Thanks for the help - I''d love your votes on these settings

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

I''m beyond obsessed at this point - I don''t know WHY this is so difficult. Anyway, now that ya''ll know that I''m basically a freak

, I''d love to get your input.

It isn''t everyday that one picks out something they''ll wear for the rest of their lives. Below are some photos - I have a fairly small hand (size 5), and the stones are three emerald cuts (.36 on either side (.72 total) and 1.17 in the center).

Thanks for putting up with me - and yes, I''ll likely have whiteflash do this.

 

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

Choice 1

 

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

Choice 2 - very basic platinum with no side stones

 

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

Choice 3 (no pave around the three stones - this is just a photo of the shank I''m considering)

 

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

Choice 4 - last one. I''d add this sort of engraving to the side of the first one. (keeping the side stones)

 

[NyssaLynne]

I like #4 the best.

 

[Rhino]

Are you using a princess or an asscher as the center stone?

 

[orange_horse_fiance]

I LOVE the idea of four if using emerald cuts...Number three looks like what I am having made for the asscher I have yet to decide on (minus the pave around the ecnter stone too)

 

[Erik638]

#1 all the way

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

I like #4 as well...It would be very complimentary to your three-stone!

 

[Patty]

I vote for number 2. While I love pave, I don''t care for it with emerald cuts. To me emerald cuts are all about elegance and simplicity while pave is about bling bling! Not that there''s anything wrong with bling bling. I love it! But I also love the classicness (classisness?) of a simple 3 stone emerald cut ring.

 

[belle]

#4....hope you keep the scrollwork as well.

 

[Diamonds4Me]

OK, I guess I''m just odd but I really like #3 for some reason. Even with the pave around the stone....but I would probably go with #4.

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

Votes (so far):

1 - 2 votes
2 - 1 vote
3 - 1 vote
4 - 5 Votes

 

[cflutist]

I like #1.

 

[ChapmanLovesHarvard]

#1 or 2

 

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

thanks for the input! I especially liked the tally in the middle.

I know what you mean about pave and emerald cuts - I''ve been worried that the two just don''t go together.

 

[tomatoe]

#4 exactly as it is. Not like how you want to add the engraving on to #1

 

[Rhino]

Date: 12/24/2004 12:44:52 PM
Author: orange_horse_fiance
I LOVE the idea of four if using emerald cuts...Number three looks like what I am having made for the asscher I have yet to decide on (minus the pave around the ecnter stone too)

Hi orange_horse_fiance!

Actually ring #3 with the pave set diamonds may do a better job of contrasting an Asscher cut center stone. Many times when people are picking a baguette setting with a brilliant cut center stone they are using baguettes on the side for the primary purpose of contrasting the center stone. Since you are focusing on a step cut center stone, brilliant cut sides would accomplish the same task of highlighting the step cut (Asscher) you plan on getting.

Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!!!

 

[Rhino]

Has it been stated what the shape/cut of the center stone will be? That would help determine my choice.

 

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

Believe it or not, I''m starting to think that I should go back to my original plan, which was #2. I picked the three stone emerald cut because of how simple and clean these rings are.

See what I mean? This stuff will make one bonkers! (and I usually make decision so easily)

 

[fortheloveofdiamonds]

I LOOOOVE #4 with the Emerald Cut!!!!! Perrrrrfect!!!!

 

[fuffi]

I vote for #2, followed by #1. I have to agree with you that the simplicity and elegance of EC''s are what''s so appealing about them.

 

[Jennifer5973]

I like 4 or 3. I also agree with Patty about the classic elegance of the EC.

 

[hoorray]

I vote #2, but I would keep it delicate, aka the LM setting MMM is lusting after in her thread. I think that is just perfect with a 3 stone EC ring.

(Rhino, the center is a 1.17 EC, with 2 .36 ec sides)

 

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

#2 is the Tiffany''s style setting. It''s very simple and elegant.

Sometimes one has to go ''round and ''round in circles before one realizes that where they started out was the best place afterall.

Even more important - it''s very similar to the setting that the ring came in, so it''ll always feel like my engagement ring. I''m very sentimental.

 

[diamondlil]

#4 hands down. Absolutely lovely, and I like the contrasting scroll work.

DiamondLil

 

[asblackrock]

Hi DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend
What is the total width of the 3 EC stones? With a size 5 ring are you likely to have much visible on either side once set? If not, I definitely vote for number 2. The simplicity of 2 will be stunning with 3 EC stones on a smallish finger. The other settings would look better with a single stone.

 

[rosy]

I like #1, it looks more modern than #4

 

[DiamondsRagirlsbestfriend]

I''m with you, Angela. My hands are quite small, and the stones are going to go almost all the way across, once they''re set further down into the shank. (they''re set way too high right now, so it''s a little hard to tell how much room will be left after their set)

I''m ordering #2 from Whiteflash as we speak.

thank you so much!!!! Mary