Finding the perfect settting for Sapphire ering!

[naikii]

Hi all, I have been lurking these forums for several months now, as I am sure many guys who are searching for that perfect ring for their girlfriends do, and have learnt a lot thanks to the many posts by members here. Up to now I have been content to read and learn, but am up to the tricky part of picking an ering for the stone I have chosen, and think its time for some expert opinions!

I have a fairly good idea of what I am aiming for, and will write down all my thoughts, and reason for them, so forgive me if this becomes overly long! I will include tonnes of photos as well to hopefully keep it coherent!

I have chosen a stone cut by Richard Homer, it is a blue Ceylon sapphire, in the past she has said she wants one, as she is of Sri Lankan descent, and she isn’t too keen about diamonds as a centre stone.

The stone I chose is the one below. I read many peoples comments regarding concave cuts, and how it can often be a love or hate affair, and I was a little hesitant at first as I cannot see the stone in person, or even a concave cut, as I am living in a smallish city in Australia.
Looking very carefully at different pictures online and from different angles however, I could never really see much difference, except that all the concave cuts were especially sparkly, and always to me seem to have real life in their pictures. Another initial worry for me was a lot of people saying that they reminded them of 80’s class rings, however I have pretty much dismissed that worry as in Australia I have never really heard of class rings, and even then we schooled in the 90’s so I doubt it will ever even cross anyone’s mind, and so I made the decision and purchased it!

(far left stone)

(top stone)

So now I have found a stone, I need something to put it in, and it turns out that there are more engagement rings to look at than I ever thought possible! I think I am suffering from an overwhelming amount of choice!

I have narrowed down the search a bit, with some sneaky jewellery store trips, and getting her opinion on pictures that ‘my friend’ is sending me for ‘my opinion’ *cough* it’s a small falsehood, although he has recently become engaged and so it is the perfect cover! Even with my little ruse however I can’t ask her about the hundreds of different designs I have looked at, as I am sure she will start to click.

Things I have worked out.

1. No halos. She doesn’t like how blingy they look, and has snorted in distaste at a couple she has seen. Whew, I don’t like the look myself, and even though it is her who will be wearing it forever, and must really like it, I would rather that I find it nice too!
2. Petite. She has small fingers and hands and is worried that something too thick or chunky will make them look even smaller. Not minuscule mind you, just nothing with a too wide a band. One ring she looked at with a slightly larger band had a taper up to the stone, and this nicely give the ring weight, and yet didn’t overwhelm her hand, and she said she liked the tapered look.
3. Platinum. Well actually she has told me white gold, but she was referring to not having yellow gold as the colour, rather than the actual metal, and I think platinum is a better choice. This will be confirmed when I sneak her to a store with platinum pieces somehow!
4. Intricate. But not blingy. She doesn’t want anything with a plain band. She has liked the look of channel set pieces, pave, and some with engraving. She has liked the look of some split shank designs. Also some with twisted shanks holding the stone.
5. Unique. She has said that she would hope the ring would be custom designed so that it was not just one of a thousand pieces.
6. Diamond not up too high.
7. (Optional, and personal preference) Suspended style stone. I think when you have a stone it should be shown off as much as possible, and covering it with metal does not really help. I like designs where the stone is open on the sides, and secured only where the prongs touch, or in a semi bezel, without any cups or anything holding the stone. I have shown her a few of this style and she has only had good things to say.

Whew. It’s a list to be sure, and I have come across a few pieces that I really found captured different aspects of what I think she wants, although none are ‘perfect’ (if there is such a thing!)

For instance I like the tapered look in the 3rd pic, but the ring looks very similar to her sisters (which she has said she wants something more complex than), I like the claw prongs in the first, but something just doesn’t sit right with the rest of the design (blingy?.. I cant put it in words)… I like the spilt shank in the 2nd, and the way the diamond is held open, but the square prongs don’t work for me… I really like the split shank, and overall look of the 4th pic, but the company won’t set a stone they didn’t source from their suppliers, so that’s out totally.

