I hate to say this to all those diamond setting lovers

[kevinraja]

If your center diamond is a carat or less, I understand that you go for sidestones to make the overall diamond arrangement look bigger. I don''t undertsand why women/men go for diamond accent settings if they plan to set a 1.5 carat or higher diamond. The diamond will be so big that it needs its own place. By putting sidestones, one reduce the individuality of the big center sonte. After looking at several women with their engagement rings, IMO, I don''t like big center stones complemented with small side stones. The best setting for BIG center stones are classic solitaire settings, with, maybe, very subtle stones along the ring. The solitaire setting also makes big diamonds look bigger.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 1/19/2005 5:18

2 PM
Author: Feydakin
If you hated to say it you wouldn''t have said it

Personally, I find solitaires boring.. Anyone can slap a rock on a ring and call it jewelry.. Even with large stones, I like to see some form of accent stones added to the mix to liven up the piece..

i loathe a plain solitaire-------i LOVE details--------pave, engraving, interesting shape side stones like calf''s heads or kites!

 

[Lurchie]

Date: 1/19/2005 5:18

2 PM
Author: Feydakin
If you hated to say it you wouldn''t have said it

Personally, I find solitaires boring.. Anyone can slap a rock on a ring and call it jewelry.. Even with large stones, I like to see some form of accent stones added to the mix to liven up the piece..

Here here.

Kevinraja, how about this for a title instead, "Dontcha just LOVE solitaire settings?!" You''d get a lot fewer of these guys:

 

[Matata]

--------------"Anyone can slap a rock on a ring and call it jewelry."

Amen to that, unfortunately. When I see a well cut stone in a solitaire, it takes my breath away. When I see one with side stones, millgrain, filigree or any other add on, it takes my breath away. So I own one of each.

 

[outlander]

Haha! Lurchie! I like that idea!

 

[Mara]

and the point of this thread is?!?!

i personally don't think that a small stone requires side stones and a large one can't have them..it depends on the person, the stones and the setting. so there is no one answer for all, of course, just as everyone has their own taste and personal choices in diamonds/stones, they will have them in settings, and/or sidestones.

some of the most beautiful settings i have seen are a 2c stone with 1c sidestones OR a small center stone with sidestones or a bezel setting or some unique way to make it different. i personally think solitaires are boring but obviously people love them as there are tons out there!!

 

[valeria101]

Not to mentions some sidestones could stand on their own just as nicely ! It''s just a matter of how big the whole thing is

 

[onedrop]

I think if done right, the small side stones on a 1.5 to 2.0 carat center stone, the center can be beautifully accented. There are several examples of this on PS.

Kevin...what does your final product look like, if I may ask? From previous posts it seems like you have been putting together a fabulous ring.

 

[Mara]

this is one of my favorite 3 stone rings, the center is 2c and the sides are 1c each.

aljdewey loved this setting and leon told her it would not look as good with smaller stones!

 

[Kaili]

Life would be very boring if we all had the same tastes. Can you imagine everyone in the same clothes, with the same haircut, having plastic surgery to look the same? Yikes!!

By the way, different size diamonds look different in proportion to hand size. 1 carat on size 3 looks like an entirely different carat stone on size 7.5 fingers. Just food for thought.

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 1/19/2005 5:51:44 PM
Author: Mara
this is one of my favorite 3 stone rings, the center is 2c and the sides are 1c each.

aljdewey loved this setting and leon told her it would not look as good with smaller stones!

LEON.................................he is such a piece of work!

 

[NyssaLynne]

I also find solitaires to be a bit boring, but understand many people love them. Solitaires just aren't to my taste. However, I don't think that my sidestones distract from my 2.19 carat center stone at all. I actually think they enhance the overall appearance.

Although, on second though, I can see how you would think that a large diamond would look larger as a solitaire. It would tend to make the diamond 'jump' out of the plain setting.

To each his own, I guess. We are all entitled to our different ideas and preferences. If everyone liked the exact same design, jewelery would become boring. Don't you think?

compared to

 

[Kaleigh]

IMO, I think sidestones or other diamonds accents in the setting adds interest to the center stone. I don''t think they take away from the stone at all. Just my two cents, to each his own!!

 

[kevinraja]

I don''t know what the hell I was thinking when I started this thread.

It is not that I hate rings with sidestones. As long as the side stones are small and not capture the attention, it is ok. For eg., the pave setting or a channel setting on a thin band, etc.

 

[kevinraja]

How about this one? Do you think sidestones would have made justice for this stone?

A big stone like this one set in a 2.5-3mm solitaire setting would make the stone bigger. Ofcourse the stone has to be well cut, and not like the one posted above by MATATA.

