how to make the center stone look larger

[ciger]

Hi all,

I have been addicted to this site now for a few weeks and I wanted to thank everyone for sharing all of their knowledge and experiences! I have already learned so much. Here is my situation: my boyfriend and I have been looking for an engagement ring for months now. For a while I was sure that I wanted a simple round brilliant solitaire...until I tried some on in the carat size that I will probably be getting (somewhere between 1.5 and 2) and found that the ones that I really initially liked were probably larger than that, because it seemed to look too simple on my hand. (I do know that through trial and error I seem to like a very thin band and a low-set, 6-prong basket.) I started looking at the very thin pave bands, which I like, but I''m worried may take away from the center diamond. What I''m really looking for is a way to make the center stone look larger. I tried the pave halo as well as a regular bezel and didn''t really like them. I thought of putting little diamonds on the tips of the prongs so that they could be seen from above. Has anyone seen that, or does anyone have other ideas for how to make the center stone appear larger? I love my boyfriend so much and I keep reminding myself that he is the real gift, but I can''t help but want a perfect ring! Any advice would be tremendously helpful. Thank you!

 

[kenny]

Sorry, I couldn't resist!
But seriously a 1.5 ct is nothing to sniff at.
Be happy!

 

[Lorelei]

Welcome Ciger

I agree with Kenny a 1.5 to 2 ct is a great size, I assume this is a round? I don't know if prongs would make the diamond look larger, a thin band would help maximise the size. There is a ring in the eye candy folder with little diamonds on the prongs if I remember rightly. There are some lovely rings with pave bands, check out show me the ring, Mara's 1.6 has a thin pave band and it looks beautiful

Maybe consider sidestones as you don't like halos, they could look good, also some fancy shapes can look a little larger for their carat weight so maybe try some of those if you are not absolutely set on a round. I don't know what your budget is or the specs you want, maybe you could go upwards of 2 carats if you would really prefer something a little larger.

 

[valeria101]

Besides an upgrade

... try a search for 'illusion setting' on this forum...

Those are usually some settings that go just a bit winder than the edge of the stone one way or another, preferably below the girdle line. Many are intricate, larger rings but a few are just about the shape of the 'head' holding the stone and would work with a simple band.

For example, THIS is a very typical one, but not all that modern.


Among the farely recent Pricescope rings, THIS was really successful, IMO - it is a cousin of halo by Tacori but with the smallest rim of tiny diamonds prong set just under the center.


Some rings with the prongs paved with diamonds also have tiny ones right on the tip. I don't know what those do to the overall look of the piece, but again, those are usually large and intricate rings beyond that detail. A simple setting with larger prongs and diamonds in their tips doesn't ring the bell. It happened to a certain pendant though - see HERE

 

[aljdewey]

It's hard to imagine why a 1.5 or 2 ct stone wouldn't look big on its own merit. That doesn't strike me as a weight that needs "help" to look big.

Having said that, the way to maximize the presence of the stone is to stay with a plain, thin band such as a knife-edge solitaire setting or a band that pinches in near the stone.

 

[soulsis]

Most people seem to think that a halo emphasizes your centre stone, which my jeweler said was untrue. I still had my heart set on one until I tried it on and it looked beautiful but I felt it was distracting. If you want people to notice your centre stone then the best bet is either a bezel setting or one with samll prongs.

 

[luvn2oxfrd]

let me just say that i sympathize with thinking a 1.5-2ct stone looks small. i have such huge sausage fingers (size 9!) that my 2ct solitaire does indeed look small (well, a lot smaller than it should!) a lot of people think it is 1ct. my poor husband does not get the kudos he deserves for saving for my perfect ring!

to offset my chubby fingers, my diamond is set in a 3mm tapered high cathedral setting. i chose not to go with a halo because i wanted to diamond to stand out.

 

[FireGoddess]

I do have a halo and while I got that design for other reasons, it does make my 1.5 ct pear look even bigger. I do think that 1.5 to 2 cts is quite a big stone, but IMO the halo makes it look even bigger if done correctly.

 

[recran]

Awesome question. I''ll share my experience. I really wanted to go for more than 2 carats, but then I decided I''d like to have a diamond NOW rather than 2-5 years from now. So I went with 1.5 carats to start. I picked out my stone with WhiteFlash (awesome!).

Okay, so since the stone wasn''t as large as the stones I was originally playing with, it looked small on my finger in the settings I was looking at. My fav settings are the kinds that have engraving or pave or both. I loooove the antique-y look. BUT when I tested a 1.5 carat diamond in those settings, it just didn''t satisfy me. So I said to the nice people at Jared''s, "How can I make the diamond look bigger?" The first guy I asked that of pointed me to a cathedral setting with some tiny diamonds leading up to the center. Okay, that was cool. But it still wasn''t totally satisfactory. I went back to try again. The woman I worked with let me try some of the plainer Tacori settings, but figured out they just weren''t doing it for me. She said for me to just TRY a plain Tiffany type setting (very skinny band). Whoa. That was it.

So then came finding the wedding band to go with. The ones with bigger diamonds looked bad to me - totally detracted from the 1.5 carat stone and made it appear not-that-special. Then I tried one with some very small diamonds - looked pretty good. Then I tried even smaller diamonds with tiny sapphires (my DH''s preference) - looked excellent. But the stone looks the absolute biggest when the plain Tiffany setting is paired with a plan, skinny band. I dunno which band my DH picked (it''s a surprise), but I told him I was honestly hoping for the plain band just for what it does for the center stone.

HTH!

 

[ciger]

Thank you so much for all of your advice! You guys are awesome! It''s nice to have a community of people that allow me to be a little obsessive. I loved that Fay Cullen setting although you''re right Valeria, it''s not as modern as I would like. (This is the one I''m referring to: http://www.faycullen.com/engagement_rings/800/b1230r4d.html) I love the low-set crown effect, the additional width around the edges of the stone and the basket, but maybe something less intricate, with a super thin plain shank. I particularly like how the shank attaches directly to the base of the basket. I wonder if they would/could put diamonds on the additional width that faces up around the stone. Could I be pickier? I just figure this will probably be the only piece of "real" jewelry I''ll ever own so I want to make it perfect. Has anyone seen anything similar to that one, but with cleaner/less intricate detailing? Also, does anyone have the picture or a link to the picture that won''t load for me on this page?
https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/my-e-ring-from-nice-ice.23529/=

Thank you all again so so much for your advice and for supporting me in my quest!

 

[squarediamondlove]

Just to make a distinction, if you want the quality of the STONE to stand out, go with a very simple tiffany setting and simple thin band. If you want the stone to look BIG, than go with the halo, pave, or the the Fay Cullen setting.

If you don''t find anything special you like with settings I would listen to Recran and go with a simple thin 6 prong setting. Just go as thin as you can go before it looks weird. My friend has .9ct e-ring on an extremely thin setting (not actually meant to be an e-ring but looks exactly like one...don''t ask) and it looks like a 1.5ct (but she does have small finger size). Also have you looked into having thicker pave progs holding your diamonds on a thin pave band; that may make the stone look larger.

I actually have a pink tourmaline ring that has diamonds on top of the prongs and pave band and it definately makes it look bigger. However having that on an e-ring may make it look like a cocktail ring.

 

[Jo]

Can totally relate as I have extremely long fingers and big hands. I had a problem with the feeling of a single solitaire stone sliding around and spinning. I ended up with a RB 2.75 ct. and tapered baguettes. Had I known the side stones would add so much bling I would have gone down in ct size.

I also think that the halo is a pretty look and will make the center stand out.