Advice on shared prong engagement ring - possible change of head/prongs?

[michela002]

I am researching yet another e-ring possibility - a shared prong (almost) eternity engagement ring. (I''d prefer the diamonds to only go 3/4 of the way around, to leave room for resizing and save money.) Note the centre stone would be .80 to .95, and the width of the ring approximately 2mm, maybe just slightly over. (How many points do you think each diamond would be?)

E.g. this one from Signed Pieces (although I would only get two bands - for now at least.)

To anyone who has such a ring, or has seen such a ring, did you think the prongs holding the centre stone were (for lack of a better word) clunky? Also, is there any reason why the diamond appears to "hang" from the prongs, rather than sitting that bit lower?

Like this:

Is there a reason for that? (E.g. does it make the centre stone sit up so it looks bigger? Is it so the bands will sit flush?) Is that just the way that four prong heads are?

Mara, I noticed your setting is very similar to this, and the diamond sits quite high - does it bother you? Catch on things? Etc?

 

[michela002]

Or a basket-style head? Like this Ritani:

Or this Daniel K:

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/12/2005 5:42:34 PM
Author:Indecisive

To anyone who has such a ring, or has seen such a ring, did you think the prongs holding the centre stone were (for lack of a better word) clunky?

Is there a reason for that?

Yes they are chunky... and no, there is no reason for that. The ring is easier to assemble from ready-made parts this way (the band and the head come separately as standard parts) - this is all I can think of.

If the high set diamond appears "big" I don''t know. These just feal unconfortable to me. But... there are lots of diverginf opinions obviously, and definitely lots of high set rings.

About the width of the band - that depends on the size of the diamonds allright, but also on the way they are set. The shared prong bands at Signedpieces are 2mm wide for about 0.6 carat total weight, like this one.

 

[AmberGretchen]

Hey - we actually ordered something very similar to that setting from Signed Pieces for my e-ring, but bf hasn''t given me the ring yet

so I don''t have any pictures. I did see the setting before the stone was to be set, and to answer a few of your questions:

the side stones in the ring and in the one I got are 0.025 ct each, and the band (according to Isaac at SP - I haven''t actually measured it myself) is about 1.9mm wide, and looks very delicate. They will happily custom-make it for you in whatever size stones you want and will make it so they only go halfway around (or 3/4 or whatever you want), which also saves $$ for the center stone

. I would be happy to tell you the price of mine if you want to know just PM me.

The head, or prongs, do look chunky in the picture - this is something I was worried about but my bf talked to Isaac about it when he ordered the ring and the prongs on mine are pretty delicate-looking while still looking strong enough to hold the diamond. They are also curved, which my local jeweler noted, which is not always the case with 4 prong heads - for a comparison, you might want to to look at Demelza''s rings, which are from SP, and Teebee''s ring, which is from WF and has more straight prongs.

I hope that helps - I am hoping to post pics of my ring in the near (hopefully VERY near) future

Please feel free to PM me with questions.

 

[michela002]

Thanks AmberGretchen. So your ring is actually from Signed Pieces? Hmm, I didn''t know they would customize it, that is wonderful! How did they modify the prongs on yours? I am eager to see it when you post it - as I''m sure you are eager to see it too

Thanks heaps. I think I will contact Signed Pieces/Facets and ask some questions.

Also thanks Valeria - I thought they looked very chunky and thought maybe I was missing the reason why. I''ve noticed that with a lot of four-prong rings (especially those on Blue Nile etc) and always disliked them for that reason. As long as it has no purpose I might see what I can change about it. Thanks for your advice

 

[denverappraiser]

