Major dilemna, need help!

[peonygirl]

As most of you know, I'm all about the thin bands (2mm or so). I'm very petite and love delicate looks. Thus, I had custom-designed a 3/4 eternity 2mm wedding set with the people at Signed Pieces and gave the information to my boyfriend. I guess he talked to David yesterday in order to buy the bands and all seemed well, but then he got this email today and was unsure about what to do, so he forwarded it to me:

"I also wanted to let you know that I spoke with my jeweler and he said that
in order to support the center stone, the diamonds in the rings need to be
slightly larger. Therefore, instead of 24 diamonds weighing 0.55ct, we
would use 20 diamonds weighing 0.70ct in the mounting. In the eternity
band, it would need 21 diamonds weighing 0.73ct. The good news is despite
the increase, there is NO increase in price.

I guess I'm a little confused about what to do since I know people on this board (Ambergretchen for one) who have melee the same size as the original band I wanted. My boyfriend can think of four options:

1) Go with what David suggested even though the ring will probably be more like 2.5mm. I know that this is not a big deal to most people, but I've tried both widths in stores and *I* can see a big difference.

2) Get a smaller center diamond and go with my old band design. The only problem here is that I don't know any details about what diamond size I'm getting to begin with.

3) Ask to go with the original design even though it may be a bit less stable. Of course then if there were any major problems, I'm guessing SP wouldn't take responsibility.

4) Get another place to design the rings. Whiteflash is a little more expensive, but they agreed to do a 2mm band a while ago.

Thanks in advance for your advice!

 

[mrssalvo]

If you have your heart set on a 2mm band i''d go with WF and have them make it. I think you would be dissappointed to "settle" on your e-ring. You''ll be wearing this for a long time, get exactly what you want

 

[robainya]

I think the difference between 2 mm and 2.5 mm is big. I also like very delicate bands and i wouldn''t want to go as big as 2.5. If it were me, i''d probably opt for a small enough center stone that it will work with your original design—or at least a compromise between the two—but then i''m one of those people who cares more about the overall aesthetics than about the size of the rock.

 

[peonygirl]

I should also add that we have not confirmed the width of the new band, but in comparision with other eternity bands and settings on their website, I estimated that the new band would be about 2.4-2.5mm according to the size of the melee. Hopefully we should be receiving a call soon about the new width.

 

[Kim N]

I''m like you and think that the difference between 2.0 and 2.5 mm is big. I prefer the delicate bands myself.

I would go with (2) or (4). How much smaller would the center stone have to be? If the difference isn''t too much, I''d go with the smaller center stone. If the difference is a lot, I''d have another place make the setting.

 

[AndyRosse]

I totally understand wanting a certain width band. I think depending on the size of the center stone, the band should not be too thick.

However, having said that, I would want to ask SP why exactly they think this band is too thin. If I understood you right, they said the band is too thin for the size diamond you guys are considering? If that is the case, then I still think you can keep the right proportions from stone to band even if you go with a larger stone. If you go with the larger stone, then allow them to make the band a bit thicker as they have suggested. If you are willing to go with a smaller stone, then request the thinner band. If done correctly, the proportions of each to your eye will be the same.

Also, if SP says in general that they do not recommend the thinner setting, then I would not "override" their decision because if something does go wrong in the future, they will not be held accountable. In that case, go with WF (however, again, out of concern for the ring and stone''s safety, I would double check with them that they believe the design you want is safe and secure).

Let us know what you decide!

 

[Lynn B]

I have learned that different vendors can have quite different views on "safety" and "durability" issues. That being said, I think you should go with what you want, and that is the 2mm width. I just don''t think you''d ever be 100% happy with any larger. That is, of course, assuming you can find a respected vendor who feels that they can do it (2mm) "safely" and "securely". And I think you probably can.

Keep us posted!

 

[Mara]

PG I think if you really know you want 2mm then you should get what you want.

It seems like lately SP has done this with a few others too...one gal said that they actually just changed the stone sizing in her ring without even telling her, sure she got bigger stones like they are offering you, at no cost, but is that what she wanted? Hard to say.

Also I think Matatora was discussing her custom rings with them as well on a shared prong and they also wanted to make her band thicker or use larger stones if I recall correctly?

I guess my question is...WHY? And especially why now? There are people who have bought SP shared prong sets, Demelza, and others who have not had any problems with the durability or stability of the rings or the stones being smaller, aka 2 pointers, but suddenly now SP wants to make things bigger, thicker, larger stones etc. It seems so odd? Esp at no charge to them.

