New setting for my wife

[IbrahimSS]

Hello

You guys helped me pick the engagement stone for my wife 10 years ago. So Naturally our 10 year anniversary is next year and I promised her a new setting.

She originally wanted an antique style setting so I found exactly what she thought she wanted from Natalie K. Turns out the antique style setting kind of hides the stone. Bottom line line is she wants a new setting that has stones on the ring itself kind of like an eternity band but let’s the stone shine. I think less crown is what it really comes down to but I might be mistaken.

Her current stone is a 2.34 karat round cut.

I can post picture of her stone and setting if it helps.

Thanks!

 

[IbrahimSS]

 

[distracts]

Can you post a picture of the top? That may show us better what you mean by "hides the stone." I wonder if what she's not liking about it is that it is a three-stone?

Has your wife tried on other rings to see what she likes, and if so did you take any pictures of settings she likes? I definitely recommend trying on rings before changing the setting!

 

[IbrahimSS]

Can you post a picture of the top? That may show us better what you mean by "hides the stone." I wonder if what she's not liking about it is that it is a three-stone?

Has your wife tried on other rings to see what she likes, and if so did you take any pictures of settings she likes? I definitely recommend trying on rings before changing the setting!

This is a very nice stone and it just doesn't seem to shine like some other people's stones when they have simple 4 prong settings. I think it might be just because she likes how stones look when they are just in 4 prong settings because they allow more light to enter the stones?

 

[dk168]

IMHO, from what I can gather from PS, a well-cut MRB will refract most of its lights upwards, and poorly cut ones will leak light from the sides.

I am not an expert on cut quality, hence I shall comment on the setting as posted above.

I believe the double prongs are too chunky, the ? Princess cut side stones are competing for for attention at the expense of the centre MRB, and the carré cut stones in the shank add to the distraction.

Just viewing from the top, there are 3 different diamond cuts already. To me personally, the setting is too "busy".

All personal opinions and preferences, etc., etc...

DK

 

[MissGotRocks]

Her current ring does have a lot going on from the top view. Does she want side stones with the new setting? If so, I would recommend round diamonds to go with her center stone.

 

[IbrahimSS]

You might be right that it's about how "busy" it is... I'm not really sure. I don't know if she wants the side diamonds but I do agree I'd probably get some rounds. However I'm thinking of not having any side diamonds and doing larger rounds diamonds on the band itself instead of the pave diamonds she has now.

 

[Lula]

This is a very nice stone and it just doesn't seem to shine like some other people's stones when they have simple 4 prong settings. I think it might be just because she likes how stones look when they are just in 4 prong settings because they allow more light to enter the stones?

When is the last time her ring was professionally cleaned? A fancy setting with larger prongs and an intricate basket can trap dirt and oils which stick to the diamond. This may be why her diamond “doesn’t seem to shine like other people’s stones.” Four-prong settings are easier to keep clean.

 

[IbrahimSS]

Even when cleaned it’s clearly beautiful but I’m pretty sure that intricate basket doesn’t allow as much light.

 

[sledge]

Even when cleaned it’s clearly beautiful but I’m pretty sure that intricate basket doesn’t allow as much light.

The basket isn't affecting light return. Light enters from the top and then takes a serious of bounces/reflections and eventually leaves the diamond. The better proportions and more well cut the stone the better the light performance.

However, the intricate basket can create a tight space that is hard to clean. Dirty diamonds is one of the quickest ways to lose all that fire you paid your hard earned bucks to gain.

My wife used to drive me insane by intentionally smudging her diamond. I got tired of her shenanigan's and one morning replaced her actual ring with one of those diamond candy rings. She demanded to know where her real ring was and that it was not funny. I let her know indeed it wasn't funny, but if she was going to smudge her ring on purpose she could sport one of those as it was much cheaper, insanely large and tasted good in case she needed a snack.

That's all I really remember of the conversation. But a few hours later after I regained consciousness, I saw she found her ring and had learned her lesson.

