm

1.5 with 1 ct sides = 6.5/7.3 = 89%
1.5 with .75 sides = 5.8/7.3 = 79%
1.5 with .66 sides = 5.6/7.3 = 77%
1.5 with .50 sides = 5.0/7.3 = 68%
1.5 with .25 sides = 4.1/7.3 = 56%

Check my math. Could be typos.
 
teobdl|1392955158|3619850 said:
3stones.jpg


This graphic is not accurate and should not be posted again or used as an accurate reference until corrected.

1.5 ct = 7.3 mm
1 ct = 6.5mm
.75 ct = 5.8
.66 ct = 5.6
.5 ct = 5.0 mm
.25 ct = 4.1 mm

1.5 with 1 ct sides = 6.5/7.3 = 89%
1.5 with .75 sides = 5.8/7.3 = 79%
1.5 with .66 sides = 5.6/7.3 = 77%
1.5 with .50 sides = 5.0/7.3 = 68%
1.5 with .25 sides = 4.1/7.3 = 56%

Check my math. Could be typos.
Click to expand...

I'm terrible at math. So... okay. Good catch.
 
teobdl|1392955158|3619850 said:
3stones.jpg


This graphic is not accurate and should not be posted again or used as an accurate reference until corrected.

1.5 ct = 7.3 mm
1 ct = 6.5mm
.75 ct = 5.8
.66 ct = 5.6
.5 ct = 5.0 mm
.25 ct = 4.1 mm

1.5 with 1 ct sides = 6.5/7.3 = 89%
1.5 with .75 sides = 5.8/7.3 = 79%
1.5 with .66 sides = 5.6/7.3 = 77%
1.5 with .50 sides = 5.0/7.3 = 68%
1.5 with .25 sides = 4.1/7.3 = 56%

Check my math. Could be typos.
Click to expand...

However this assumes that the proportions / measurements of the diamond are specifically... what?

For instance, I found this James Allen True Hearts diamond [SKU 126913] which is graded by the AGSL as weighing 1.50 carats, measuring 7.31 - 7.38 x 4.54 mm, with a total depth of 61.8% and a table diameter of 57.4% with a crown angle of 35.2 degrees offset by a pavilion angle of 40.9 degrees with a thin to medium girdle.

Here's the math for Gypsy to follow, it's not necessarily a matter of being good or bad with math, but knowing how to run the numbers... believe me, I suck at math!

To calculate the average outside diameter of the diamond, add the first two measurements which represent the distance across the diamond from north to south and east to west, so 7.31 + 7.38 = 14.69 and then divide that number by 2 = 7.345 mm average diameter.

Then I found this 1.00 carat, round brilliant cut diamond on James Allen [SKU 152556] which is graded by the GIA and measures 6.39 - 6.44 x 3.97 mm with a total depth of 61.9% and a table diameter of 57% with a crown angle of 34.5 degrees which is offset by a pavilion angle of 41.2 degrees... add 6.39 + 6.44 = 12.83 mm / 2 = 6.415 mm average outside diameter.

Using these two round brilliant cut diamonds, one weighing 1.50 carats and the other weighing 1.00 carats:

1.5 with 1 ct sides = 6.415 / 7.345 = 87% [0.87338] and thus the estimations provided on the graphic might not be that far off, because it truly depends on the average diameter measurements of the diamonds selected, and that is going to change slightly with every "pairing" of diamonds selected in those approximate sizes... and perhaps that is something that people need to keep in mind when trying to figure out what sizes diamonds are going to provide them with the best sense of balance for their personal perspective.

I haven't checked the math on either the graphic provided by Gypsy, or that provided by teobdl, but believe that both examples provide the insight required for consumers to get an idea as to what combination of diamond sizes provides them with that sense of balance.
 
Todd Gray|1392995828|3620116 said:
teobdl|1392955158|3619850 said:
3stones.jpg


This graphic is not accurate and should not be posted again or used as an accurate reference until corrected.

1.5 ct = 7.3 mm
1 ct = 6.5mm
.75 ct = 5.8
.66 ct = 5.6
.5 ct = 5.0 mm
.25 ct = 4.1 mm

1.5 with 1 ct sides = 6.5/7.3 = 89%
1.5 with .75 sides = 5.8/7.3 = 79%
1.5 with .66 sides = 5.6/7.3 = 77%
1.5 with .50 sides = 5.0/7.3 = 68%
1.5 with .25 sides = 4.1/7.3 = 56%

Check my math. Could be typos.
Click to expand...

However this assumes that the proportions / measurements of the diamond are specifically... what?

For instance, I found this James Allen True Hearts diamond [SKU 126913] which is graded by the AGSL as weighing 1.50 carats, measuring 7.31 - 7.38 x 4.54 mm, with a total depth of 61.8% and a table diameter of 57.4% with a crown angle of 35.2 degrees offset by a pavilion angle of 40.9 degrees with a thin to medium girdle.

Here's the math for Gypsy to follow, it's not necessarily a matter of being good or bad with math, but knowing how to run the numbers... believe me, I suck at math!

