Need help with my setting!

[jrb517]

After months and months of research and years of saving, I just purchased this diamond last week!:

Diamond | 3.024 ct H SI1 Expert Selection Round Cut Loose Diamond AGS Certified | 4193660

This fabulous 3.024 carat Round Ideal cut diamond has a clarity grade of SI1 and color grade of H.It is an excellent choice for engagement rings. | 4193660

www.whiteflash.com

I'm so excited to get it on her hand, but I need some help with my setting. She is a big fan of both of these settings:


Shown with 3ct center.


Shown with a 1ct center.

In real life, not sure of the stone size.

She wants a wide band setting and these two are her favorites. I prefer the look of the second one, since it doesn't taper down as much at the bottom, but I'm not sure how I feel about the cathedral look. It's also the only one that I can get my hands on at a local jeweler. The other one I would have to custom order from blue nile, and it comes unsized without the prongs. What are everyone's thoughts on these two?

Also, the important question for me right now, since I'm fairly decided on the second setting is how many prongs do I go with? Does 4 make it look too squared-off? Will 6 look too busy with a 3ct and take away from the beauty of the diamond? I have it insured and I'm really not too worried about damage. She doesn't do anything really physical for work.

Thank you in advance for the help!

 

[tyty333]

You asked what our thoughts were on these two bands so I'm going to be honest. They are both clunky and outdated in my opinion.
Can we see if we can find something that is wide but more in-style? A few questions...what in particular does your SO like about these settings? What size finger does your SO have? How old is your SO? What kind of job does your SO do (is she planning on wearing it
while she works)?

Second question...I would most likely put 6 prongs on a 3 carat (with these settings) but it also depends on the design of the setting.

Of course, this is my opinion and she will be the wearer so it's important to get something she will love. Just wondering if we can
find something else that fits her style but is a little more up-to-date.

Edit...forgot to say...3 carats, Nice!

 

[jrb517]

@tyty333 Thanks for your opinion on the settings. We are 26 years old. She is a wedding planner (so she sees a lot of engagement rings, lol) and this is what she decided she likes the best. Thin and dainty is not her style. She wants it to be all about the diamond, and I'm with her on that. I too don't like the look of a thin solitaire metal band. I think the wide band has a unique but classic look to it, and it being 5mm wide will still leave plenty of room for the 9mm diamond to shine.

She is a size 4 3/4. I'm not sure there's a setting she hasn't seen on the internet yet to be honest. She has been looking for years. I want to make sure I get her what she wants!

On the prongs, I'm just nervous that the 6 prong setting, which would add to the top and bottom of the diamond, would make the round look "spiky" if you know what I mean.

 

[tyty333]

Ok, I get it...its not my style or a style that is common right now but everyone likes what they like and that's what matters.

With respect to those two settings you posted...I prefer the first setting. I dislike it when cathedral sides are just left hanging
in the air. They need to connect to the basket that holds the stone to look more "finished" or "polished".

With respect to the number of prongs...I would put 8 small prongs on a 3 carat so maybe I'm just not meshing enough with your
vision to be able to give you opinions. Hold on, I'm sure someone else will be a long that can give you some advice/opinions!

Congrats on your upcoming engagement @jrb517 !

 

[Kaycee2018]

Congratulations on your upcoming engagement and diamond selection! Regarding the setting, if the intent is to be “all about the diamond”, I think both of the options you posted miss the mark. They are “all about the band” IMO. They detract from the diamond and will make it appear smaller than it’s 3ct size. I’m not suggesting a super thin setting since that’s not to your liking, but perhaps something along the line of the one linked below. Substantial, but not overpowering and leaves ample finger space for a wedding band. GLD

Cathedral Diamond Solitaire Setting | 479

Cathedral Diamond Solitaire Setting. A testament to love that reaches the heights of commitment. | 479

www.whiteflash.com

 

[lovedogs]

Congratulations on your upcoming engagement and diamond selection! Regarding the setting, if the intent is to be “all about the diamond”, I think both of the options you posted miss the mark. They are “all about the band” IMO. They detract from the diamond and will make it appear smaller than it’s 3ct size. I’m not suggesting a super thin setting since that’s not to your liking, but perhaps something along the line of the one linked below. Substantial, but not overpowering and leaves ample finger space for a wedding band. GLD

Cathedral Diamond Solitaire Setting | 479

Cathedral Diamond Solitaire Setting. A testament to love that reaches the heights of commitment. | 479

www.whiteflash.com

I agree. The posted settings will make the stone look smaller, IMHO. also it will make finding a wedding band really hard because of how wide they are.