Now she regularly cleans at home, but a professional steam clean has the sucker really shining.

 

[IbrahimSS]

I mean this is a reasonably nice diamond. It should shine.

 

[Lula]

I mean this is a reasonably nice diamond. It should shine.

Yes, it's a reasonably nice diamond. And it should shine. But from your comments in this thread, it's not shining. Keep in mind that It's the cut that makes it shine. Not the setting. It sounds like you're comparing this diamond to other women's diamonds and it's coming up short. That could be due to the fact that the pavilion of the diamond is not clean (intricate basket makes it hard to keep the bottom of the diamond clean) and/or that the diamond isn't cut as well as other diamonds you've seen. The setting will have minimal impact on the diamond's ability to sparkle. Whereas cut quality and cleaning have maximum impact. Don't waste money on a new setting until you are sure you need to.

Edit: I just realized that I'm assuming that when you say the diamond "should shine" you mean that it should sparkle. Maybe "shine" means something different to you? For example, the current setting hides the diamond so it doesn't stand out. And the diamonds you've seen set in solitaires stand out. If this is the case, shine doesn't mean sparkle at all.

 

[distracts]

Yeah, I'm unsure if you mean "shine" as in the diamond isn't sparkling, in which case take it to get professionally cleaned and then clean it at least twice a week at home if it's being worn daily.

Or if you mean shine as in "really stand out" in which case yes you might want to change the setting. BUT before you do that, take your wife to TRY ON settings with diamonds of the size you have in the type you want so you can find a setting you like and be sure you like that kind before you make the switch.

I do agree that your setting is very busy with multiple different stone sizes and shapes and that can detract from the center stone. But please try things on before making any decisions, so that you know you're making the right decisions.

 

[sledge]

@IbrahimSS, can you post the GIA lab report on this stone?

Focusing on the ASET. Blue shows us obstruction. It is normal to see an arrows pattern in the ASET. However, this particular stone is showing additional blue around the arrow heads. Additionally you can see darkened red areas around most the heads also, but in particular around the 5 & 6 o'clock positions where there isn't as much extra blue present.

Example of another stone with similar issues compared to an ASET w/o paddling:



I used a magnifier to show the areas in the ASET of our stone more clearly. Also, on the arrows image I circled one of the heads, but obviously you can see the effects on the others as well. What I find odd is nothing is showing up on the IS image. While it may not be as clear, I would think something would show up.




I also find it peculiar the IS image didn't pick up any paddling, yet the ASET and arrows did.

Example of what I'd expect the IS image to show us:




There is an older thread on here that shows similar effects, and where the source for the example pictures I posted above. It starts around post #25, if you want to have a read.

Anyhow, I am curious if the additional obstruction caused from the paddle effects is what is displeasing to you guys. @Karl_K would appreciate any insight you may offer here as well, especially since you were a participant in the old thread under your old name.

 

[Karl_K]

This looks like one of the long lgf prototypes that Jon had cut around that time.
The extra blue stuff is more the result of the broken ASET obstruction model than a real world effect in this case.
It is close to the line and if memory serves me right it was the upper girdle facet angle by changing the star% or table size that needed tweaking as well as tighter angles on the lowers to be closer to perfect but I dont think a second batch was ever cut.
They were different from most but still passed all the tests.
There is a video on youtube about them.

 

[Karl_K]

Lets way over simplify because there are many aspects.
The biggest is lighting.
For sake of making a point here there are 2 aspects of a rings appearance.
The main diamond appreance as far as for putting on a light show.
The other is how the diamond looks in harmony or contrast with the ring.
The second is just as important as the first, its is ok and normal to not like how a diamond looks in certain ring styles. It can change over time. The combo of ring and diamond bugs her then consider a remount with her.

 

[Karl_K]

I look at the arrow view in the h&a viewer notice how under ~10+x visual by person obstruction they just ghost.
If there were solid white that points to a bigger issue to be inventigated.