A pic she made particular comment about, saying how it looked nice because it was different, had a split shank that twisted up the side of the stone with set diamonds underneath.. frustratingly even though I have the pic here, it wont let me upload it… but the last pic is reminiscent of the theme, with the stone held above a row of diamonds, which I think would look nice too.

Taking all this into consideration I have in mind having something designed that has a split shank, paved or channel set, possibly over a row of diamonds.

Depending on how it seems, if there is too much going on I might go for either a pave/channel shank, or diamonds under the stone, rather than both.

I am interested in how people think this might work, if it would work at all, and any general input or ideas you may have!

I also stumbled across two very unique designs today, that actually really attract me, but it seems very different, and would love to hear everybody's opinions about the style! It has an inverted diamond under the main stone, which I think would be very unique with a split shank, particularly the last one.

Thanks in advance for everyones input!

Nate

 

[Aoife]

I like the first four settings you posted, and think they would showcase the color and cut of the sapphire you selected. They are also timeless designs, and for the first 3 settings, Whiteflash has an excellent reputation on PS for the quality of their settings and their service. The Rothem Collection setting you posted is for a very individual taste, and I would suggest that unless your SO has specifically requested this setting, your other choices are much more classic and likely to please. The last two setting are very pretty, and certainly give more of a solitaire look. Personally, the next to the last setting would be a little high for my taste--there's a much higher "clunk" factor in a setting like that.

 

[naikii]

Thanks for your reply!

I dont really like the Rothem one myself, but kind of like the idea of a row of stones underneath the suspended sapphire, or do you think that the side stones are enough of an accent?

The more I look at the last picture the more I think I like it, the inverted stone at the bottom isnt too out there? If you can imagine the last picture with a split in shank and some diamonds similar to the first pictures, how do you feel that would look?

Balancing something unique and different without ending up with something crazy looking isnt easy I think!

 

[LD]

A couple of thoughts for you:-

1. If you put diamonds or accent pave stones on the shank, you don't want them all the way around (or even far down the sides) as they rub on a wedding ring and can become loose or chip. So if you're going for pave, think about having it stopping up the shank a bit higher OR just on the top of the shank rather than rounded across the shank..

2. The last photo you posted (with the surprise stone under the ring) has VERY thick sides. You've said your g/f wants a knife edge shank. That won't fit the bill and will look very chunky. Some of the other styles you've chosen are better.

3. If she likes a knife edge (tapered) finish, then the split shank may also be out of the running.

4. A stone under the sapphire won't have the same effect as a coloured stone under a diamond. The effect with a diamond is that you see some of the colour radiating up into the stone. So, in the picture you posted, if you were to see the ring from the top I suspect you'd see the diamond looking pink. I love the idea of this design but it won't work with a concave cut stone or a blue sapphire. You could however have a white diamond underneath which would be a nice twist.

Lastly, you've obviously got great taste from the rings you've posted but your g/f has some firm opinions also. How about you propose with the sapphire and then design a unique ring together? You've got the basis for design ideas as a starting point and it would make it very special if the two of you could work together on this.


EDIT: You've also mentioned you don't want a high stone but your sapphire is almost 5mm deep so the finished ring will be about 7mm high - without a surprise stone underneath. If you add that suprise element, you'll have a very high setting. Just something for you to consider.

 

[naikii]

LD those are some very useful points, I totally forgot to consider the depth of the actual stone, and how this will impact on the total height of the ring. I had been considering a white diamond rather than the pink, as I think it would look rather funny against the blue, but now after your comments think it would probably end up too high for her taste.

I have considered proposing with just the stone, I dont know whether or not this is ok, or will ruin the element of surprise, it does of course ensure she gets exactly what it is she wants though, and that is important. I am slightly romantically inclined, and think a ring in a box in the perfect location and time is ideal, it also gives her a great story to tell... decisions decisions

In regards to your comments about the pave not going too far down, I think the 4th ring seems about right in terms of how far the pave should descend, any further down looks like it might rub against her fingers and become uncomfortable. In fact right now I am leaning toward the second ring by Whiteflash, except stopping the diamonds in the same spot as the fourth ring, and seeing what I can do about the square prongs, which seems to make a feminine ring look a little manly to my eyes... I also really like how the stone is suspended too, and how the stones seem a little larger than the fourth pic, I put a picture of this for easy reference...

