The Battle of the Bezels

[reena]

SO: today was the day--my BF and i now are proud owners of a gorgeous 2.07 carat G VS2 cushsion cut diamond.

i''m very excited! thanks to all on this forum for the amazing advice, which is really what made the purchase possible. (that and a high credit limit on the ole visa.

)

i''m planning to have a custom setting made through leon mege, and i have a meeting with him next week, so i need to decide what i want my setting to look like, and FAST! i''ve tried on about a million styles, and have narrowed it down to two style choices--so now i need your help! PLEASE VOTE, or else im just gonna end up punching a hole in the thing and wearing it on a string around my neck.

but before i post potential setting pics, i should give you a general idea of what my diamond looks like shape-wise. as discussed, my digital camera is OTF (that''s, on the fritz), so i can''t post an actual picture.

yet. but, the stone is sort of shaped like the one in the ring below--not rectangular, but not quite a square either. ratio is 1:1.1. oh--and ignore the setting--it''s not currently a contender.

 

[reena]

So step 1: the setting will be pave and fairly thin, about 2.5-3mm. as discussed on an earlier thread, i've decided i don't like superfine pave--i prefer something similar to the top picture, where the stones are small but you can still discern that they are individual diamonds as opposed to just a "field of sparklies".

i'm still deciding on whether i want the pave all by itself, as in the top picture, or set within very very thin platinum borders (and then within that category, smooth or beaded?), as in the bottom setting. hmmm.

 

[Gale]

Congratulations on your stone purchase Reena. I prefer the second option you mentioned.

 

[moremoremore]

Dahling, the top setting (which I LOVE btw and ask where you got the pic from please!) Has bead set diamonds I believe!! Not the same as pave? (someone pls correct) ... which is the smaller teeny mele(e?) set pave....Am I correct? You sure you're not after some bead set stones?

 

[reena]

step two: the side view. this is how i would want the ring to look from the side, no matter which setting style (bezel or non-bezel) i choose. the only major difference from these pics is that i would also want pave on the sides of the ring (i.e., three-sided pave). (and the setting will be plat not gold.) i haven't decided whether to go eternity or 3/4 but probably the latter.

the settings here are bezel, so it would probably have to look slightly different for a non-bezel style. but this is generally it.

 

[reena]

thanks gale, im leaning that way too.

hm, MMM, i DO see what you're saying. it's a little hard to tell in that pic, maybe i do want bead set? i always thought bead set was small stones set in a beaded border of platinum, but what the heck do i know? somebody more knowledgeable than me, pls chime in!

in any event the size of the pave in the bottom pic is okay for me too, maybe just a little bigger than that--i just don't want it supertiny.

and MMM, do you really even need to ask WHO could come up with a ring as totally gorgeous as that top emerald cut?

that's right, it's my man LEON. maybe i could just get that setting? would that even work for a cushion? what do you even call that--it's not quite a bezel.

 

[reena]

step three: the prongs.

here they are folks, pretty much the entire reason im willing to wait 4-6 weeks for a custom leon setting. love them. i could probably do the split claw prongs regardless of whether i go bezel or nonbezel (leon has examples of both on his site) but they're obv more dramatic with the nonbezel setting.

 

[moremoremore]

Wow! It's going to look great. I like the #2 style with the little border....

Also, are you thinking of milgraining? (where the gold or plat has little ridges in it to make it look antique?)

 

[reena]

so, that's the story. now i just need to decide whether:

A) to go with all of the above in a simple (relatively speaking) solitaire setting, where all you'd see from the top down is the stone, the claw prongs and the band beneath, or

B) to go with all of the above, plus add a very thin pave bezel around the stone. in this case the bezel would be custom fit around the girdle of the stone, and would track the curves of the stone (ie, the corners would be rounded and not angular like some of the settings below).

i'm very torn. i've had my heart set on a bezel setting from the very start, because i think that if they're done right (ie thin and not set up too high) they're gorgeous and eyecatching and have an antique feel. plus, and this is the biggest thing--they're different (although admittedly they're becoming less so). i just have never wanted a solitaire e-ring, and i think the bezel makes the ring really unique.