My w-ring has 2 pointers in it, and 4 pronged setting meaning each stone is held in by 4 small prongs. That requires additional metal. The width is 2.3mm. Brian had told me that was the thinnest they could make it due to the 4 pronged situation, but with SHARED PRONG you are talking less metal, so I don''t see what the big deal is with making shared prong with 2 pointers with ~2 or 2.1mm and why suddenly it''s such an issue? I mean if you are planting a 4c rock on a 2mm ring, sure maybe I could see some issues with durability, but Mat''s rock was 1.7c and PG isn''t yours a bit smaller than that? Why suddenly such a big issue with putting stones under 2c on a 2mm band? It seems odd.

This is something that we have not had addressed by SP as I don''t think they have given anyone a straight answer on this, and they don''t really frequent the forum so it''s not as though they chime in with comments as often as other PS vendors do.

Anyway bottom line PG is stick to your guns. DO NOT get a smaller stone and if you don''t want the bigger melee tell them. Ask for more information. In the end the ring is yours and you went in thinking one thing...if nothing else will please you then be sure to get what you want this first time around! Good luck.

 

[E B]

I agree with bellacapella. I like the idea of the entire ring working as a whole, not just focusing on getting the biggest diamond possible. That being said, I vote smaller center stone with the thinner band. You don't want problems that could become costly to fix.

"The only problem here is that I don't know any details about what diamond size I'm getting to begin with."

What size did you specify when giving specs for the ring? If I remember correctly, weren't you looking at something around 1.2 cts? Go down to 1 ct and ask if your 2mm ring will support it (I'm sure it would). If it will, and you want larger, ask about anything larger under 1.2 cts.

 

[princessv]

This really is an interesting topic. As some of you know (or may not know hehe) I''m not happy with my e-ring setting at all its too thick (5.5mm) and no wedding band will sit flush with it. My fiance says that since he was on such a tight budget during the e-ring process, that I can get a different setting (along with a wedding band that''ll sit flush) and I''ve been talking to Signed Pieces in particular looking at the halo round micropave with princess channel in the actual setting. They will NOT go any lower than 2.7 on the band and Issac says for its for stability purposes. I don''t understand since its not like there is all that much pave

(18 stones) and my center stone is 1 ct.

 

[MissAva]

Honestly, I would go with Whiteflash, but you probably guessed this since that is what I did already. When V asked them over the phone they told him it would look bad, to have a stone that size on such a thin band. But then they did not offer to use larger stones at the same price. We knew what size band I liked alone and paired with a second ring. For me that was between 2.1 and 2.3 mm any where in there was comfortable.

I would get the size you want, otherwise you will always have that vague annoyance when you look down at your hand. Oh and what they told me was for 2mm or thinner the center stone should not be larger then a half carat.

 

[peonygirl]

I decided to go with #1 yesterday after I was told that the ring would only be 2.1mm. I also did some calculations to confirm that a 3.5 point diamond would only be about 2.1 mm. Looks like the math was correct because another poster just asked the same question, yay! I was really leaning towards #4 at one point, but it just seemed a lot more simple to tell my boyfriend to go along with the original plan. Poor guy was getting pretty stressed out about the whole thing. Thanks for all your help!

 

[Mara]

I think a 2 pointer is 1.8mm so a 3 pointer would seemingly be more like 2.3mm or similar. A 1 pointer is about 1.3 mm I think.

My 2 pointers are in a 2.3mm ring and my 3 pointers are in a 2.8mm ring.

ETA: Just found this website:
http://www.geocities.com/~jdpn/jewelry_info_reference_melee.htm

A 3.5 pointer is 2mm!

BUT you should check to see how much metal if any they add around the stones, because just because a stone is 2mm or 2.1mm does not mean the ring will be that size...be sure to get it in writing!!

 

[peonygirl]

Mara, the calculation is not very straightfoward because diamonds are a strange volume and increases in carat weight are not strictly additive in terms of diameter. My boyfriend (former math major at MIT, gotta love the nerds) helped me figure it out.

Here''s the link where I found confirmation of his calculations: https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/what-is-the-approx-width-of-2-3-and-4-pointers.37485/.

 

[MissAva]

PG- I am having my ring made at WF with three pointers ".03 melee and hand picked the 14 diamonds to be used in Katherine''s ring. They are all exactly the same size at 1.998mm...." So three pointers are just shy of the 2mm mark and thus .035 poiont diamonds (assuming they are well cut and I think SP use fine diamonds for thier settings, will be a bit larger. What does SP tell you the final width of the badn will be? What happens if it is larger then you expect?

No one is trying to stress you out, we just want to make sure you are thrilled with the ring! Hope this helps!

 

[peonygirl]

Matatora, they said it would be 2.1mm.

 

[MissAva]

Okay the reason I asked was becuase the one on their site which uses diamonds that are 2.7 pts is 2.2mm wide so I was think that a smiliar set with 3.47pt diamonds would have to be wider.
Link I took my information from.