In your opinion would this be small enough for her hands?

In other news I have put on the detective cap and have raided her jewellery box to see what rings she has now, although she rarely wears any... I have posted them below to give an idea of her taste, although I am hanging my head in shame at the awful quality! How hard it is to take non blurry pictures from a camera phone! Not all of them are tiny in size, and some are quite large!

some of her collection

 

[LD]

It's difficult to determine her ring preference because she has a number of delicate rings and then a few that are quite large!

Looking at everything you've linked to, my preference is for the setting below but without the stone underneath for a number of reasons (a) it gives the knife edge shank that she likes and will look feminine (b) you get the open gallery you want (c) without the stone underneath it will be a good height (but not too high) and (d) you could add diamonds to the shank to give it some accent diamonds if you want or you could simply put a few tiny white diamonds in the basket head (you could even pave the swoopie prongs and keep the shank diamond free which would look sensational).

Whilst the split prongs look great they do tend to make rings look wider and chunkier than a knife edge. Although I have size 6 fingers (so not big or small), my fingers are not too long so I have to be careful if I wear wide rings as they take up quite a bit of space and don't leave much room for a wedding ring. Does your g/f have long fingers as that would make a difference?

 

[chrono]

Design 1: lovely shared prong but will it be too blingly for her taste?
Design 2: channel set which sometimes is thought of as a little "dated" and "common". I do like the open profile of the stone though.
Design 3 (Legato): It's a classic design but will she think it too plain? You mentioned she prefers something a little more intricate?
Design 4: absolutely dislike it in how it looks disjointed because the accent diamonds stop too far short of the prongs.
Design 5 (Rothem): Very high setting to allow the channel set diamonds to go underneath the center stone. It's also a thick setting.
Design 6: I expect it to be a bit high to allow the melee underneath to be set. It's unique though.
Design 7: Also high and rather thick.

 

[chloeishere]

Thanks in advance for everyones input!

Nate

You have a lovely sapphire!

So, based on the information you gave in the original post, I think the third one from the top sounds most like her preference. It has the pave, the tapered band right by the stone, and is a lovely, classic design. I would probably not extend the pave all the way to the bottom like it appears in the image, but Whiteflash should definitely be able to customize that. Even though it doesn't scream "UNIQUE" the stone you've selected I think will make it quite original, and unlike anyone else's around. (In a good way!)

I really like the other setting I quoted, as well-- but it will definitely be very high set, and the band lacks the pave/ details that you say she prefers. In addition, though it is a very unique and very cool setting, it doesn't look different from a traditional solitaire at first glance-- so if she wants a really unique look, that might not be the setting to go with.

Remember, though, that (at least in the US, which is my experience) a sapphire is not a traditional e-ring stone, so that will make it a bit unique right off the bat-- especially with the flashy concave cut. I would focus on her taste preferences rather than making the setting as unique as possible (since you already have a lovely, unique stone), to be sure you end up with something she will like.

You seem to really like split shanks-- does she as well? My personal opinion is that split shanks are beautiful, and I like them a lot... but I wouldn't want one for an engagement ring, because I prefer designs that will stay fairly flush against a non-curved wedding band. Girls tend to have surprisingly strong opinions about that (flush vs. non-flush), so you might try to see if she's got an opinion on that before you choose a setting.

I have short, narrow finger (I have teensy hands and wear ring size 4), so if that makes my advice any more helpful, hooray!

 

[naikii]

Hey all,

I didn’t get a chance to respond to this over the weekend, although I did get a chance to take her into a few jewellery stores to suss things out a little more. I had her try on a couple of rings and even got her size finally.

It turns out she has really small fingers, size i in the Australian system, which seems to be about a 4.5 in the US. Her fingers are not super long either, and it has potentially thrown out many of the designs I liked because her main point when trying on rings were that it not be too high.