i never even considered a non-bezel setting until i actually picked out my stone. but now that i have it, i love it (of course!) and i started to think what a shame it would be for the bezel to take away from the beauty of the stone. so that's when i started considering my different setting options. still, i do think it would be possible to do a setting with an understated bezel, in a way that accentuates, instead of detracts from, the stone (leon seems to be good at that). As such, my dilemma remains, and THAT's why i need your help deciding!

so, i've posted below pics of various bezel settings that i like. obviously, they're all a little different--some have borders around the pave, others don't, some are a tad thicker than i'd want . . . but, this is a general idea of how i'd want the bezel setting done if i chose it.

non-bezel pics to come later tonight.

 

[reena]

thanks MMM--i too think i like the #2 bordered style that you and gale seemed to like. the plain platinum vs. milgrain is ANOTHER toughie. the one i tried today was plain plat, and it was gorgeous. but i like the milgraining because it makes it look more antique. sigh.

my only concern is that some of the milgrained settings i've seen have almost looked a little "flatter" and less "shiny". does that make any sense?

 

[reena]

okay just kidding. i'm stil sitting at work doing this, what's my problem. here are the non-bezel-ers. (imagine them all with split claw prongs.) thanks to ceetee, i stole a pic of her gorgeous ring and posted it in there.

i especially like the antique setting on the bottom right.

 

[reena]

and FINALLY, just when you thought (and were hoping) i was done, there is the hybrid category. so titled because, while these settings are not technically bezels, they're not plain solitaires either--they have characteristics of each. this could be a good option because the settings are very unique AND they also make the stone the central focus of the piece. i especially loooove the setting with the asscher--adore the claw prongs coming out of the corner and how the stone appears to be "cupped" in the pave. (is that pave? oh whatever.)

so thats it, i think! thanks for indulging me and letting me post all of my ideas in one place. i'm just DYING to hear what you all think, so let me have it!

thanks in advance, REENA

 

[moremoremore]

now you're busting out my fav...that asscher from Leon. It's fantastic...but it looks like there is something going on where the plat is made to look dark? Dunno. I also love that one from antiqueengagementrings. I'm a huge fan of less is more. I understand the appeal of the bezel, but I just think it's a bit much. Just my 2 cents

 

[moremoremore]

And hey- where is that first picture from (with the blue backround)?

 

[quaeritur]

Ooohhhoooh ooohhh! Me me me, pick me!!! The one by Leon w/the Asscher. Yep, that's the one!!! No need to post any others, that's definitely IT!

 

[reena]

MMM, i definitely feel ya on the less is more. that's what led me to start thinking non-bezel. unfortunately not sure where the pic with the blue background comes from--i got it secondhand from diamondtalk.com i think. it's cool looking though.

im glad you guys like leon's asscher--that's one of my BF's favorites (shouldn't i tell you my honey's name? it's brad). i love it too. do you think it would work okay with the cushion? the only thing about it is what you said MMM--the setting on that ring and the cushion ring on the bottom left (also leon) DO look dark. that was sort of what i was saying before about the milgrained antique style looking less shiny. do you think its just the picture?

can you tell whether the asscher setting is cathedral? sort of looks like it might be . . . maybe that's the one! what does everyone else think?

 

[moremoremore]

I think that maybe the blackening was done intentionally. Kinda like the look of marcasite (is there a Q in there? lol NO idea how to spell that)It could also be the lighting. I know what you mean about milgraining..it's not as shiny...but it does add antique flavor...

 

[moremoremore]

and p.s.....the milgraining is done on that little edge...it wouldn't make the inside where the stones are set look dark!

 

[KBerly]

Reena, I agree with MMM about the bezel being too much. In the last set of pics you posted, I think the ring on the bottom left is beautiful...something like that! The setting is beautiful (of course with the double-claw prongs) but certainly does not take away from the center, which I have been waiting to see

Congrats on the final purchase of your stone, I know it's exciting (I can only imagine

)

EDIT: Yes I love the asscher setting too!

