Do huge diamonds need extra oomph in the setting?

[Ashleigh]

A friend used to have a 2+ ct h&a in a Tiffany inspired setting and I thought that the setting and diamond paired very well together. Then she upgraded to a 4+ ct h&a in the same setting but with a bigger head. I think her finger size is ard 4 or 5, based on it being smaller than my finger size. I didn't ask her size as we aren't that close. But this time round her diamond and setting didn't look so nice together. It seems that there's something missing but I can't tell what. I wonder if it was because the diamond covered much more of the finger or if the stone was just too big. I didn't mention anything to her. A few months later she said she wanted a reset and I showed her pictures of art deco settings where top down is simple solitaire look but gallery has interesting details. I didn't push my idea as we aren't really close friends, just a subtle suggestion. I suggested that as I was still under the impression that solitaire top down was the way to go since the diamond was huge. But she reset it into a halo and it looks lovely now. This is so in conflict with what I see often on PS whereby large diamonds don't need embellishment. I still don't understand why I didn't like the larger stone in that 6 prong setting though I loved her 2+ ct in it.

1. What do you think is the largest finger coverage percentage that a solitaire will look nice?

2. Do you think big diamonds need a little help to look lovely?

 

[missy]

I do think there is such a thing as too big (I know blasphemy for a PSer to say lol) and perhaps that is what is going on here? I cannot say because I haven't seen her ring on her finger but sounds like perhaps that is the case. I love love love a big honkin solitaire but it has to fit the hand it's on yanno? If the diamond is gorgeous it can speak for itself IMO though beauty is in the eye of the beholder and some prefer more intricate settings. I love both personally and I think it is up to the diamond to decide if you kwim. Some look better in more ornate settings and some look better on their own (to my eye at least). I love both looks depending on the gem in question is what I am trying to say.

 

[AprilBaby]

Maybe it looked like a doorknob by itself and needed a little something to look more delicate? Sometimes a large solitaire that dwarfs the finger size just looks odd. I can see why the halo helped. I also think there is such a thing as too big be it a 4-5 ct on a size 3 or a 10-18 ct on a size 9. Sometimes I think celebrity rings just look dumb because it's not about beauty but competing for size.

 

[Ashleigh]

I do think there is such a thing as too big (I know blasphemy for a PSer to say lol) and perhaps that is what is going on here? I cannot say because I haven't seen her ring on her finger but sounds like perhaps that is the case. I love love love a big honkin solitaire but it has to fit the hand it's on yanno? If the diamond is gorgeous it can speak for itself IMO though beauty is in the eye of the beholder and some prefer more intricate settings. I love both personally and I think it is up to the diamond to decide if you kwim. Some look better in more ornate settings and some look better on their own (to my eye at least). I love both looks depending on the gem in question is what I am trying to say.

I love her 4+ ct diamond and the setting individually but not paired together. I think you're right that there is no one look/setting for all diamonds. Different settings are needed to let different diamonds shine.

 

[Ashleigh]

Maybe it looked like a doorknob by itself and needed a little something to look more delicate? Sometimes a large solitaire that dwarfs the finger size just looks odd. I can see why the halo helped. I also think there is such a thing as too big be it a 4-5 ct on a size 3 or a 10-18 ct on a size 9. Sometimes I think celebrity rings just look dumb because it's not about beauty but competing for size.

You may have nailed it. Maybe the halo makes the the whole ring more delicate. Maybe that's why the 4 ct didn't look as good as the 2 ct in the 6-prong.

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

I have no way to explain this rationally, so I will state that rounds have the ability to stand alone in larger size--whereas fancy cuts seem to beg sides stones (even if the side stones are very small la classic Harry Winston baguettes)...

I would never have bought my 5 c stone (radiant) and set it by itself but in the three stone ring, it looks balanced or complete.

cheers--Sharon

 

[Ashleigh]

Hi Sharon, I'd love to see big bling. Do you have a link to your radiant? I've seen most of the recent honkers but don't think I saw yours as I was away from PS for quite a while.

 

[canuk-gal]

Hi Sharon, I'd love to see big bling. Do you have a link to your radiant? I've seen most of the recent honkers but don't think I saw yours as I was away from PS for quite a while.

HI:

Jewel of the week....page 10, since I am not sure this link works....: my ring is on a banana.......

https://www.pricescope.com/gallery/acidfree_albums/stones/No_banana%27s_today.......

cheers--Sharon

 

[momhappy]

I don't think there is an explanation because it's a personal preference thing. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to diamond size, settings, finger size, etc. because different people prefer different rings/looks.

 

[SB621]

I hated my 5ct AC in a solitare. It looked so plain and blasie. Since I halo'ed it- it looks so much nicer.

For me I only think MRB' s in high colors look good as a solitare. Otherwise I would much rather have a more "interesting" setting. I think when you have more canvas space to utlize a more elaborate setting is stunning.

 

[Ashleigh]

I hated my 5ct AC in a solitare. It looked so plain and blasie. Since I halo'ed it- it looks so much nicer.

For me I only think MRB' s in high colors look good as a solitare. Otherwise I would much rather have a more "interesting" setting. I think when you have more canvas space to utlize a more elaborate setting is stunning.

I think shape also influences the setting. As both yours and JustGinger's are cushions, I love them as solitaires too. But I must say that the halo gives a softer look to your ring, lovely in a different way.

 

[Circe]

Honestly, I'd be inclined to say that something was "off" about the setting - not all tiffany settings are created equal, so maybe something about the spacing of the prongs, the relationship of the head to the shank, whatever, just didn't please your eyes.

I tend to prefer more ornate settings myself ... generally speaking from the side and not the top, I was about to say, before realizing that I ALWAYS want something top-down, regardless of whether it's a bezel or a hex/octagonal frame or fishtail prongs or whatever. I guess I'm just not a fan of straight-up prongs, in person ... and it doesn't seem to matter if it's a .5 stone or a 5 carat stone. Perhaps it was simply the comparison that threw you? I know the first time I saw a setting just like the one I loved but a three-stone, I had to take a minute and shake it off before I could appreciate it properly ....

 

[Ashleigh]

Circe, you might be right too. Maybe her diamond is an in-between size like 4.6 ct instead of 4.5 ct or 4.75 ct and her jeweler had to tweak the prongs of the head to fit her stone. No chance to observe her prongs now since she scrapped it and haloed her diamond which is way lovelier now. Because of that, I'm thinking maybe I should halo my next upgrade though I'm a bezel lover.

 

[justginger]

I love large diamonds both ways. If I were a receptionist, Poppy would be haloed and covered in melee on all sides, lol. I still love her as a solitaire though, and what I love most is that I can wear her and enjoy her all the time as a solitaire, while if she were more elaborate she'd turn into a periodic ring. Definitely not what I want.

Honestly, I love large diamonds in ALL settings!