Redesigning Setting So It Sits Flush

[lovelylulu]

Hello All,

This is something of an update thread. I have a beautiful engagement ring that I adore, but unfortunately, because of the way it is currently set, it cannot sit flush against a wedding ring. The ring right now is a 1.5 ct EC in a basket setting with small tapered side bagettes.

After reading/seeing really wonderful things about Quest Jewelers, I contacted them about my dilemna and sent them a few photos of my current ring, because they thought that possibly in the redesign, they might be able to reuse my side stones. Unfortunately, because the side stones are so small, they won''t help fix the problem.

In my contact email to Quest, I included a couple of setting ideas that I was mulling over and I''d love some feedback from you guys. I''ll let you know my favorite after I hear some of your thoughts.

Quest, so far, has been great. I got a quick response with honest and upfront answers. I would be thrilled for them to rework my e-ring setting. the only thing holding me back is the cost. My fiancee worked hard to save for my e-ring and it is gorgeous! we also have a wedding coming up in July, so I feel torn because a very large part of me feels like the money that goes towards a new setting should really be put towards the wedding...then the other part of me really wants a ring that i''m satisfied with -- one that will work with my wedding band.

As for a wedding band, if we do opt to redesign the e-ring setting, i think that i would just want a plain platinum band (which is something of a compromise and would help to keep costs manageable) i think a simple, plain band would compliment any of these settings.

So now i''ll post the photos. sorry i don''t have a photoshop program, so it''s got to be individually...

 

[lovelylulu]

This is my current ring

 

[lovelylulu]

A closer shot - though i never did manage to get good pictures

 

[lovelylulu]

Possible redesign #1

But I do NOT want 3 sided-pave -- too much bling for me -- yup you heard me right.

 

[lovelylulu]

Redesign #2
Again NO 3-sided pave. I feel that causes more problems than necessary, at least for my lifestyle

 

[lovelylulu]

Redesign #3
This is closest to my current ring, though with bigger sides that will help the flushness (hence the higher cost)

 

[Gonzodogg]

How would the w-ring sit with your current setting?

 

[tarssarb]

You didn''t show the basket of your ering. I am sure it is stunning... I personally do not like disktop rings made to flush a band, though they are quite popular. I just don''t get these bulky wedding sets unless the finger is long.

Anyway, have you considered a skinny pt band that solders on to the ering. It wouldn''t need to be a full ring then (more of a c) with the opening hidden under the stone? Or put the ering on right hand. Or just don''t were a band. Or get a nice band and alternate between the ering and band depending on mood.

 

[lovelylulu]

Gonzodogg: Right now, a wedding ring would sit basically at the bottom of the EC -- so there''s a considerable space. I don''t have a picture, but i''m not very fond of the look.

tarssarb: I do not want a notched band or C band-- just personal preference. i want a complete circle for my wedding ring. sort of sentimental but i like the symbolism.
I also am not a fan of big bulky sets which is why i''m not trying to do a matching w-ring set like shown in two of the pictures. i think that''s why i''m leaning towards a simple, plain w-ring.

 

[valeria101]

It isn''t too hard... what it takes is to angle the prongs allot, so that they hug the pavilion very closely and there''s room between them and the finger for the wedding band.

It may be more difficult with rectangular stones but they did it for an oval! And very nicely

LINK


Why not for an emerald cut?

 

[lovelylulu]

Thanks val,

I agree. why not with an emerald!

Quest is fully confident that they can make it sit flush -- it''s just a matter of now deciding whether to do it now, later, never. and if we redesign, what design to choose...

 

[mrssalvo]

well the leon pics you posted look to me like they are going to have the same problem unless the gallery area is designed a la Ritani to allow the wedding ring to slide underneath. Also, those pics look like a completely different setting

. Nothing wrong with wanting a completely different look but all the pave will add significantly to the price. If you really like you current ring, I'm sure quest can create a basket type setting to allow the wedding band to fit. here's a pic from Precisionset..

 

[valeria101]

Date: 3/16/2006 12:07:41 PM
Author: mrssalvo

well the leon pics you posted look to me like they are going to have the same problem unless the gallery area is designed a la Ritani to allow the wedding ring to slide underneath.

No pave should be fine... the prongs were the intriguing part - I was thinking that they should be quite arched (more like a shallow 'S') to hug the long oval. Perhaps not unlike this one below - with a better view to the pavilion:

Maybe even a version of this will need to be raised a bit, but I'd keep some metal over the sharp keel of the stone - so it doesn't bump into the band.


I'd be OK with the Ritani way for something with a culet, but doubt that setting could work with an emerald cut - the band will get to bump into the keel of the stone that should hang on the sides of the thin band underneath, and that would spell disaster. I don't think they make the Ritany for ECs. Whitney Boin has a 'Post' setting for emerald cut stones made somewhat similar, but that ring has a substantially wider band.

Anyway.

The one from Precisionset is a higher set band. That's the easy way out of course.

 

[lovelylulu]

mrs. salvo: Thanks for that link. I do want to keep the side stones, i''m just not sure what shape. and the pave right now is a possibility.

 

[mrssalvo]

I agree Ana. I wasn''t suggesting Ritani, just something designed similarly so a band could fit underneath. Too bad precision set doesn''t so a side view b/c you might get another idea there. The Mark Morrell looks like it could work. Emerald cuts are just hard to match a flush fit.

I have a friend who has a emerald cut 3 stone. the sides are slightly shorter than her center and she wears a thin, maybe 2mm wide if that, plain band that snuggles up pretty close. You honestly can hardly see it unless you stare at people''s rings like I do

It is stunning set though and just another something to consider

 

[sydneycasandra]

I think number 1 is the most stunning and beautiful of the three choices you posted.

 

[valeria101]

Off the track...

... look what could happen to an EC! The second all-diamond setting seems to hold a center stone w/o cut corners:

This was more for the sake of the one with emerald baguettes (although an all-white would make more sense, IMO).

I might be biased about this quite a bit, because the first ring reminds me of one I really do like more - one of those uncompromising favorites if you want - but that holds an oval center (link).

The pictures come from Here.

 

[lovelylulu]

Thanks for your ideas.

I like the image of the prongs hugging the oval ring and I do agree that the diamond might have to sit a bit higher.

I like the 1st setting that i posted the best...

 

[lovelylulu]

i think that they are fairly comperable, as far as price. i just wish that we didn''t have to go through a setting change so soon after getting the ring...