Tiffany E-ring Upgrade/HCA vs Triple Excellent - Decisions, decisions!

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

#122
aaluv said:
Hi msop! No offence taken, thanks for the post.

For me personally, there are a few reasons why I'm sticking with Tiffany here:
1. The diamond is an upgrade for me. Although I did consider looking elsewhere and keeping my existing Tiffany diamond, the trade in policy is valuable and the amount I will have to pay over and above is less than what I would have to pay for a non Tiffany for the same size I'm looking for. It could be a different story if this was my first ring...
2. Although I'm willing to trade in my existing diamond, there is some sentimental value in sticking with the same classic Tiffany ring chosen by my husband way back when. At that time, I did not have any input into the ring and he chose it on his own (all he knew was that I wanted a simple round brilliant platinum setting). I want the same style he originally chose for me, just bigger =)

3. I think the classic Tiffany setting is really pretty. I've seen other simple 6 prong classic settings which show the culet/full diamond more etc but something about the Tiffany classic setting "sings to me". I love it.

Those are my reasons off the top of my head. I wouldn't choose a ring based on service per se, but my experience has been great. The inventory is lacking in what I'm looking for, but the SA's have been helpful.

For now I've decided I want certain angles, percentages, depths etc and will wait for the right stone. If I'm going to pay Tiffany prices I may as well get what I want (or atleast close!)...although at this rate it may take a year or perhaps never happen? =(

Thanks for the good luck, I hope I find it too!!
Click to expand...

IMO, if you really like the original Tiffany setting, then you should stick with it. A friend of mine showed me her replica Tiffany style setting, and although her jeweler did an extremely amazing job replicating the band and prongs, it's not quite there mainly because I have the original and studied the minute details. But from far and to others, they don't really know the difference unless you see the replica and original Tiffany side by side or own an original yourself.
 
#123
ame said:
The HCA is not really going to select a 60/60 as it's not really considered an ideal anymore and it's not favored. Tolkowsky liked those numbers, but modern ideal does not go that way. A 60/60 is not really one many will consider, and I, for one, immediately say no. It's a very different look, and one that educated consumers RARELY will select. You will get little to no fire from a 60/60 (aka rainbow sparkles). What you will get is white light return and it's not always guaranteed to be great white light return either. There are VERY VERY VERY few 60/60s cut with the appropriate angles to work and still get a nice stone.

As to this particular stone: the diameter is appropriate for the carat weight, which is good, considering most of the ones they've sent you so far are way too small face up.
Click to expand...

Wow, this is great information. I thought 60/60 would be a well balanced stone, and therefore perfect, but I do understand the theory behind a 60 table being not ideal.
 
#124
There have been some that are, but usually they aren't. Tolkowsky liked those, and 53/60's too. But it took people a long time to figure out his math on what would become ideal.

Some people really like the look of a 60/60 though. Its just not considered ideal and I find them pretty bleh.
 
#125
ame said:
There have been some that are, but usually they aren't. Tolkowsky liked those, and 53/60's too. But it took people a long time to figure out his math on what would become ideal.

Some people really like the look of a 60/60 though. Its just not considered ideal and I find them pretty bleh.
Click to expand...

What does a 60/60 look like? Fish eye?
 
#126
Varies wildly based on actual angles (there are so many variants), but in general very little colored light return (rainbow sparkles) and more white light return. There are some with fish eye, but not all do that. Even some that would fall into otherwise ideal table/depth proportions can get fisheye, if the angles are weird. Other times you could get what they call a nailhead, which is a dark center, also sometimes called obstruction.
 
#127
ame said:
Varies wildly based on actual angles (there are so many variants), but in general very little colored light return (rainbow sparkles) and more white light return. There are some with fish eye, but not all do that. Even some that would fall into otherwise ideal table/depth proportions can get fisheye, if the angles are weird. Other times you could get what they call a nailhead, which is a dark center, also sometimes called obstruction.
Click to expand...

Really? I guess no matter what you decide, you have to visually look at the stone carefully .
 
#128
Yep. The way the crown and pavilion angle play with each other is how you get the light return. So with a great table and depth, you still need the angles to be correct for the light return to work. USUALLY they do but since no two stones are cut identically, you have to look at EVERYTHING and cannot just rely on paper. And you sometimes have to also take into account that sometimes the cutter cuts around the crystal structure of the stone. There is a lot of different minutia into how stones are cut. Some for weight some for perfection, and some for dealing with the inclusions. They have programs that help them with how to cut the rough, what shape(s) and carats and whatnot now.
 
#129
Hi Ame and everyone!

So I am still waiting for that 1.39H - supposedly it should be in next week, finally! However, they sent me another option today. I would think it would have scored better on HCA, but perhaps the angles are off or table is too large? It scored a 2.5 with VG everything and seems diameter for weight isn't all that great.

Please what do you think -this vs the original 1.39H? and why such a low HCA score? Finally a good depth but overall not as good?

H VS2, 1.4, triple excellent

TOTAL DEPTH PERCENTAGE 61.3%
TABLE SIZE PERCENTAGE 58%
CROWN HEIGHT PERCENTAGE 14.3%
CROWN ANGLE 34.2°
PAVILION DEPTH PERCENTAGE 43.6%
PAVILION ANGLE 41.1°
GIRDLE THICKNESS Medium To Slightly Thick
GIRDLE FINISH Faceted
CULET None
LOWER HALF LENGTH PERCENTAGE 80%
STAR LENGTH PERCENTAGE 50%

Thanks!!!
 
#135
Hi everyone! After two months of searching, I have finally found my ring!!

It was actually one of the first rings I received the specs for two months ago and it finally came in. Went to see the ring today and it is more beautiful in person than I could imagine, it's really perfect and sparkly and I am so happy to have found it! I truly adore this ring!

I will definitely post some pics as I found them very helpful and useful in my search for the perfect ring (although I don't think pictures do it justice!). Here are a couple I took in the boutique! Thanks for joining me in my journey and special thanks to Ame, who without her help there's no way I would have landed with this beauty!! =)
 

Attachments

  • 20130613_130828-1.jpg
    20130613_130828-1.jpg
    365 KB · Views: 358
  • 20130613_130512.jpg
    20130613_130512.jpg
    75.8 KB · Views: 350
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top