 

[quaeritur]

I can definitely picture it with a cushion, and looking amazing! I bet at least part of what looks dark is from the photo. My new titanium ring turns out darker in pics than I think it looks in person, and it's a satin finish. Something about the non-polished metal makes pictures accentuate the dark.

Of course, I'd ask Leon about it too, to be sure.

 

[reena]

oh good good good! just went out with my honey to have margaritas and celebrate our diamond purchase, and i'm feelin' good.

(is it against my better judgment to drink and post?)

the BF is happy that you all like the asscher setting he likes. i think that the cushion setting below it is probably similar to how it would look with my stone (plus claw prongs), although the cushion setting shown there looks a little too thin for me. i'll def ask leon what's up with the dark hue.

so this is the main question that i TOTALLY forgot to mention before: do you think i could wear a wedding band with that ring? i've tried on a bunch where i couldn't and i hate that.

i don't care if it is an exact snug fit, but i at least want it to slide under the stone. whaddya think?

 

[KBerly]

i think you could reena

 

[reena]

thanks kim--i think you may be right.

it's hard to tell without seeing the side though, i guess. i gotta get my butt in to see leon!

 

[quaeritur]

I think you could wear it with a band, though it's hard to be sure without seeing a profile view. But it certainly looks like it has a better chance at it than many other of the designs you posted

 

[reena]

yeah, the bezel settings are tough unless they're super high, and i dont like that. the nice thing about the michael b bezels is that they are designed to stack perfectly with a MB wedding band or bands (yes, they show those rings with not one but two bands. !!! how trista of them)

 

[MichelleCarmen]

ooooh, gorgeous pictures

I don't have time to read through all the responses right now, but wanted to say that the pave style looks MUCH better within the thin edging. Without the edging the pave looks unfinished and a bit ragged.

Um, too lucky of a gal to have such a difficult decision to make (lol). . . I bet your ring is going to be amazing, whatever style you choose to go with, because the examples you posted are extraordinary.

Michelle

 

[valeria101]

No vote... yet, just one of those 0.2.

You have already decided what the size of the stone is (8.09x7.34x4.8 and the size of the melee (2-3mm) so one could actually draw a version of each of these settings scaled to fit the size of the stone and the width of the band and bezel that correspond to the size fo the melee.

I would definitely look at this before deciding, since some of the model rings posted are HUGE (and/or the melee used is smaller).

I would not move before having correctly scaled drawings to look at.

 

[valeria101]

I hope you will not hate me too much after this, but below is an example of what I mean. Definitely not precise, but hopefully representative... I would definitely ask Leon exactly the question of thsi thread: which of these settings he feals will fit the stone.

 

[icelady]

Reena,

I love the Asscher cut setting also, and I think a Cushion with split claws would be very attractive in this setting. Since it will be custom, maybe Leon can make it fit with a matching wedding band.

The only other consideration in my mind is that with over two carats of big honkin' diamond on top, I would think that with the thin band, you may be wearing your diamond on the palm side of your hand alot! (It may turn.) Maybe something can be done for that too!

Good luck, and best wishes!

 

[reena]

wow, you guys are really the best. this is why i post. thank you.

val! thanks for taking the time to show me a scaled version. i hadn't thought about the fact that the settings from leon's site are all shown with enormous stones, and that it might look a lot different with mine. for example, the elegance of that emerald cut ring is really lost in the scaled version.

now my fear is, without some sort of computer program or whatever, how will would i know what MY stone would look like in the rest of these settings (for ex, the asscher)? im very afraid of asking leon to make something that turns out not looking how i thought it would. the problem is compunded by the fact that i don't think leon's going to have examples of rings for me to try on--they all belong to people!--just pictures. will most custom jewelry designers make wax molds for you to try on before making the completed setting?

ps--anyone have a guess as to what that asscher setting looks like from the side?