Originally Posted by
glowpear
I'm not a setter but I think this popped up on another thread started by Chris. I think the point being made was that the value of a stone must be integral to the setting, and to a varying degree vice versa (well set pieces can hide inclusions and show case flawed diamonds in a flattering light for an overall mark up in price). Forgive me if I misquote as I am more grappling with wriggly babies at the moment than carefully spending time reading all the interesting threads here, but it's fair to expect a 50k stone to be set to perfection under a very high magnification microscope compared to a small, 100 quid stone that is more or less eye clean and looks nice enough to the person wearing it.
Bookmarks