Indecisive,

This will not be a particularly difficult ring to make. A variation of that basic ring is available to almost every jeweler and head is put on to accept whatever stone the customer eventually chooses. In the photo, they''ve chosen a slightly large head so that the stone will sit up a little higher and they probably were actually trying to accomplish the look that you are calling ''clunky''. It''s not necessary. There are lots of heads available for this kind of piece although none of the ones you posted are exactly right. The head in this ring attaches from the bottom, not the sides like the ones in you samples. www.stuller.com has photos of many kinds. Look for what they call ''peg'' heads. They don''t list prices on their site but most jewelers can buy from them and you''re better off buying the head from whoever is doing the setting anyway. It is posslble to cut a space in the band to fit the type of heads you''ve pictured but then the two rings probably won''t fit together cleanly.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ISA NAJA
Independent Appraisals in Denver

 

[Maxine]

The head I have was on a "peg" (I think), and it was set into a hole in the band to fit the size of the stones...my rings (together) are on the eternity set thread...they sit flush because they came as a set!

 

[michela002]

Thanks Neil. I will check out Stuller.

 

[teebee]

Indecisive ~ I have a similar ring from Whiteflash. The prongs on the pics you posted do look a little chunky but definitely something that can be remedied. Also, I really had to keep in mind that, while all of these large and very detailed photos are great, they sometimes gave me a skewed impression... and some of those things that really stuck out at me & bugged me in a photo were barely noticable in a more realistic scale. My stone ''hangs'' a bit as well ~ if it were a larger stone I''m assuming that effect would diminish as well, but I don''t really notice it, nor do I really have a problem with the height of the setting. Occasionally I knock it on something, but I''m a klutz and I do that w/ or w/out a ring on (right now I have a little bruise from where I hit my ring finger knuckle, not the ring itself, on a shelf...) so I probably injure my actual fingers more often than I actually get the ring caught or hit it on something.

Here is a link if you want to see pics... I''ve been busy today...

: LINK

 

[Lynn B]

I have a set similar to Teebee and Mara, too. (This style is so gorgeous to me! I LOVE it!) Here''s a link to my thread:

https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/the-re-set-is-done-white-flash-does-it-again.25494/

I told Lesley at WF that I had "prong issues" and really wanted my prongs to be small, delicate, rounded and smooth. I am VERY happy with the platinum head and prongs. The head does sit "on top" of the band, not "down into it" at all, because I wanted the e-ring and the w-ring to sit flush together.

I think Signed Pieces does GREAT work at VERY competitive prices, and I think the rings will be beautiful!

Lynn

 

[Kaili]

Demelza recently got a that ering from SP, but they used a lower set head.
You can see pics of it

HERE

and

HERE

Maybe that will help

 

[Mara]

I personally dislike chunky prongs, mostly because my original e-ring had them and I did not like how they detracted from the stone and somehow make it look out of round or squarish more. When WF had the ring last time, they shaved the prongs down to be MUCH smaller, and kept those tiny prongs this time around too. Love them...the old prongs were just too obvious! I prefer prongs to be very unobtrusive since IMO the stone is the shining center stage star!! I also like that very round look, aka if I wanted a princess or squarish stone I would have gotten one.

But some people like chunky prongs, some of the Tacori styles have these huge straight prongs that some really like. Others want smaller prongs. It's a total preference thing.

That said...if you go with a custom style, you can get whatever you want! A shared prong style like the SP one, a head like the Tiffany with or without cathedral shoulders, a basket, whatever. That's why I love custom...you can build from various other rings you like to get something totally unique. Many of us here have the similar eternity or shared prong settings but they are all different in one or two small ways. WF was great with matching my band to my e-ring and I know others have had them do great work (aka Lynn's set)....if SP can do the set you like with a custom head, even better!

As for the height of my head, at first I disliked it but it grew on me...and now I can't imagine having a low set head...I think it makes the diamond look smaller which may sound weird since technically I would think it would look bigger set lower to the hand, but it's a total visual thing for me! However, this last time around, WF took the head down what appears to be a TINY bit, because they used my old head and kind of 'stretched' it out so it looks more squat and slightly lower which I really like much better..it's a tiny bit lower but still high up to get noticed and the reason also it was set high to begin with (soldered to the top of the band rather than into the band itself) is because I wanted my rings to sit flush with each other and have no gap. So I will always have a higher head with this set. But love the new head with it's more 'squat' feel and slightly lower profile.