It got me worrying about the size of the stone I have purchased as well, as it is quite big, at 2.19 carats (7.3 x 4.9mm), I hope really hope it isn’t too large!

I took a couple of photos to get an indication of size, the first couple of pics are a 1ct solitaire in a simple setting. I think it suits her hand really nicely, but she doesn’t want such a plain band. It seems that the dimensions of my stone are about the same as a 1.5ct diamond, so I can expect the stone to be about as half as large again… What does everyone think? Too big? The 1ct diamond I think looked good on her, but anything that was high looked a little strange and huge.

The second is a design she said she quite liked, the stone in it is about .6ct if I remember right, maybe it was tcw, im not sure. She didn’t comment so much on the size of the stone but the style of the band, she definitely wants some sort of accent diamonds.

I actually asked her what she would think about designing a setting together, although it kind of gives the game away a bit, and she pretty much said that she would prefer it to be designed for her, so presenting just a stone is out.

 

[LD]

Ok - the good news is that the sapphire you've chosen isn't too deep. 4.9mm is ok and so if you have a low setting it won't sit too high off her fingers.

She liked the design of the one that has a cross over effect with pave on the shoulders? If yes then I think your sapphire may be too big because you've already got a reasonably large stone and then you're going to have metal curving around the top and the bottom which will make it appear wider and the stone is raised. To make the stone appear smaller you really need a plain setting like the first design you linked to. How about putting diamonds down the shoulders of that one (I really wouldn't have the metal wrapping around the stone) OR have a ring of diamonds around the bottom of the stone and perhaps stones up the prongs? Let me see if I can find a picture of what I mean.

Is the sapphire on it's way to you? If so, why don't you take it into a jewellery store near you and see if there's somebody in there with similar size fingers and see if they can place it on their hand for you to get a perspective? If it is too big then I'm sure you'll be able to return it and start your search again?

 

[LD]

Something like this but without the top halo. Keep the shank small but the emphasis on the basket. You could make the point of the leaves in the basket fold over as prongs.

 

[naikii]

I haven’t quite finished paying off the stone from Richard yet, so depending on his policy I may be able to change the stone if necessary. I really liked the colour and shine of this stone, so it will be sad to have to change it.. I am glad that you have said it wont be too deep.

As far as the ring design goes, she did like that setting, but by no means said anything along the lines of ‘wow that’s perfect’ more like ‘oh that’s quite nice’.. What she has said is she likes intricate, delicate and with accent stones, so I still have options I think.

I am interested to see a picture of what you were describing.

 

[naikii]

Thanks for that! I think that picture could be a good way of adding the detail she wants, without raising the ring, or making it wider. I don’t think she would like the stones totally surrounding the stone, but perhaps 4 petals or something could work, I think I have seen some interesting lotus flower style designs around…

 

[LD]

I think we were cross posting so you may have missed the photo I posted above. Since size is an issue I would reduce the number of petals also. However this (for me) fits the bill of unique and intricate but you would have to have the stone low down in the setting.

Does Richard have any that are smaller? Do you think it might be worth asking? I know you're attached to this sapphire (I can understand why) but it is a big stone and she seems comfortable with something smaller. Maybe something about 5mm would be good?

EDIT - ooops we were cross posting again! Great minds think alike! Yes a Lotus would be good with diamonds on it BUT you'd need a low version and I think the lotus has the stone higher than you may want. I'm not 100% sure on this and hopefully some of the ladies with the lotus can chime in.

 

[naikii]

When I first started casually looking about 6 months ago, I did stop and almost decide on the lotus from whiteflash, looking at it again now, I think it will be too high, but if it could be adapted so that the four rose gold petals extended up somehow to hold the stone, and the stone pulled down a little, perhaps that could work, I don’t know if it would be too high as it is.. I think she would appreciate the four smaller stones in the petals, although perhaps white rather than pink, as I don’t know how it would sit with the blue. She doesn't like two toned rings either, so only platinum.