 

[jrb517]

I hear what both of you are saying. Essentially the entire reason I went with the size diamond I did, over a 2.5ct, was because this was the setting she had been dreaming of. I think at this point she deserves to at least see the ring on her hands for a bit before deciding to change it, if she wants to. @tyty33, I felt the same way about the "hanging" cathedrals. It's unfortunate there really isn't a setting that can accomplish that besides this Blue Nile one. Maybe it's time to have a conversation with my jeweler about creating a custom band. I'm thinking something along the lines of the Blue Nile one with the thickness of the cathedral part (filled in) that doesn't taper as much and is maybe 4mm wide. That would leave just over 2.5mm on either side of the diamond to really show off the size.

 

[lovedogs]

Here are some options from james allen that I think are much more attractive. There are some thicker options in here, but none at 5mm because I honestly think it will look too wide IRL.

2.4mm wide: https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...dern-tulip-diamond-engagement-ring-item-50622

3.3mm wide: https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...ss-prong-solitaire-engagement-ring-item-41479

3.8mm wide: https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...athedral-solitaire-engagement-ring-item-41478

2.9-3.1mm: https://www.jamesallen.com/engageme...ross-prong-diamond-engagement-ring-item-41497

 

[foxinsox]

Ok she definitely sounds like she knows what she wants. Has she worn a similar width band before? I don’t know how comfortable they are but if she has long fingers, probably quite comfortable.
She is unlikely to have any issues with her ring spinning when it’s this wide!
The two options both look awkward to me because they have the head kinda plunked down in the middle with no real connection to the rest of the ring.
I’d talk to WF about what custom options you might have to make the head appear to be more part of the ring since you’re getting the stone from them. Or David Klass is a forum favourite and may be able to help you work out how to do the Blue Nile setting a little more gracefully.
What about those settings does she like part from how wide the band is? They look almost aggressively plain and a bit masculine which is actually quite appealing when contrasted with the diamond.
With 3 carats, I’d want 6 prongs minimum for safety and if you have WF or DK do them, they definitely won’t be intrusive or blocky.
Editing to add that if you have a jeweller you’ve already worked with, and like their work, see what they suggest. Ask to see examples of similar rings tho before you get too into the details to know if they do good quality work and have an eye for design.

 

[caolsen]

If you go with a hanging cathedral, I’d keep the basket and prongs the same color as the band. I think that minimizes the appearance of the gap. Part of what seems off to me about the BN photo, is the metal contrast.

And people wore 4 and 5mm rings with thin wedding bands or wide wedding bands with thin engagement rings for a long time. Unless her finger bone is short from the knuckle to the first finger joint, a thin flat band will fit. Me, I have very short fingers so I can’t mange a 5 mm ring with anything else on the same finger.

 

[jrb517]

BN setting in real life with 2ct diamond for reference.

@foxinsox She has long fingers and does have plenty of wide rings that she wears pretty often. I don't think it would feel awkward being on her finger, compared to some that I have seen her wear.

 

[lovedogs]

BN setting in real life with 2ct diamond for reference.

@foxinsox She has long fingers and does have plenty of wide rings that she wears pretty often. I don't think it would feel awkward being on her finger, compared to some that I have seen her wear.

I think it looks much better in all 1 metal (like in this pic)

 

[jrb517]

@caolsen Her favorite part of both settings is the 2 tone metal.

I think what I'm finding is that while this forum is great for comparing diamond specs and light performance all day, a setting is a much more personal decision that everybody has differing opinions on.

@lovedogs appreciate the links, she's seen all of the James Allen settings. I've shown her the 3.8mm one, she thought it was too thin, and didn't like that it pinched in at the head. She's looking for a squared off look. Masculine actually might be a good way to describe it, considering she got her inspiration from her father's wedding band

 

[lovedogs]

@caolsen Her favorite part of both settings is the 2 tone metal.

I think what I'm finding is that while this forum is great for comparing diamond specs and light performance all day, a setting is a much more personal decision that everybody has differing opinions on.

@lovedogs appreciate the links, she's seen all of the James Allen settings. I've shown her the 3.8mm one, she thought it was too thin, and didn't like that it pinched in at the head. She's looking for a squared off look. Masculine actually might be a good way to describe it, considering she got her inspiration from her father's wedding band

No worries! If she likes it, that's what matters!

 

[EClove]

I totally get the appeal of this kind of setting! A little vintage, a little modern. Especially if she’s in the wedding industry she’s probably seeing lots of really thin bands and halos.