 

[onedrop]

Actually Kevin I think the one that you just posted would look better with some pave, but that''s just me.

 

[Lurchie]

I think that wopper of an EC is crying out for baguettes!

You stick to your guns, I''ll stick to mine.

 

[kevinraja]

NO offense. That pic doesn''t even look like a ring. It looks more like a giant golden ball embedded with gems.

 

[NyssaLynne]

Kevinraja - A diamond that huge would stand alone and I don''t think I would care to have sidestones with it...even pave. However, that is NOT a 1.5 carat or even a 3 carat diamond. It has to be much, much larger. At some point, your theory is correct. I just think 1.5 carats is way too low for the threshold.

Dave - I don''t care for the surprise diamond set in the prongs. I think it distorts the intended shape of the center diamond. I have never seen paved prongs. Any pics? And I don''t quite understand the ''really wide side prong but split'' concept. Pics of that would be great too.

 

[Mara]

Date: 1/19/2005 7:23:54 PM
Author: onedrop
Actually Kevin I think the one that you just posted would look better with some pave, but that's just me.

Everything looks better with pave.

Kevin, you did note 1.5c rings or higher should not have sidestones, but you posted a big honking 10c+ emerald to make your point. That's a big difference! I tend to agree at some point but not at 1.5c.

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

I love solitares!

(that is why diamond wedding bands were created.....yummy Signed Pieces types.....)

cheers--Sharon

 

[Dancing Fire]

that's why i never make any comment on settings ,everybody have their own personal preference. (2) of my wife's diamond is set in a cheap 14k wg solitaire a 4 & a 6 prong,she also have a 3 stone ring with 14k wg setting.i hate to drop $4k on a setting and couple of months down the road she changes her mind ,see another setting that she likes (we all know how women are

)....there go's 4k flush down the toilet.

i'm a cheapo when it comes to settings ,i love the simple 6 prong with 4 mm wide band.

 

[treysar]

Here's a great example of why I do not prefer a solitaire. SIZE MATTERS - ans so does perception - and I don't mean to keep up with the Jones, I mean for my own pleasure. I like the fact that it makes the stone look bigger.

 

[treysar]

here''s close up.

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 1/19/2005 7:37:47 PM
Author: kevinraja
NO offense. That pic doesn''t even look like a ring. It looks more like a giant golden ball embedded with gems.

and goddawful ugly

 

[kevinraja]

No I don''t think the stone looks bigger. Maybe, it just consoles you that it looks bigger to other eyes, while it really doesn''t. I don''t intend to pick an argument here. Just my opinion.

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 1/19/2005 10

2:15 PM
Author: Feydakin

Date: 1/19/2005 9:43:20 PM
Author: windowshopper
and goddawful ugly

This is why I love designing jewelry, designing buildings, building hot rods, bikes, yadda yadda yadda.. I am never offended if someone hates my work or what I love.. I am dissapointed when there is no reaction at all.. Hate or love it, but don''t go eh, it''s ok

And for the record treysar, that is a fabulous way to enlarge your diamond.. And certainly cheaper than stepping up to a 3ct

ooops my 9 1/2 N is sticking down my throat!

let me rephrase --its rather bold...............

 

[Jennifer5973]

Isn''t it great to live in a free society where each of us can do what she wants?

 

[windowshopper]

Date: 1/19/2005 10

2:15 PM
Author: Feydakin

Date: 1/19/2005 9:43:20 PM
Author: windowshopper
and goddawful ugly

This is why I love designing jewelry, designing buildings, building hot rods, bikes, yadda yadda yadda.. I am never offended if someone hates my work or what I love.. I am dissapointed when there is no reaction at all.. Hate or love it, but don''t go eh, it''s ok

And for the record treysar, that is a fabulous way to enlarge your diamond.. And certainly cheaper than stepping up to a 3ct

FEYDAKIN--I THOUGHT THAT WAS A PICTURE YOU HAD SEEN OF A RING YOU LIKED--NOT ONE OF YOURS. IT LOOKS LIKE THE HEAD OF A ROYAL SCEPTOR (SPELLING?)

 

[headlight]

Treysar -- Everytime I see your ring I just stay a little white and gawk... I just love it!

Well, I am a three-stone nut, so I guess there's not much to say beyond that. It doesn't matter to me if the center stone is a carat, a half-carat, or over three carats. I just like the design of a three-stone ring. I like the symmetry of it as well as how it provides more of a "banded" look. I guess I don't really care to have my ring "look" like an engagement ring, per se.

When I got my 3.29 RB, I tried going "solitaire" with it, but it just didn't work for me... it was missing side stones!!!