To calculate the average outside diameter of the diamond, add the first two measurements which represent the distance across the diamond from north to south and east to west, so 7.31 + 7.38 = 14.69 and then divide that number by 2 = 7.345 mm average diameter.

Then I found this 1.00 carat, round brilliant cut diamond on James Allen [SKU 152556] which is graded by the GIA and measures 6.39 - 6.44 x 3.97 mm with a total depth of 61.9% and a table diameter of 57% with a crown angle of 34.5 degrees which is offset by a pavilion angle of 41.2 degrees... add 6.39 + 6.44 = 12.83 mm / 2 = 6.415 mm average outside diameter.

Using these two round brilliant cut diamonds, one weighing 1.50 carats and the other weighing 1.00 carats:

1.5 with 1 ct sides = 6.415 / 7.345 = 87% [0.87338] and thus the estimations provided on the graphic might not be that far off, because it truly depends on the average diameter measurements of the diamonds selected, and that is going to change slightly with every "pairing" of diamonds selected in those approximate sizes... and perhaps that is something that people need to keep in mind when trying to figure out what sizes diamonds are going to provide them with the best sense of balance for their personal perspective.

I haven't checked the math on either the graphic provided by Gypsy, or that provided by teobdl, but believe that both examples provide the insight required for consumers to get an idea as to what combination of diamond sizes provides them with that sense of balance.
Click to expand...

So basically what Todd is trying to say, for us mathly challenged, is that a deep stone is likely to have a smaller diameter for the same weight than a more shallowly cut stone. Which is to say, you can not make generalizations about the spread percentages for weights, but only for diameters.

And thus I have done my math quota for the day.

Wink
 
:appl: Gypsy :appl:
 
Wink|1393002282|3620163 said:
Todd Gray|1392995828|3620116 said:
teobdl|1392955158|3619850 said:
3stones.jpg


This graphic is not accurate and should not be posted again or used as an accurate reference until corrected.

1.5 ct = 7.3 mm
1 ct = 6.5mm
.75 ct = 5.8
.66 ct = 5.6
.5 ct = 5.0 mm
.25 ct = 4.1 mm

1.5 with 1 ct sides = 6.5/7.3 = 89%
1.5 with .75 sides = 5.8/7.3 = 79%
1.5 with .66 sides = 5.6/7.3 = 77%
1.5 with .50 sides = 5.0/7.3 = 68%
1.5 with .25 sides = 4.1/7.3 = 56%

Check my math. Could be typos.
Click to expand...

However this assumes that the proportions / measurements of the diamond are specifically... what?

For instance, I found this James Allen True Hearts diamond [SKU 126913] which is graded by the AGSL as weighing 1.50 carats, measuring 7.31 - 7.38 x 4.54 mm, with a total depth of 61.8% and a table diameter of 57.4% with a crown angle of 35.2 degrees offset by a pavilion angle of 40.9 degrees with a thin to medium girdle.

Here's the math for Gypsy to follow, it's not necessarily a matter of being good or bad with math, but knowing how to run the numbers... believe me, I suck at math!

To calculate the average outside diameter of the diamond, add the first two measurements which represent the distance across the diamond from north to south and east to west, so 7.31 + 7.38 = 14.69 and then divide that number by 2 = 7.345 mm average diameter.

Then I found this 1.00 carat, round brilliant cut diamond on James Allen [SKU 152556] which is graded by the GIA and measures 6.39 - 6.44 x 3.97 mm with a total depth of 61.9% and a table diameter of 57% with a crown angle of 34.5 degrees which is offset by a pavilion angle of 41.2 degrees... add 6.39 + 6.44 = 12.83 mm / 2 = 6.415 mm average outside diameter.

Using these two round brilliant cut diamonds, one weighing 1.50 carats and the other weighing 1.00 carats:

1.5 with 1 ct sides = 6.415 / 7.345 = 87% [0.87338] and thus the estimations provided on the graphic might not be that far off, because it truly depends on the average diameter measurements of the diamonds selected, and that is going to change slightly with every "pairing" of diamonds selected in those approximate sizes... and perhaps that is something that people need to keep in mind when trying to figure out what sizes diamonds are going to provide them with the best sense of balance for their personal perspective.

I haven't checked the math on either the graphic provided by Gypsy, or that provided by teobdl, but believe that both examples provide the insight required for consumers to get an idea as to what combination of diamond sizes provides them with that sense of balance.
Click to expand...

So basically what Todd is trying to say, for us mathly challenged, is that a deep stone is likely to have a smaller diameter for the same weight than a more shallowly cut stone. Which is to say, you can not make generalizations about the spread percentages for weights, but only for diameters.

And thus I have done my math quota for the day.

Wink
Click to expand...

Thanks Gypsy, Todd and Wink!! This is SOOOOO helpful. I'm working on an earring project and these graphics (and detailed math :lol:) are wonderful for comparisons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Jewelry Blog
PriceScope-Concierge-Ad
Find prime cuts.
Top