 

[munchee]

@IbrahimSS your wife ering setting is somewhat similar to my ering. Mine is much smaller at 0.83ct, with side pear, from the profile is also same but mine doesn’t have pave. Mine still shines when its clean, even if I never clean it professionally. I never have any problem with the setting not making it shine. So I agree with others, I don’t think the setting is the problem.

 

[prs]

Given the degree of difficulty cleaning the diamond in that setting. Five minutes in a sonic cleaner with hot distilled water and a miniscule drop of Dawn might work wonders.

 

[sledge]

This looks like one of the long lgf prototypes that Jon had cut around that time.
The extra blue stuff is more the result of the broken ASET obstruction model than a real world effect in this case.
It is close to the line and if memory serves me right it was the upper girdle facet angle by changing the star% or table size that needed tweaking as well as tighter angles on the lowers to be closer to perfect but I dont think a second batch was ever cut.
They were different from most but still passed all the tests.
There is a video on youtube about them.

Thank you Karl. You're gold buddy. Off to YT to learn a bit more.

 

[distracts]

@IbrahimSS, can you post the GIA lab report on this stone?

Focusing on the ASET. Blue shows us obstruction. It is normal to see an arrows pattern in the ASET. However, this particular stone is showing additional blue around the arrow heads. Additionally you can see darkened red areas around most the heads also, but in particular around the 5 & 6 o'clock positions where there isn't as much extra blue present.

Example of another stone with similar issues compared to an ASET w/o paddling:



I used a magnifier to show the areas in the ASET of our stone more clearly. Also, on the arrows image I circled one of the heads, but obviously you can see the effects on the others as well. What I find odd is nothing is showing up on the IS image. While it may not be as clear, I would think something would show up.




I also find it peculiar the IS image didn't pick up any paddling, yet the ASET and arrows did.

Example of what I'd expect the IS image to show us:




There is an older thread on here that shows similar effects, and where the source for the example pictures I posted above. It starts around post #25, if you want to have a read.

Anyhow, I am curious if the additional obstruction caused from the paddle effects is what is displeasing to you guys. @Karl_K would appreciate any insight you may offer here as well, especially since you were a participant in the old thread under your old name.

Sledge, he’s not here to find out about his diamond. He’s here to change settings. You’re gonna give the poor dude a complex and he’s going to think he has to get a new diamond!

 

[jaysonsmom]

My opinion may not be popular....but instead of spinning your wheels over a new setting, I'd trade-in her entire ring and upgrade to a center stone that makes her heart sing, and put it in a simple solitaire!

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

I think it would probably be a good idea to get the ring professionally cleaned and check out the ring to see if it’s just that it isn’t getting clean enough; and also unmount the stone and check it out in a simple setting or even a ring holder to determine what the issue is with the stone! IMO the best way to highlight a stone is a solitaire but that’s just me.

 

[sledge]

Sledge, he’s not here to find out about his diamond. He’s here to change settings. You’re gonna give the poor dude a complex and he’s going to think he has to get a new diamond!

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[LilAlex]

This is a very nice stone and it just doesn't seem to shine like some other people's stones when they have simple 4 prong settings. I think it might be just because she likes how stones look when they are just in 4 prong settings because they allow more light to enter the stones?

Did not read all of the above but if it was lovely, then I think the pavilion is not accessible enough for a good clean. See all the trilliant posts. Try steam at your jeweler, too.

From experience: assuming it is at least decently cut, then an accessible pavilion and near-daily cleaning will add more to everyday appearance than all the nuances we argue about here.

EDIT: I do not see that mounting "hiding" the beauty of a RBC.

 

[IbrahimSS]

Wow... I miss so many posts! I'll try to answer everything here but as always thanks for all the help!!!

