Channel vs. Bead set: Battle of the sparkle

[moneypenny02]

So, I am interested in getting a wedding band, and when I checked them out, it turns out my favorite style is the channel setting, with the stones about 1/2 way around. I sometimes feel like my e-ring is not as sparkly as I would like (I know, very technical term!), and wanted to get a wedding band that was super sparkly. I know the round cut is usually the most sparkly, but I actually don''t like the empty space that you get when you put round stones in the channel setting. Enter dilemma. So, I thought the perfect solution was the bead set--I could get the round sparkly stones without the annoyance of the empty space around the stones. However I did kind of feel as though the rings I saw with the bead setting are not as sparkly as the ones without. Does the extra "prong" bring down the "sparkliness" of the round stone? Would I be better off with princess stones rather than the round with bead set? I can actually get the round with bead set for a bit less than the princesses,it seems like an all around win: more sparkly, less money, no space, but I''m just not positive that''s all correct. Any insight would be super helpful!

 

[ma re]

Type of cut (shape) is just one of many factors which determine the level of brilliance (sparkliness) and scintillation (liveliness) in stones, and other ones such as the precision of cutting, clarity grade etc., all make a difference. It''s in the end all your decision, but I''d advise you not to pay too much attention to brilliance, cause there are various lighting conditions, and gems don''t sparkle that much in all of them. Instead, I''d go for a style that you''ll enjoy even when the stones don''t "poke you in the eyes", that have shapes, lines and feel that you''ll really love and enjoy for a long time. But that''s just me

 

[chrono]

I wonder if it’s due to the cut of the melee diamonds? The type of setting should not affect the sparkliness of the ring. I have a shared prong band and all I see is a line of endless bling on my finger.

 

[moneypenny02]

Thank you for your replies!

The ring itself would be custom made--so I could choose what quality and size stones I wanted--so I mostly wanted to understand if choosing to have the beadset had some effect on the overall visual effect (outside of just taking away the space).

The quote that I got from the jeweler was about $800 for the palladium or WG beadset with 35pt diamonds and 2.3 mm band. Does that sound good? I am following up with him to find out the clarity (although I believe this was SI1), color, and cut quality of the stones (he mentioned that he did have some small round ideal cuts) he would propose to use. I also may try to go slightly larger than the sized diamonds that he showed me, BUT given that I am going to try to get a spacer made as well, I don''t want to go too big.

 

[CravingDiamonds]

If you''re going with a bead setting, I would go with princess cut stones surrounding the wedding band but that''s just me! I agree with ma re however, go with something you will enjoy. Also, if you are physically active with your hands, choose a ring that will withstand everyday activity.

 

[moneypenny02]

@craving--
I'm confused....With the princess cut stones in the channel setting there would be no space, so I wouldn't need the bead set. It would only be if I had round stones in the channel setting so that I could get rid of the space there. (That's a product of my "like the channel, hate the space" dilemma.) What would the princess-beadset option look like?



My options as I see them are roughly between this:
http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-engagement-ring-setting-white-gold_4783

and this:
http://www.bluenile.com/diamond-ring-platinum_3471

(Neither is exactly what I would be getting, but it's the basic look.)

 

[onedrop]

I have never seen an bead set eternity band using princess cut stones. If one exists I''d love to see it.

If you don''t like the spaces between stones in channel set bands, make sure you get one that is slim like under 3mm (or thereabouts) because I think the wider the band the more probability of spaces between the stones. Much like you, I don''t care for large spaces between stones in some channel set eternity bands. So after a lot of research, I purchased a channel set band from Signed Pieces and I could not see any spaces between the stones and I believe that band was 2.5mm.

Good luck in your search!!

 

[PumpkinPie]

I myself prefer bead set over channel set rings - I don''t think the prongs affect the sparkliness at all! Interesting that you don''t like the gaps in channel set rings - that''s the main reason why I chose a different setting for mine

 

[Bella_mezzo]

I prefer beadset to channel set with rounds personally b/c I cna''t stand that space! As long as you get fantastic melee you should get great sparkle

 

[Tacori E-ring]

my wedding band is a channel set with princess cuts. I love the comfort and security of channel set and the fluidness of the princesses. I also do not like the spaces RB create in channel settings.

 

[Viola]

I''ve gotten the impression that channel set bands are more secure, I think bead-set bands needs to be babied a bit more, but I could be wrong though. I do love the look of bead set bands, but I *think* I would feel paranoid about wearing it 24/7. I agree with the rest though, I''m not a fan of the spaces between the rounds in wider channel set bands, but I love the look of 2-2.5mm channel set bands so I''d preferably stay in that range of width.

To answer your original question, I''m not sure if channel-set diamonds sparkle more than bead-set.