In terms of knocking it around, I got used to it very quickly and am pretty conscious of the ring even when I am unconscious of it, if that makes sense. So I rarely hit it...and when I do I kind of cringe but so far it has not done any damage...knock on wood!

Hope this helps!!

 

[valeria101]

Demelza''s ring might be just the thing:

A basket usually lets more space between ring and wedding band. This version does away with most of that. And it is still a relatively low setting...

I think even that space can be made to vanish if the base of the prongs is carved a bit. The solitaires by Michael B. are made like that aparently - the prongs start out from a flat root of engraved metal no wider than the ring''s band. It can''t be that hard.

 

[valeria101]

I don''t know if the ever so slight gap is any trouble, but just in case... there seems to be some solution at hand, requiring square prongs (square in section) tucked towards the mid-section of the ring''s band, instead of blade-shaped ones potruding outwards.

 

[michela002]

Oh my god, all your rings are SO beautiful. I love them all! Lol. Thank you all for posting links to your ring threads, they were great to look at to get ideas and see different versions! I really appreciate it.

For those of you that used Whiteflash - are they all custom rings? I can''t find a shared-prong setting on their website.

I don''t think it''s the high setting that bothers me, so much as the gap between the culet of the stone and the bottom of the head ... so if I could iron out that problem (and the "clunkiness") I''m sure the height wouldn''t bother me. But thanks Mara for the POV - I''m sure I''d get used to it.

I definitely want the rings to sit flush, so thanks for the posts Valeria.

Thanks, you''ve all given me great food for thought and pics from which I can choose different features. (And drool ...

)

 

[teebee]

Indecisive ~ Thanks for the compliments!! Yes, at least for me, my ering is considered a custom setting. When I first ordered the ring, I told Lesley that I wanted something similar to Mara''s. She emailed me back later to clarify whether I wanted the melee stones to each have 4 individual prongs like Mara''s, which is something they did custom to match her e-ring, or shared prong, which I believe is something they do more frequently. I went w/ the shared prong & received it in exactly one week.

Here is a picture of a shared prong band that Lesley emailed me as an example:

 

[michela002]

Thanks Teebee! I PMed you about your ring

Thanks for all the help!!

 

[michela002]

What do people think of this? I photoshoped two images to get an idea of what it would look like.

This would be a shared prong with an imitation Tiffany-style head.

(The ring I photoshoped was Superbcert imitation Tiffany setting head.)

Think the six prongs look funny? Would the head be too much? Would I be better getting a more delicate version of the four-prong, or going with something like this?

 

[Maxine]

You need to ask a jeweler.....maybe one will chime in..it depends the way it is attached....I''ve never seen that combination before.....But as far as regular heads go, there is quite a bit of variety out ther...Thick prongs, thin prongs, low set high set...you name it! Plus a good jeweler can adapt almost any of them....

 

[michela002]

Thanks Maxine. I''m sure there''s a solution out there somewhere ...!

 

[Patty]

Indecisive, I think that this looks very cool!

 

[teebee]

Ooooooooooooooooooo!!!! I love that!!!!!!!! It looks really great Indecisive!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PhillipSchmidt]

The setting looks a little bit off to the right

I do like that setting though. It is not quite as strong but it was strong enough for countless other solitares though...

 

[michela002]

Date: 3/13/2005 9:28:56 PM
Author: Platinumsmith
The setting looks a little bit off to the right

I do like that setting though. It is not quite as strong but it was strong enough for countless other solitares though...

Picky!

Hahahahaha.

