Troff is waffling on yet again about pink diamonds but sleekly glosses over the fact that all of the info he’s been reading from is referring to larger sized diamonds. I know that all the diamonds will be very small and as pretty as they are they’re not valuable at all.I would also like to have more precious metals on my rings than they usually provide people with.First ring had only 1.4 grams, nine diamonds and was £499 ! I can’t quite believe how expensive I find that, wow.
I agree. Two major changes over the last few years, which I have noticed:
a) Gold weight has crashed. It had been declining gradually but now it's just silly. This makes their designs almost unwearable. As durable as 9K alloy is, as most of that weight will be in the setting for a lot of their designs, this
will mean that the band
is prone to snapping and/or warping. Local jewellers may legitimately refuse to re-size without an additional premium to cover their insurance.
b) While they've added higher clarity diamonds to their range, the stones
are small - even melee size. This really does affect the ability to disperse, in my unscientific opinion. I tried one of their SI Russian rings a couple of years ago to see (nice, wearable cluster design). As good as the colour and clarity were certified to be, the cluster just didn't perform in either the strongest sunlight or indoor led. I was also
very surprised to see, on Jeff's stint last night, an SI grade ring set with
single cut diamonds! I wouldn't have spotted it except for the fact that it must have surprised Jeff too - he had to correct himself when he saw his chart. A total new one on me because I thought that a 17 facet, single cut was the most basic, inexpensive shape that was used for included stones.
.