I think I prefer the first setting because of the cathedral as you mentioned, and I like the 4 prongs personally. A little more modern and streamlined.

 

[ItsMainelyYou]

I like wider settings. I will echo that the only thing I'd do for structural integrity is connect the shoulders to the head regardless of style. I would worry about knocking a peg head off because I tend to be harder on my rings. It isn't that hard to do if you hit it just right even with the wings. So I always look for what works for daily wear. But this depends on the wearer, of course!
The best part about the prongs on a wider set is they will be substantial enough that it will only be a matter of taste as opposed to security to see whether 4, 6, or 8 is more visually appealing.

*You can incorporate any style head you want into your mount, this is just a cathedral type for example with connected shoulders to the head.

Congratulations, it's an exciting time! I hope you come back with lots of pictures for us to ogle at

 

[AprilBaby]

While I realize most of us would not take a band so wide my bff wants exactly that ring for herself! Go with what she wants, not what we think!

 

[foxinsox]

@caolsen Her favorite part of both settings is the 2 tone metal.

I think what I'm finding is that while this forum is great for comparing diamond specs and light performance all day, a setting is a much more personal decision that everybody has differing opinions on.

Also we usually see a lot of guys who shop for what they find appealing rather than what their gf does/will. Which is not you obviously.
You’ve got a lot of people reacting to the width because that’s not been the prevailing style for a long time now. But the other feedback is on the way the ring integrates (or doesn’t) the head into the rest of it. Don’t discard that as just personal preference, it’s got validity regarding safety and helping make the ring look better. This is a forum with people who are used to visualising custom work so leverage that.
I think if you can find a way to integrate the head more securely and gracefully into that wide band, it’ll be a show stopper of a ring. I personally love two-tone settings and a rich yellow band with crisp white prongs is a classic combination.

 

[ringo865]

Send pictures of what she likes to Whiteflash. They have access to tons of settings that aren’t on their website (and designer settings) and also they can do custom or semi-custom. Note that a 3 carat stone is going to sit up highish (from finger skin to diamond table). Also prongs can be made to be nearly invisible. Look above at Kaycee’s avatar. There are six prongs and they aren’t overwhelming. Also they could make them into “baby claws” so they’d be even smaller. With eight prongs, they’d be even smaller still.

 

[Kaycee2018]

@caolsen Her favorite part of both settings is the 2 tone metal.

I think what I'm finding is that while this forum is great for comparing diamond specs and light performance all day, a setting is a much more personal decision that everybody has differing opinions on.

@lovedogs appreciate the links, she's seen all of the James Allen settings. I've shown her the 3.8mm one, she thought it was too thin, and didn't like that it pinched in at the head. She's looking for a squared off look. Masculine actually might be a good way to describe it, considering she got her inspiration from her father's wedding band

It sounds like you both agree on what you like and want. A recipe for a successful marriage! Settings are very personal and trends change all the time. Best of luck in your search for “the one”!

 

[Cerulean]

I am going to throw one last style "into the ring".

I like chunky, but dated is another story. This style can easily slip into dated territory and since you are young, a fresh and modern take on a classic style, while also being timeless is a cocktail that is hard to achieve

I think Sholdt has mastered "modern + chunky" in a way I have seen with so few other designers. this project screeeeeaaams Sholdt to me.

I love this setting, it has the taper, the 4 prongs, and I think it would be even more contemporary with a chubby claw prong. depends on your SOs lifestyle. If you want negative space in the cathedral, or 2-tone, they could easily whip up a custom design, I am sure of it. although i strongly prefer 1 color of metal for this chunky look

it has the sharp edge, but won't be uncomfortable. a very wide, sharp-edge band could actually be uncomfortable IMO.

also, will she wear a wedding band?

R329-3 - Sholdt Jewelry Design

www.sholdtdesign.com

 

[Bonfire]

Personally I think four prongs flow better with this style band, definitely.