@Lula @distracts I think you're right I mean sparkle when I say shine. I just got a Diamond Dazzle pen and cleaned it with it. That alone made a HUGE difference. Ring must have been filthy. But more I think it's a reasonable size diamond and when people I know don't have diamonds that have any of the C's or portions of hers are around their diamonds seem larger and more sparkly. I think it's what @AllAboardTheBlingTrain said ie she thought she wanted something intricate but now she just wants something simple that accentuates the center stone.

@jaysonsmom I have thought about replacing the entire ring, stone and all. But honestly, I don't know if I have the time I put into finding her a new stone and setting. It took me a ton of effort to find this one.

@sledge @Karl_K here is the GIA info you requested
Shape: Round
Optical Symmetry: Superior
Weight: 2.320 carats
Measurements: 8.53mm long x 8.52mm wide x 5.22mm in depth
Cut & finish:
Polish: Excellent
Proportions: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: None
Total depth: 61.33%
Table percentage: 56.36%
Pavilion angle: 40.73 degrees
Crown angle: 34.46 degrees
U.V. florescence: None
Color: G (see Addendum 2 for definitions)
Clarity: VS2 (see Addendum 2 for definitions)

 

[distracts]

Wow... I miss so many posts! I'll try to answer everything here but as always thanks for all the help!!!

@Lula @distracts I think you're right I mean sparkle when I say shine. I just got a Diamond Dazzle pen and cleaned it with it. That alone made a HUGE difference. Ring must have been filthy. But more I think it's a reasonable size diamond and when people I know don't have diamonds that have any of the C's or portions of hers are around their diamonds seem larger and more sparkly. I think it's what @AllAboardTheBlingTrain said ie she thought she wanted something intricate but now she just wants something simple that accentuates the center stone.

@jaysonsmom I have thought about replacing the entire ring, stone and all. But honestly, I don't know if I have the time I put into finding her a new stone and setting. It took me a ton of effort to find this one.

@sledge @Karl_K here is the GIA info you requested
Shape: Round
Optical Symmetry: Superior
Weight: 2.320 carats
Measurements: 8.53mm long x 8.52mm wide x 5.22mm in depth
Cut & finish:
Polish: Excellent
Proportions: Excellent
Symmetry: Excellent
Culet: None
Total depth: 61.33%
Table percentage: 56.36%
Pavilion angle: 40.73 degrees
Crown angle: 34.46 degrees
U.V. florescence: None
Color: G (see Addendum 2 for definitions)
Clarity: VS2 (see Addendum 2 for definitions)

I think you have one of the Good Old Gold ideal cuts, yes? That's what your imaging looks like. Either that or their Premium Select or whatever their one step off from the ideal cut is. My brother's wife has one of their ideal cuts (that I picked out for her) and I guarantee it's not the diamond cut that's making it not sparkle. If you haven't been cleaning the ring regularly, it will need a SERIOUS cleaning - way more than a diamond dazzle stick can do - to dislodge all the dirt. My SIL also doesn't clean her ring much and whenever she comes over I have to do multiple rounds in the ultrasonic, scrubbing with a brush, steam clean, ultrasonic again before I finally get it clean. And it's just in a simple solitaire so comparatively easy to clean. No diamond is going to look its best if it's dirty. They really need to be cleaned a minimum of twice a week if you want them to still look good, and many people on here clean their diamonds every day. But a lot of people who aren't diamond addicts clean their diamonds less often than they clean their cars!

I'd definitely take your wife to try on plain solitaires that are the same size as the stone she has now, or see if you can order 2 ct size CZ rings to see what she likes... 4 prong, 6 prong, cathedral setting, pave or plain shank, etc. I can see how the diamond would get a little lost in the setting you have now. Then if you don't want to sell the one you have now, you could see about getting a colored stone to put in it, so you can still have both parts of the original ring making new things. It's not unusual for tastes to change over time either... even if this setting was perfect for your wife when you got it, it's ten years later now and it's normal to have changed in that amount of time.