 

[naikii]

Or perhaps another contender? Mark Morrell's Fancy Torchiere

 

[anotsomadhatter]

The Legato Sleek Line Pave always makes my heart skip a beat. It is so fabulous at showcasing ANY center stone. ETA: After looking at your jewelry store photos again, the tapered shank of the legato should also suit her hand perfectly!

That being said the Mark Morrell is also a very nice choice. Does she/you have a preference for 4 vs 6 prongs? The setting does seem a little high for my personal taste but well... that's personal.

Here are a couple of pictures with the Fancy Torchiere shank. The head is actually his "sunburst" crown but it features a sapphire.

 

[naikii]

So I decided to do some math and see exactly how much larger the sapphire I am getting is compared to the solitaire she tried in the store. I went to an online loose diamond store and averaged the dimensions of the first 30 or so stones in the list, with a variety of cut quality and found the average for a 1 carat round cut diamond to be about 6.20 x 6.26 x 3.99mm. I think I can safely say it is likely that the stone in store is quite similar.

The stone I am getting from Richard is 7.3 x 7.3 x 4.9, and so is only about 1.1mm wider, and .9mm deeper than an average 1ct diamond. To me this seems like a pretty insignificant depth difference. The extra 1.1mm width will only add about .55mm to each side of the stone, and this to me seems like it is unlikely to any more overwhelming than the solitaire on her hand in the pic above, although I wouldn’t want to thicken it anymore by having metal wrapped around the side.

I showed her a picture of the Fancy Torchiere, she wasn’t blown away by it, and said that the diamonds should run further down the ring. She liked the Legato more, saying it looked more intricate because of the taper. She really likes a curve/sweeping band somehow, like the second picture from the jeweller, and a lot of the rings in her current collection seem to have. I am currently liking the Legato but am going to scour the internet to see if anything meets this criteria better!

 

[LD]

Didn't you say that the 0.6ct was perhaps the right size for her? If so, that's going to be around 0.5mm or thereabouts (maybe even a little smaller). The jump to the 7.9mm (from memory I think that's the sapphire's dimensions), it will make a huge difference to the look. Surprisingly, even 1mm in gemstone terms can look incredibly larger. I know that sounds impossible but trust me, the depth and the increase in overall dimension will make the stone look quite a bit bigger. Try cutting out a round of 5mm and then one of 8mm (that's an approximation of the 0.6ct and your stone) and place them on your finger. That may help you visualise better.

 

[naikii]

Thats a really good idea, drawing out the circles, visually a 7.3mm circle looks quite a bit larger than a 6mm one. I am actually blown away, and had to measure again to be sure I wasn’t seeing things

In regards to the .6ct ring, she was more into the design of setting than the specific stone size, and thought that the larger solitaire looked good, as it wasn’t too high, but the band was too plain. The jeweller actually made an example and put a big but flat square cut, with a halo on, and it suited her quite well, and she made the comment that wide is ok, but high will not work so well.

I am going to take these cut outs and disturb her lunch, and see if the 7mm circle is too huge!

 

[LD]

Glad to have been of help. It is amazing the difference isn't it?!

Just another idea. The Jeff stone is 4.9mm deep right? So the height of the ring (minimum) will be 5.2 or 5.3mm - for surety I would say 5.5mm. I would suggest you pop back to the store and get the larger solitaire on her hand. Then measure the height. It's very very very difficult to do it any other way - measuring doesn't give a true feel (or paper cut outs) for this one.

 

[naikii]

OK I drove to the other side of my admittedly small city, and took her for a surprise lunch and stopped by some jewellery stores to get this stone size thing sorted!

She tried on a couple of 1.5ct solitaires and I asked her to see whether or not she thought they were too big. The jewellery staff all were very happy and quick to tell us that no stone was too big, and although their overly optimistic views are geared toward moving rings out their doors I think I agree, and they were not too large.

I tried to measure the size of the stones, but none of these staff could actually use the stone measuring rulers they had in stores, and I couldn’t work out why the numbers started a few mm up the gauge myself, but eyeballing the stones width against the ruler puts them at about 7-8mm each, which is exactly the same range as Jeff’s sapphire. It was pretty impossible to determine an accurate guess of depth even with the ruler, as I couldn’t see the bottoms of the stones in the settings, but they appeared roughly 4-5mm.