 

[Mara]

I tend to think that 6 prongs overwhelm some stones, unless the diameter is large enough to carry off those 6 prongs, but it''s a total preference thing and tons of people have 6 prongs...I was telling alj the other day that I adore the side profile of those Tiffany 6 prong (Wink has a great one on his site too, the antique one), but I do not like the look of 6 prongs from the TOP DOWN. So chances are I will never have a 6 prong since I would want a 4 prong with a 6 prong side profile. hehee.

Anyway I am digressing!! I wanted to comment that you dislike that your stone has so much space between the culet and the bottom of the head where the prongs join. One positive thing about this is that your stone will be VERY easy to clean and it may pick up more light because the setting it so open. Whereas possibly if a stone was jammed into a setting, it would be harder to clean and maybe pick up less light...who knows about that second part, it just sounded good.

My original stone and head had alot of room but I just noticed yesterday that when WF ''stretched'' the head, this means the stone sits lower in the head because there is less height and therefore my stone does not have as much room as before and I can''t fit my small bottle brush in between to clean anymore!!!

I will have to figure something else out....I am obsessed with cleaning the pavilion of my stone because alot of crud does get in there!

But overall I love the lower more squat head look of mine...I will try to find a pre-pic and a do a now pic side by side though it may be hard to see. It''s funny because I never would have known what to say which would make me like my head better, but WF did it visually. So it worked out.

Oh and I love that MB ring that Val posted with the prongs flush against the band so that another ring would sit flush, great point!

Good luck...I think whatever you choose will look amazing if you love it!

 

[michela002]

See I quite like the six prongs from the top ... as long as the prongs aren''t too thick (looking down at it from the top.) But I''ve always loved the Tiffanys (or imitation Tiffanys) ones.

I think I like the security of six prongs.

Cleaning ... ah, I''ll leave that up to the jeweler I take it to to get cleaned!

 

[Demelza]

Here''s another consideration to throw in the mix. If you want a shared prong band and plan on pairing it with another shared prong band, you might reconsider having the bands sit flush. That is initially what I wanted and still feel a little disappointed that it is not possible with the type of head I have. However, the more contact there is between the bands, the more likely you are to see damage as a result of girdles rubbing against one another. My appraiser told me that it was a good thing that the prongs created a bit of space between the rings to decrease the likelihood of scratched or chipped girdles. This would not be a problem with a ring like Mara''s or the Michael B Val posted which are not shared prong. It''s one of the downfalls of the shared prong style. The upside is less metal and more diamonds. It''s all a balancing act, I suppose. I sometimes regret going shared prong for that very reason, but then I look down at my ring and see how sparkly it is and I feel better.

 

[Mara]

Indecisive...I get my rings cleaned at the jeweler about once a month but I clean them DAILY at home...I find that if I am not able to scrub the pavilion then in a few days it grows a film and it affects the diamond and how I view it...which is why I clean them daily. It''s been 2+ years and I still clean them daily! So definitely something to keep in mind if you plan to clean your rings more than the every-once-in-a-while jeweler clean...lots of things happen in between the visits!! A clean ring is the most beautiful ring...

 

[valeria101]

Sure you know this... even though your band will be set with diamonds all the way, the way the head connects to the band could be like this, I would think. There''s no need for the slab of metal under the basket

Platinumsmith, what makes the initial project less durable ? Is it the havily pierced band ? Would pave hold on better ?

 

[michela002]

Mara - are you sure you don''t suffer from OC(DC)D? ... Obsessive Compulsive (Diamond Cleaning) Disorder.

Demelza - I so want them to sit flush ... lol. Now I''m whining. What kind of damage??? Serious, or just getting something fixed up every so often? Out of curiousity when your rings are on your hand do you notice the gap terribly? It doesn''t seem like it''s that big a gap.

What makes Mara''s less likely to do that??? I thought yours was shared prong too Mara? (Come to think of it I recall something else now ... brain foggy ... Will have to look again.)

Valeria - thanks for that. I do like the head on that - its the Tiffs one but does seem to not sit quite so "head plonked on slab of metal." I will have to see what can be done I guess.