 

[IbrahimSS]

I think you have one of the Good Old Gold ideal cuts, yes? That's what your imaging looks like. Either that or their Premium Select or whatever their one step off from the ideal cut is. My brother's wife has one of their ideal cuts (that I picked out for her) and I guarantee it's not the diamond cut that's making it not sparkle. If you haven't been cleaning the ring regularly, it will need a SERIOUS cleaning - way more than a diamond dazzle stick can do - to dislodge all the dirt. My SIL also doesn't clean her ring much and whenever she comes over I have to do multiple rounds in the ultrasonic, scrubbing with a brush, steam clean, ultrasonic again before I finally get it clean. And it's just in a simple solitaire so comparatively easy to clean. No diamond is going to look its best if it's dirty. They really need to be cleaned a minimum of twice a week if you want them to still look good, and many people on here clean their diamonds every day. But a lot of people who aren't diamond addicts clean their diamonds less often than they clean their cars!

I'd definitely take your wife to try on plain solitaires that are the same size as the stone she has now, or see if you can order 2 ct size CZ rings to see what she likes... 4 prong, 6 prong, cathedral setting, pave or plain shank, etc. I can see how the diamond would get a little lost in the setting you have now. Then if you don't want to sell the one you have now, you could see about getting a colored stone to put in it, so you can still have both parts of the original ring making new things. It's not unusual for tastes to change over time either... even if this setting was perfect for your wife when you got it, it's ten years later now and it's normal to have changed in that amount of time.

She just told me a few minutes ago that she wants a solitaire with a thin pave band. She even pulled it up on her phone and when I showed her other settings she seemed pretty clear in her mind that that's what she wants.

The diamond is definitely from Good Old Gold and I believe it was an ideal cut from them. My only regret about buying diamonds online is that people who buy locally just to their local jeweler and they clean it for the usually for free from where they made their purchase. I'd much rather keep it to cleaning at home as well because, beyond the cost, the convenience and when it's professionally cleaned they seem to lose small diamonds on the side each time (my wife never notices and it drives me insane). I got the Dazzle stik because I read up on PS about cleaning and most people seemed to say ammonia, windex, or the Diamond Dazzle stik.

Regardless of how clean the thing is too I think the bottom line is the diamond gets lost in the band and like you said she I think wants a change of style after 10 years. If I had a better idea of how much the cost difference of a totally new stone with the setting I'd consider it but really right now it's too not a priority for us with everything else we have going on.

 

[distracts]

She just told me a few minutes ago that she wants a solitaire with a thin pave band. She even pulled it up on her phone and when I showed her other settings she seemed pretty clear in her mind that that's what she wants.

The diamond is definitely from Good Old Gold and I believe it was an ideal cut from them. My only regret about buying diamonds online is that people who buy locally just to their local jeweler and they clean it for the usually for free from where they made their purchase. I'd much rather keep it to cleaning at home as well because, beyond the cost, the convenience and when it's professionally cleaned they seem to lose small diamonds on the side each time (my wife never notices and it drives me insane). I got the Dazzle stik because I read up on PS about cleaning and most people seemed to say ammonia, windex, or the Diamond Dazzle stik.

Regardless of how clean the thing is too I think the bottom line is the diamond gets lost in the band and like you said she I think wants a change of style after 10 years. If I had a better idea of how much the cost difference of a totally new stone with the setting I'd consider it but really right now it's too not a priority for us with everything else we have going on.

Has she tried on the setting type she wants with a stone her size though? I am so insistent about this because so many people try things on and then don't like them, and if you're paying to change the setting you want to be sure to get it right. So she should try on not only what she wants but also bunches of other different styles - threestones with round sidestones, plain settings, etc. Trying on things is Step 1 of the process.

 

[IbrahimSS]

Has she tried on the setting type she wants with a stone her size though? I am so insistent about this because so many people try things on and then don't like them, and if you're paying to change the setting you want to be sure to get it right. So she should try on not only what she wants but also bunches of other different styles - threestones with round sidestones, plain settings, etc. Trying on things is Step 1 of the process.

She has not yet... but I promise we will do so.