I have attached two pictures of the different 1.5ct diamonds to see the size vs her hands. I think its ok, and not too large. She did not mind the size either, but others can feel free to jump in if they think it looks crazy!

I have also put a pic of one of those rulers the use to measure the stones, in case someone can explain why the number 0 starts 2-3mm from the edge!

 

[naikii]

Just came across this, which caught my eye... I cant tell how high it is likely to be, and this is the only photo of the ring on the site, no other angles

 

[LD]

Okay - I can help with the measuring gauge. Look at it again, it doesn't start after the zero. If you look at the bit that slides you'll see that the marks start further along (so not at the point of O) so when you open the guage that moves the appropriate amount to accurately reflect the measurement. That REALLY is a rubbish explanation - think I may need to add a photo in a minute!

Anyway, one thing I need you to be aware of ........... not all 1.5ct diamonds are the same in terms of size. If one is cut deeper then the face may be smaller, cut more shallow and the face may be bigger. So putting on a 1.5ct diamond is, I'm afraid, deceptive. You must measure and forget the measuring gauge and just use a normal ruler if it's easier to read for you. If a ring is on your g/f's fingers then simply putting a ruler vertically on her finger going up against the ring (allowing for the tiny gap at the beginning of the ruler) will give you a reasonably accurate measurement.

Let me go and put some arrows on your photo of the gauge and I'll be back in a mo!

Edit: here you go!

BTW I don't think I would go with side stones as per your idea above. I still think you'll be a little surprised at how big the sapphire will look and adding substantial side stones instead of pave will widen the ring and it will "feel" much bigger.

 

[Starzin]

She liked the Legato more, saying it looked more intricate because of the taper. She really likes a curve/sweeping band somehow, like the second picture from the jeweller, and a lot of the rings in her current collection seem to have. I am currently liking the Legato but am going to scour the internet to see if anything meets this criteria better!

While many of the rings posted are lovely, I think you have your answer right here - it seems to fit the bill perfectly and looks lovely with the centre sapphire as in the first photo by Whiteflash. Given all the things you've said about what she likes and the fact that you like it too, it seems a perfect 'shoo in'

 

[milton333]

Just came across this, which caught my eye... I cant tell how high it is likely to be, and this is the only photo of the ring on the site, no other angles

Those prongs are so heavy and blob-like. In my observation, men tend not to focus much on prongs, but ladies really scrutinize them, so I'm not sure if you noticed, but if she's looking for fluid, swoopy, swirly, etc., the prongs are not consistent with that.

I'm another vote for the Legato. In fact, I have a plain, non-pave version of the Legato (sleek line) for my e-ring, and love it, it's very classic and timeless.

 

[anotsomadhatter]

I don't think the stone size in the recent photos is too big, it's lovely on her hand.

Reconfirming my legato vote.

 

[DiamondsAndRust]

How about The Lily setting by Erica Grace?

http://jewelsbyericagrace.smugmug.com/JbEGSignatureSettingsandSpecia/Plain-and-Pave-Solitaires/The-Lily-Split-Shank-Featuring/16864301_2CxXGq#!i=1273294774&k=6xG72kX

 

[naikii]

Hey all, back!

Thanks to all you comments and suggestions! I showed her the Legato again, and she said it was nice though she wished it wasn’t so plain! Personally I love it, I think it is sleek and stylish, with the perfect amount of shine and sidestones, but then Im not the one that will be wearing it!

So I trawled through some more threads, and eventually came across one that she has said she really likes!

It is called Vered by Scaasi and is loaded with diamonds and detail. I cant put a pic to this one, but the link is here; http://www.dimendscaasi.com/build/step1.asp?prodID=R1235

I think it could be a little high, but I am yet to get details on size from the company

 

[pregcurious]

Make sure to tell Scassi you are from Pricescope. They will make their settings for PSers, or so I've read on here.