Why does this diamond look 'flat'?

[msop04]

According to BN, the minimum ct size was 1.36, with a max around 1.8? (didn't remember cause 1.8 was really far out of my budget). I was told I didn't need to exactly match 1.36 but I had to be above the typical 1.00.

Whoever told you that doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Also, 1.36 to 1.8 is a HUGE range in spread! Ask them what is the minimum and maximum size (IN MM) this setting will accommodate. Then just make sure your stone falls within that range. Unfortunately, stock settings only "truly" fit a very small range of sizes, but they try to make them fit stones that are too small and too large. I wonder where they got 1.36, specifically?? That's asinine. What you need to know is if YOUR STONE will fit in that setting based on it's DIAMETER in mm.

"Carat" is a measure of WEIGHT, and cannot be used to accurately assess SPREAD. Spread is linear. Some 2.5 ct stones can face up larger than 2.7ct stones. Some will face up smaller than their carat weight. For example, my stone weighs 3.33 ct, but faces up like many 3.5-3.6 ct stones at 9.8 mm.

 

[msop04]

What was the spread of the diamond that was in the setting? (the one you didn't like)

 

[Niwrad]

What was the spread of the diamond that was in the setting? (the one you didn't like)

it was a 1.3 with 7.14mm and 58.5 depth %

 

[Niwrad]

Whoever told you that doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Also, 1.36 to 1.8 is a HUGE range in spread! Ask them what is the minimum and maximum size (IN MM) this setting will accommodate. Then just make sure your stone falls within that range. Unfortunately, stock settings only "truly" fit a very small range of sizes, but they try to make them fit stones that are too small and too large. I wonder where they got 1.36, specifically?? That's asinine. What you need to know is if YOUR STONE will fit in that setting based on it's DIAMETER in mm.

"Carat" is a measure of WEIGHT, and cannot be used to accurately assess SPREAD. Spread is linear. Some 2.5 ct stones can face up larger than 2.7ct stones. Some will face up smaller than their carat weight. For example, my stone weighs 3.33 ct, but faces up like many 3.5-3.6 ct stones at 9.8 mm.

Ops maybe a miscommunication
All blue nile settings have a default allowable diamond shapes and sizes to be set, e.g. rounds 0.7-1.5, princess 0.8-1.5 etc and the listed shape and sizes for that setting was in the 1.36-1.8 rounds so I looked initially for 1.30s with higher spread, but I guess once you're above 1.2 it's not that noticeable, but the 'recently purchased' page initially had some 0.8 ct which made the center stone look unusually undersized while the 1.3s and 1.5s look great

 

[msop04]

it was a 1.3 with 7.14mm and 58.5 depth %

You would need to make sure it would still fit the setting. I'm thinking no, but I could be wrong. (%'s are not linear... again, the depth would be measured in mm with regards to fitting into the setting, just like the spread)

 

[Niwrad]

You would need to make sure it would still fit the setting. I'm thinking no, but I could be wrong. (%'s are not linear... again, the depth would be measured in mm with regards to fitting into the setting, just like the spread)

The new diamond is about 0.02mm smaller in diameter

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I posted this on your other thread. Hopefully you'll see this here or there!

These are measurements to help you stay in ideal cut territory with a GIA excellent cut stone.

table: 54-58

depth: 60-62.3

crown angle: 34-35.0 (up to 35.5 crown angle can sometimes work with a 40.6 pav angle)

pavilion angle: 40.6-40.9 (sometimes 41.0 if the crown angle is close to 34)

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Crystal right in the center under the table might be able to be seen in certain lighting in that 1.35 J SI2. Was the stone you initially had set in the setting this size?

 

[msop04]

The new diamond is about 0.02mm smaller in diameter

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!

 

[Niwrad]

Crystal right in the center under the table might be able to be seen in certain lighting in that 1.35 J SI2. Was the stone you initially had set in the setting this size?

Size as in the ct size? Previously was a 1.3 I SI2, with a shallow crown of around 32. I felt that it didn't have enough Brilliance and seemed dark when I looked at it from the top. The sides were ok, didn't notice the yellow so I figured it was alright. However the small petite rounds and the marquise had so much sparkle I felt they distracted from the main stone.
https://www.bluenile.com/build-your-own-ring/diamond-details/LD09538877

 

[msop04]

WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER!

Okay... wait. When I say size, I mean SIZE -- measured in mm. The carat weight has nothing to do with it. Was the diameter 0.02 MM smaller or was the stone 0.02 ct larger in WEIGHT?

 

[Niwrad]

Okay... wait. When I say size, I mean SIZE -- measured in mm. The carat weight has nothing to do with it. Was the diameter 0.02 MM smaller or was the stone 0.02 ct larger in WEIGHT?

7.15 x 7.13 versus 7.17 x 7x14

 

[msop04]

Size as in the ct size? Previously was a 1.3 I SI2, with a shallow crown of around 32. I felt that it didn't have enough Brilliance and seemed dark when I looked at it from the top. The sides were ok, didn't notice the yellow so I figured it was alright. However the small petite rounds and the marquise had so much sparkle I felt they distracted from the main stone.
https://www.bluenile.com/build-your-own-ring/diamond-details/LD09538877

FYI, we can't view the stone bc it says it's being held or has sold. Do you know the specs?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@msop04 scroll down and you can see it. Old stone was not well cut and had some seriously bad inclusions.

 

[msop04]

7.15 x 7.13 versus 7.17 x 7x14

Gotcha... I truly think they can make that happen. If it had been off by 0.15 - 0.2 mm+, I would have worried.

 

[msop04]

@msop04 scroll down and you can see it. Old stone was not well cut.

OMG... I'm an idiot! LOL THANKS!!

ETA: no, it certainly was not well cut -- good move for OP to send it back

 

[diamondseeker2006]

You're absolutely not an idiot, which is why I didn't click like on your post! But you're welcome!

 

[msop04]

Crystal right in the center under the table might be able to be seen in certain lighting in that 1.35 J SI2. Was the stone you initially had set in the setting this size?

I agree that it may be seen under the right lighting and if you were really looking for it... but given the budget, size considerations/constraints, and the better cut, I think it's about the best he's gonna do.

ETA: ...and it looks like it will perform well! (didn't want the OP to think it was a dud by saying this)

 

[msop04]

You're absolutely not an idiot, which is why I didn't click like on your post! But you're welcome!

HA! Well thanks... I didn't scroll at all when looking -- I learned something new about BN's pages today.

 

[TreeScientist]

I agree that it may be seen under the right lighting and if you were really looking for it... but given the budget, size considerations/constraints, and the better cut, I think it's about the best he's gonna do.

ETA: ...and it looks like it will perform well! (didn't want the OP to think it was a dud by saying this)

Exactly, I think it is a beautiful diamond, and the setting is great as well. I don't think you'll see much of a difference between a J center stone and I colored side stones (If it was J vs F-G melee, that would be a different story). And DK wouldn't be able to touch a setting like that for under $2K, so this is a fantastic ring for the budget. Sure, custom is great, but if the person wants to maximize their budget for the center stone then, IMO, pre-made settings are usually the way to go.

I would say the 1.35 J/SI2 is the best you're going to get at that particular size for your budget. The inclusions are not bad for an SI2, and the stone is well cut.

Great job OP.