PS I adore the Sholdt ring posted above, YG will be divine

 

[Cerulean]

I also ask about a wedding band, because unless she has extremely long fingers, this could be a "one ring" style. two bands this width (i.e. 5mm all the way around) will be enormously wide for most women, to the point that if she retains water (like almost every woman on the planet), they will be unwearable as a set

a much thinner wedding band might look odd...but Sholdt might be able to pull it off for you. I have seen some cool e-ring / band combos for their chunkier rings on their instagram. but since the style above has a taper, it might be fine. I am sure Sholdt will have recommendations as this won't be their first rodeo on this style.

the way Sholdt designs the shank (the "band" part) on their rings is unique - the surface area touching the skin is actually narrower than the visible width of the band from the top view. it's hard to explain, it's almost like the shank has a discreet shelf...but it's their unique take on "comfort fit" - i had a set from them that was ~7mm wide total, and it was suuuuper comfy

form + function both must be accounted for with jewelry. many of us have had extremely precise visions for what our jewelry SHOULD look like, only to find it extremely impractical IRL. going with a designer who can do this look and make it as comfortable as possible is my reco

 

[jrb517]

@Cerulean Thanks for the suggestion! She actually prefers no taper, believe it or not, and yes she does have long fingers. From what I gather, she wants to stack it with a thin channel set wedding band, or wear the band on another finger. At least we can shop for that one together!

I prefer the look of the bands I posted, simply for their squared edges and flat face, as opposed to the curved look. I think the chunkiness and wide band only works for her if it has squared off edges. This was the main reason she didn't like the James Allen 3.8mm band.

 

[Cerulean]

@Cerulean Thanks for the suggestion! She actually prefers no taper, believe it or not, and yes she does have long fingers. From what I gather, she wants to stack it with a thin channel set wedding band, or wear the band on another finger. At least we can shop for that one together!

I prefer the look of the bands I posted, simply for their squared edges as opposed to the curved look. I think the chunkiness and wide band only works for her if it has squared off edges. This was the main reason she didn't like the James Allen 3.8mm band.

i would look at sholdt's IG. i think they have a mix. the sholdt has a sort of "in between" edge, not fully pillowy, not hard edged

a very squared edge can be uncomfortable, especially such a wide band. there is a reason many are rounded, even slightly

hence my comment about aesthetics versus comfort.

 

[caolsen]

@caolsen Her favorite part of both settings is the 2 tone metal.

I think what I'm finding is that while this forum is great for comparing diamond specs and light performance all day, a setting is a much more personal decision that everybody has differing opinions on.

@lovedogs appreciate the links, she's seen all of the James Allen settings. I've shown her the 3.8mm one, she thought it was too thin, and didn't like that it pinched in at the head. She's looking for a squared off look. Masculine actually might be a good way to describe it, considering she got her inspiration from her father's wedding band

My bad - just ignore me totally missed the point about wanting a bi-metal!

 

[Lookinagain]

I like the sholdt but I also like this. She knows what she wants and I would get it for her, or something very similar like the sholdt. She may not want to wear a wedding band with this ring on the same finger. That's up to her and I actually did something like that (wide band with diamond, no wedding band at all) when I was first married and it worked for me. You've purchased a great, large stone. It will look plenty big enough on the wider band that she wants. Please do not go in the opposite direction and get her a thinner band when you know she wants the wider one. But I do prefer the Sholdt.

BN setting in real life with 2ct diamond for reference.

@foxinsox She has long fingers and does have plenty of wide rings that she wears pretty often. I don't think it would feel awkward being on her finger, compared to some that I have seen her wear.

 

[foxinsox]

I’ll be the voice of dissent - the Sholdt profile is just not right if you look at the rings she’s indicated she prefers.
There’s a definite retro cigar band vibe going in with them and it’s edgy and quite cool. To me the curved Sholdt profile looks dated and the shoulders being filled in are so heavy looking.
Definitely get as much of a comfort fit inside the ring tho - I have a flat profile for the inside of my wedding band and have actually had the skin be broken when I’ve caught my ering and it’s dug in. And I don’t have a large stone!
A thin diamond band would look gorgeous with that as well - reverse of this which I think is fantastic

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

@Cerulean Thanks for the suggestion! She actually prefers no taper, believe it or not, and yes she does have long fingers. From what I gather, she wants to stack it with a thin channel set wedding band, or wear the band on another finger. At least we can shop for that one together!

I prefer the look of the bands I posted, simply for their squared edges and flat face, as opposed to the curved look. I think the chunkiness and wide band only works for her if it has squared off edges. This was the main reason she didn't like the James Allen 3.8mm band.

I absolutely adore the first two choices you posted
I know nothing about prongs though sorry
But I would wear either in a heartbeat
Teeny tiny bands leave me cold
I don't care about whats fashionable or what everyone else has i know what i like and i have short stubby fingers

congratulations to the both of you on your engagement

 

[DutchJackie]

As someone from a country where 4 to 6 mm wide wedding bands are the norm, I want to emphasize what’s said above about comfort. It’s really very important to have a wide band that’s wearable in all seasons. Good luck on finding the one!